Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:14, 1 December 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Accidents This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Malaysia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Ukrainian place names are transliterated using the National system. Please see the guidelines on the romanization of Ukrainian on Misplaced Pages for more information.

A news item involving Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 July 2014.

[REDACTED]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Russian State TV and radio company caught editing Russian Misplaced Pages entry about MH17

The Russian government has edited the Russian Misplaced Pages of this page. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/18/russia-edits-mh17-wikipedia-article Tlsandy (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of improving this article, wikipedians have to be on the look-out for suspicious editing - also after the Russian government learns to spread its propaganda via VPN or named accounts. Lklundin (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that the account of Tlsandy, most of whose edits are of this article, was created after MH17 crashed, on 10 September. Also, Tlsandy is one of the most aggressive editors making sure that this article states as little as possible but "the truth" about who downed MH17. Just yesterday, he reverted my edit eliminating cherry picking of a news report that was being extensively discussed in Talk without making a single comment on Talk himself. In short, what we appear to have here is a single purpose account. And it is interesting that nobody has posted a welcome note on Tisandy's Talk page, which suggests that he does not produce the impression of being a new editor. Also, the creation of this new Talk section is Tisandy's first contribution to an article Talk page. – Herzen (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

LoL. You are a premium member of Crimea/Novorossiya/KickUkraine-Club, having paused WP for 4 month, before coming back in April to help out Mother Russia whereever necessary. So I guess you have great expertise on SPA´s. Alexpl (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have had an account for many years, gone through phases in which I edited articles on different subjects, and I only started editing Russia-related articles after the February coup. So your accusation is nothing but an utterly unfounded, malicious personal attack. Your battleground attitude is of no help at all in building an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Alexpl (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen is right, Alexpl, you are being unnecessarily aggressive and you are not showing good faith. You are not being compliant with Misplaced Pages, Alexpl. --Mondschein English (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I'm not taking any action here because the next headline will read "US Government blah blah blah" but can you please take a look at the conduct in this thread?--v/r - TP 17:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The policies must the adhered to. With that said, I will add that showing good faith is only possible for so long. Lklundin (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to see though that Herzen first accuses Tlsandy of being a single purpose account; and when accused in a similar way by Alexpl refers to wikipolicies. In my view a clear case of WP:POT. Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you subjecting me to more scrutiny than this new user? In the summary of this edit, Tlsandy accused me of editing his comment. But I didn't touch his comment: what I did was edit the section title so it does not make a false claim. (As I said in my edit summary, in English Misplaced Pages "Misplaced Pages" refers to "English Misplaced Pages". The article Tlsandy linked to says "Russia" edited Russian Misplaced Pages, not English Misplaced Pages.) To quote from the Talk page guidelines: "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed". In his edit, Tlsandy deleted my comment. That is a clear violation of the guidelines. How have I violated the guidelines? So how am I exhibiting WP:POT? – Herzen (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

On the topic, this news has been around for a long time. We decided not to mention it in this article for several reasons (not this Misplaced Pages, not central to the accident itself). So can we please let this rest. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for the records, an example of Russian government edits in the German MH17 article: . The IP belongs to the Federal Protective Service (Russia). There were Ukrainian propaganda counter-edits around the same time, but they were more clever in hiding their identitiy, e.g. . Both stopped soon, we have not seen such edits for months. --PM3 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. If you look up that IP with IPlocation, you get

95.173.130.218 Russian Federation Moscow City Moscow The Federal Guard Service Of The Russian Federation

I had never heard of the Federal Protective Service. I guess it is not one of the more elite Russian intelligence agencies. Actually, after reading that article, it sounds more like the Russian equivalent of the American Secret Service than an intelligence agency (разведка). In any case, this is certainly more notable than the subject of the thread, since a Russian government IP was used, whereas the IP mentioned by the Wired UK article belongs to a Russian TV network, and that network is no more the Russian government ("Russia") than the BBC is the UK. – Herzen (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm the edits seem fairly minor, and this is very obvious. I would not be surprised if this were an individual employee doing these edits during lunch break or so. In any case, we need a reliable secondary source to report on this to even consider it for the article. And even then, it is still another Misplaced Pages, and not about the crash itself, so I doubt it should be in this article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that this is notable or should be included in the article. What I said was that it is more notable than what Tlsandy saw fit to create a thread about, a case, it seems to me, of using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. Tlsandy said nothing about the merits of including this boring story in the article. All he said was that "Russia got caught".

I agree that this was probably a case of something like "an individual employee doing these edits during lunch break". Hopefully Russian officialdom has briefed its bureaucrats by now that using government IPs for editing sensitive subjects reflects badly on Russia. As PM3 noted, that has apparently stopped. – Herzen (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as no analysis of all Ip adresses of all contributors in this article is conducted, there is no way to tell. Alexpl (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you change my title when it is the title used by Wired. Tlsandy (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the Wired title is highly misleading? Do you honestly think that there is a rule that if there is a Talk section about a specific news article, the Talk section's heading must duplicate that of the news article? – Herzen (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph says 'Russian government edits Misplaced Pages on flight MH17' and 'Russia caught editing Misplaced Pages entry about MH17'? Tlsandy (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a much easier solution: . Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Investigation

Several editors have said that the investigation section is too long, since this article is about the crash. Considering that the investigation is ongoing, and more information will make this section even longer, are there any objections to moving the Investigation section to its own article where the investigation can be expired in depth? USchick (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough. All comment on the possible cause that is not from the official enquiry should be removed. This includes (highly predictable) political reactions and Russian media coverage. It's all too political and unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree about removing all unofficial content. Now, how you you suggest we do that? :) USchick (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

'where the investigation can be expired in depth' - freudian slip there Sayerslle (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

lol USchick (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We are neither removing content (cited to reliable sources) nor are we splitting it off to form some kind of WP:POVFORK. "Some editors have said" all kinds of nonsense things. Volunteer Marek  21:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

When you announce what "We" are going to, who are you speaking for? USchick (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The editors of this article. Misplaced Pages. Volunteer Marek  21:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure they can speak for themselves. USchick (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is pointless. And tiresome. "We", as editors of this article, right here, are not, going to remove, reliably sourced text, because, that would be, in violation of, Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality, WP:NPOV. As you and HiLo have been repeatedly told. You got it now?  Volunteer Marek  21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Many editors have repeatedly said that this article has all kinds of speculation that is not encyclopedic and hence has no place in this article. Yet you say that "'We', as editors of this article … are not … going to remove … text". I have not seen a clearer example of OWN than this "we" of yours where you claim to speak for all editors. You don't even try to hide that you see this article as a battleground, between editors who believe that in the case of MH17, Misplaced Pages should act not as an encyclopedia, but as judge, jury, and executioner of the rebels, and those editors who believe that Misplaced Pages should perform an encyclopedic function, which makes them not even be editors, in your view. – Herzen (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Many editors" is you three, plus some throw away SPA accounts, most likely sock puppets of banned users. "Many editors" have pointed out that what you are calling "speculation" is text sourced to reliable sources which you just happen to dislike. Many many many many editors (as in, more than 3) have said this many many many many many times. But you have a problem with listening. And it actually doesn't matter how many throw away SPA accounts show up here and complain. We have a policy. It's called WP:NPOV. It's one of the pillars. It means you can't label any reliably sourced text you don't like as "speculation" and remove it just because you feel like it. For the third time (and that's the third time in the past hour), following Misplaced Pages policies is NOT "ownership" of an article. It is following Misplaced Pages policies. Try it sometime. Volunteer Marek  22:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see a link to a policy where one editor is authorized to speak as "We" on behalf of Misplaced Pages. USchick (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am unaware of any SPAs involved in this article other than Tlsandy. If you make accusations, you should back them up. Who are the "many throw away SPA accounts show up here and complain" about this article being not something that belongs in an encyclopedia but rather a primitive hit piece on Russia and the rebels? – Herzen (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Biased Phrasing

"The Russian Ministry of Defense has maintained that American claims of separatist responsibility were "unfounded", and said that the American intelligence agencies have not released any of the data on which they based their conclusions. According to the Russian military, in what the New York Magazine called "Russia's Conspiracy Theory", MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane."

The author needs not underline his position on Russia's point of view being a "Conspiracy Theory" by quoting The New York Magazine. Instead she could quote correctly the Russian point of view in RT or Tass or elsewhere. Why filtering the Russian perspective by NYT or WSJ?

Pebble Beach (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Russian "Point of view" ? I guess you refer to the Federation and its official statements. The few statements which exist were never really explicit, they only pointed in certain directions - or were not official. So we need another source to tell the reader what the Federation wants the world, or its own public, to think. Alexpl (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC Should political commentary be limited?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should political commentary from parties not directly involved in the crash be removed from the article? USchick (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. USchick (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Misplaced Pages policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support It adds nothing. But I'd go further and remove ALL political commentary. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Misplaced Pages policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't seen your aggressive, politically motivated reply here. My vote is motivated by the aim of making a better encyclopaedia. Political comment on any topic rarely helps on that front. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. – Herzen (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Misplaced Pages policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. First, folks, you really could work on being a little bit less obvious here. Second, didn't we just discuss this several times? Do I need to start an RfC on limiting the number of times that stubborn users can keep bringing the same issue up for discussion over and over and over and over again? Third, the RfC is badly phrased. It's too vague. Who are "parties not directly involved in the crash"? What specific commentary are we referring to? This seems like some attempt to ask for a carte blanche to remove whatever one wants from the article. In other words, once again, just like the twelve, fifteen or whatever it is, times before, it's a demand that you get to edit the article according to your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.  Volunteer Marek  22:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support . The article has become ridiculously biased. This comment may change, so please don't directly reply to it.SaintAviator lets talk 23:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Misplaced Pages policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please assume good faith and not harass people as they vote? USchick (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please actually ACT in good faith rather than haranguing others about ASSUMING good faith towards you, even when it's clear you're engaging in WP:POINTy behavior?  Volunteer Marek  01:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you just change your comment to add a "don't reply" message after someone's already replied? Stickee (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Inclusion of material is decided by content guidelines, not whether the party is "directly involved". This comment may change, so please don't directly reply to it. Stickee (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Above I have a comment, here is my Procedural Oppose. The RfC proposal is so vague that it could be used to justify removing anything whatsoever from the article. File a better RfC if you must, specifics, details and all. This is just "let me removez some stuffs plz lol" kinda request. Volunteer Marek  00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In the 21+ archives, this has already been discussed. No one else seems to have any questions about what it means. USchick (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then tell me what it means. The only thing I can tell it means is "let me remove anything I want". Volunteer Marek  02:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Procedural Oppose reply. Disagree Marek. Its clear whats political. You yourself need to reconsider WP:IDONTLIKEIT SaintAviator lets talk 00:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I certainly have questions as well, quite a vague RfC. Stickee (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It could be helpful if USchick gave some examples or definitions yes. In General the thrust of the RFC is clear but could be refined. In this way it may attract more support. SaintAviator lets talk 00:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

" the thrust of the RFC is clear" - well, we agree on that part. The thrust of the RfC is "let me remove anything I don't like so I can push my POV". And I thought you were done editing with this article. And now you pop up... right along the three other folks. Volunteer Marek  01:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The thrust is to remove POV political comments. Yes I had no time. Now I have some time. Whats your point relevant to this RFC? In fact stay on topic and open a thread on my talk page thank you. SaintAviator lets talk 01:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Should political commentary from parties not directly involved in the crash be removed from the article?" Should commentary from parties not directly involved in event X be removed from the article about event X? Of course, not. All secondary sources about event X are normally written by people who are nor directly involved in event X. This so called RfC goes against core policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• WARNING to User:Volunteer Marek. Please stop harassing people as they comment here. This is an RfC. If you have a question about content, please start a new discussion. I have repeatedly started discussions, which are now archived, with questions such as: Who are the involved parties? Who should comment? There was no interest in discussing it. It's all archived, please go there to discuss further if you're ready now. USchick (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Who are the involved parties? There was no interest in discussing it." Yes there was. 20 comments even. See Archive 19. Stickee (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, that's where that discussion should continue. USchick (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

So we can close this nonsense here and continue the discussion over there, yes?  Volunteer Marek  02:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a separate discussion over there not related to this one. USchick (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Either that's a "separate discussion over there not related to this one", in which case the relevant question is "why the hell did you bring it up in your comment at 1:29 and endorse it as being on topic at 1:46", or it is NOT a "separate discussion over there not related to this one" in which case we close this nonsense because it's already been done to death. Volunteer Marek  02:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You already voted here, you harassed people who didn't vote the way you wanted them to, is there any further disruption that you would like to do here? Or would you prefer to revive old discussions for your next disruption? I'm not answering, because I don't care. USchick (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I "voted", and now I'm asking a question. It's called "discussion". And I didn't "harass" anybody, stop using inflammatory language and making baseless and false accusations. I asked editors to actually substantiate their !votes with reference to article Misplaced Pages policies rather than just personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's also "discussion", and that's how these RfC things are supposed to work. It's not actually a vote. Now, can you answer my question?  Volunteer Marek  02:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is "nonsense" please feel free to go do something else, no you can't close it. USchick (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose if political commentary pertaining to this is in RS reportage why not in the article. Sayerslle (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this a question that you would like answered? If you're new to this talk page, that's a reasonable question. USchick (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. We keep notable reactions, not just reactions directly involved. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Conditionally support However we do require consensus what directly involved means. I would opt that every country that has a victim on board, the country under which flag the plane was flying and the country over which it was shot down can be considered directly involved and none other. For example: Canada and New Zealand (one casualty each): Involved. United States (one dual Dutch-US citizen): Involved, Russia - not fulfilling any of the involvement criteria - Not involved. If and only if we can avoid a POV debate about this and adopt this idea I would support - otherwise I would strongly oppose as the use of involvement would become another POV pushing thing. Arnoutf (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia got involved when Kiev and Washington accused it of supplying the Buk launcher that allegedly shot down MH17. Also, this article belongs to seven Russian categories. Your claim that Russia is not involved is disingenuous. – Herzen (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And there we go with the debate what involvement entails. (1) Accusation by others is not involvement (unless these accusations are of course true) (2) Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source; and addition to categories would not even be a usuable argument if it were. Arnoutf (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am open for other criteria for what country is involved, but these should be fair and not include the foregone conclusion that one named country is involved. Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia is very much involved. Under a number of criteria that one may come up with for "involved". Volunteer Marek  17:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Following what criterion would Russia be involved? By being a neighbor of Ukrain? That would make Romania involved. By being a bully state? That would make the US (among others) involved. By supporting the rebels? Russia denies that. By self-involving them in the debate? That would include every country that made a statement. So please propose a clear list of criteria for involvement; that does not claim any named country to be involved. Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

following the criterion that RS have discussed Russia being very much involved - it keeps pushing its theories too, odd if it has no direct interest really - seems interested - its latest half-arsed disinformation didn't take long to look feeble either - - and do they deny supporting the rebels? they deny supporting them in certain ways, but do they deny supporting them at all? Sayerslle (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think the correct approach is to discuss whether a specific comment or statement of a specific person or organization should be removed. We should not write a blank cheque for USchick or others to vastly change the content of the article. Specific changes should be proposed and discussed (hopefully not debated) here. We need to start having civil discussions that reference Wiki policy. If editors are unable to discuss issues and seek consensus then they should consider whether they need to take a break from editing this article.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - this crash has created political tension around the globe, with leaders of nations not directly involved engaging in commentary. Of course there is a political dimension extending well beyond the usual factors of aircraft, pilot etc. A similar example is the shooting down of an Iranian A300 airliner by the USN, which had political repercussions. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this proposal could be interpreted any number of ways, and I doubt that is accidental. Should cited opinions be attributed? Yes. Should opinion commentary or sources with a clear and present bias be cited to present claims of fact? No. Should the political positions of factions, i.e. the Australian government, Dutch government, Novorossiya separatists, etc., be presented with due weight? Yes. Should they be presented with undue weight? No. There is clearly a lot of nuance that this proposal seems to ignore, for whatever purpose. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• If opinions are citable and reach WP:N, they should be included. The event, tragic as it was, invited a lot of notable commentary in world media, and it seems a bit strange to ignore that. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment in my view being citable and notable is a lower threshold for inclusion. For this article there are literally thousands of citable and notable opinions. It would be impossible to include all those and end up with anything readable. Arnoutf (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but notability is a relative thing. Notability means something pokes up above the base level of background noise that is the world; the more notable a subject, the higher a bar thoughts about it must clear. So what the governments of (say) the USA and China have to say about this would be rather more notable than what the government of Angola has to say. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally would be very interested to find out why the government of China or the US is "rather more notable" than the government of Angola. Because the only reasons that make sense to me would be racism and systemic bias. To claim this outrageous claim, one would need a reliable source, otherwise, it's Original Research. If all three governments are equally uninvolved in the crash, the only reason for any of them to get involved after the crash would be political. USchick (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you just accuse a user of racism? Again? After you were almost banned for making false accusations of racism previously?  Volunteer Marek  23:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you harassing me again? After we just came back from ANI? Would you be interested in going back? USchick (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not harassing you, not now, not ever, so quit trying to play the victim. You just accused another user of racism, yes? Quote: "the only reasons that make sense to me would be racism and systemic bias", directed at User:Ipsissima Verba's comment. Can you answer the question? If you blurted out something you didn't mean to blurt out, then at least strike the false accusation. Volunteer Marek  00:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you're stalking my edits, maybe you could leave me a "to do list" of things you want me to strike out, on my talk page. USchick (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What?!?? Stalking your edits??? Are you just making random nonsense accusations? Please explain how in hell I'm "stalking your edits". Please explain why you just accused another editor of "racism", after almost being banned for making such odious false accusations. Or strike your comments. Volunteer Marek  02:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

My question is specifically for Ipsissima Verba. When they come back, I would be interested to find out how those three countries were chosen as examples of notability and what makes two of them more notable than the other one. USchick (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And my question is specifically for you. Did you just - AGAIN - falsely accuse another editor of racism?  Volunteer Marek  02:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No I did not. If you have any other personal questions please make them in a personal space. USchick (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then can you clarify by what you meant by this comment: "the only reasons that make sense to me would be racism and systemic bias.", directed at User:Ipsissima Verba. It very much looks like you're saying their comment was "racist". If I'm missing something, please enlighten. If not, then strike it. Serious accusations like these directed at other users need to be substantiated or else they are personal attacks. Quite nasty ones at that. The fact that you have a history of making such attacks is also relevant. Volunteer Marek  04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking a question. What's relevant, is the reason for choosing three completely unrelated countries of three different races, with two races being claimed as more notable than the African country. I would like to hear an explanation of how this decision was made and a source to support it. I would like to point out that this is an RfC, and not a place for unrelated commentary and I will not answer anything else in this location. USchick (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You are asking a question and then providing your own answer, which involves a baseless and vile accusation against another user. The obvious reason why China and US's reaction might be more notable than Angola's is that China and US are super powers and Angola isn't. Nothing to do with racism. Yes, this is an RfC and hence certainly not a place for making disgusting personal attacks like you did. Don't pull any more stunt like this. Volunteer Marek  20:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support The focus of the article should be about Flight 17 and the parties involved, we have a separate article International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown for outside parties. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point. I have trouble keeping track of spinoff articles. Maybe we should try to agree on a list of the "parties involved"? (This discussion can be split into a new section if others want to pursue it.) It is not as if we need to debate on an abstract level what involvement entails. We can just try to agree on a list. My proposal: Malaysia, Netherlands, Australia, Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. I did not include in the list countries that had fewer than thirteen of its citizens among the victims. Doing that allowed me to cut down the number of countries involved for that reason from 10 to 3. If someone objects to the inclusion of the US, that can be discussed. – Herzen (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What other countries are mentioned in the article? Germany. Because of their intelligence report. That certainly belongs here, not in the spin-off. Volunteer Marek  23:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well some countries are a given these include Russia, Ukraine and the Netherlands. Malaysia should also be included as it is their plane. Can you think of any others and why they should be included? The USA in my opinion was not directly involved in this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course US should be included. The point is, that other than the countries mentioned in the US, the only other country mentioned is Germany, because of the intelligence report that was released by their services. So this supposed "excellent point" is "beside the point". Volunteer Marek  00:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. No other countries than these seven are mentioned by the article. So my list is useless. (Sorry, but the article is so long-winded I just have trouble following what's in it.) Anyway, Knowledgekid87's idea is still excellent, because some material that is more "human interest-related" than technical or factual can be moved to the international responses article. – Herzen (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally believe that the US is involved, but I don't want to get into an argument about that, because it would get into political issues. If it appears that a majority of editors do not believe that the US should be considered an involved country, I would go along with that. – Herzen (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well from the standpoint of coverage you can say that seeing this is the English Misplaced Pages it would include English speaking countries but I feel it should be for things like presentation. This is hard though how many sources do we need for a country to be more involved versus less? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that this isn't going to go anywhere. But you gave me an idea when you brought up the international reactions article. I am inclined to boldly move some less significant material from this article to that article and see what the response is. That would at least reduce the bloat a little. – Herzen (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to wait for the RfC to close first. Stickee (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, thank you for the suggestion. I was actually thinking of doing that tomorrow. Anyway, I think we've accomplished some productive brainstorming here. – Herzen (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, good point. There was also that reply given by the German Ministry of Interior to questions submitted to it by die Linke (which I believe is not mentioned in the article). So that makes seven involved countries. – Herzen (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I support Knowledgekid87 idea. Its too long winded. SaintAviator lets talk 03:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it not time to close this RfC? My take is that no consensus was reached. However, Knowledgekid87 made the useful implicit suggestion that some material in this article should be moved to the International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown article. So I suggest that we should close this discussion and proceed with that plan. – Herzen (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Which material should be moved? As pointed out above, and my understanding is that you agreed with this, there really isn't that much about "international reactions" in the article currently. Volunteer Marek  20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

In the "Reactions" section, I think that some material can be moved to the spin-off article. This article should only mention reactions that have some practical consequences, as opposed to being little more than the expression of a sentiment. Things like flags being flown at half mast and musical events being canceled should be moved. So should the whole paragraph on the Australian response. What the Americans and British are quoted as saying is also of little consequence, especially since they are not members of the Joint Investigation Team, so I think that material should be moved as well. That the mention of a poem being written about MH17 should be moved is a no-brainer.

So, I'd say that about half of the material can be moved. There being an article about "International reactions" gives us an easy way of making this article a little more concise. – Herzen (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The stuff about flags being flown at half-mast refers to Netherlands and Malaysia. I think it's fine and relevant. It's not like it takes up a lot of space. It's just a mention and it's perfectly fine in this article. I'm not sure what you mean by "expression of a sentiment" - you'd have to be specific with this. The Australian response is also relevant although it does rely too much on direct quotes rather than an encyclopedic paraphrasing of such. There is actually very little from the US and Britain so I'm not exactly clear on what you think it should be moved. The Russian poem is noteworthy for obvious reasons, so it stays. Volunteer Marek  02:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Your dictatorial manner is not appreciated. And please don't place your comments in the middle of my comments. You freak out when other editors do things like that, so you should take care that you don't. – Herzen (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If I somehow put my comment into the middle of your comment then I apologize, but I don't think that's the case. I might have put it in between two different comments by you but that's to make it clear what I was replying to, and it's how discussions work. Anyway. Can you be clear on what parts about US and Britain and what "expressions of sentiment" are you referring to?  Volunteer Marek  06:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Some would want to use this as an invitation to delete or move content they want out of here but we keep notable reactions not just reactions directly involved. Tlsandy (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

version November 14

Unlike versions of Ukraine or the United States, what is in the link has tangible evidence, not the words but the photo and podtverzhdleno findings of Commission investigating the disaster (attack from the air, and not from the ground). and yes .. rocket beech really leaves a mark in the shot, ever, but no one saw this track, you fakin lol if not thought about it before.

many video launches on YouTube, just like any other non-vanishing has a huge footprint, but no one has seen a trace.

https://www.1tv.ru/news/leontiev/271824

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6-QjpC3m5U many video launches on YouTube, just like any other non-vanishing has a huge footprint, but no one has seen a trace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsvVXDKGnMQ in Russian and English, the official said and shown (not photoshop Psak) data objective control TECHNICAL TOOLS of registration as a combat aircraft Ukraine chased Boeing. 89.105.158.243 (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You DO realize that the only relevant investigating commission is the Dutch investigation; and I don not see any reference to conclusions of that commission in any of your links. Arnoutf (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Somebody was asking where the SPA with conspiracy stories and sources where. Question answered I guess. Volunteer Marek  19:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a particularly unhelpful post. Please take up your SPA allegations formally in the correct place. Arnoutf, I fully agree "that the only relevant investigating commission is the Dutch investigation". So why does the article include the opinions of so many others? HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the article is about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Volunteer Marek  22:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the post of the OP is the unhelpful one. Does this obvious POV-push which has clearly been created with google-translate even merit anything other than a delete? (I see that another editor already deleted another unhelpful posting here from the same IP). Lklundin (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A little too much speculation and POV in your post too Lklundin, but I agree that no speculation should be in the article. Deleting it wouldn't be very friendly though. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As discussed before, your definition of "speculation" appears to mean "remove reliable sources". Volunteer Marek  22:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I could equally say that your definition of a reliable source is anything that supports your POV, with the obvious corollary that if it doesn't support your POV, it's not reliable. My view is that all sources are good for some things and not so good for others. British tabloids, for example, are excellent sources for soccer scores. American newspapers are not so good if one is seeking a global perspective on something. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you could not equally say that, since my definition of a reliable source is straight out of WP:RS. A source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Volunteer Marek  05:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No one appears to have noticed the most noteworthy aspect of that Russian Channel 1 news report: it shows a photograph which the report says was taken by a low-flying spy satellite, possibly a US or British one. The photo clearly shows a jet fighter shooting a missile at an airliner. (There is an inset of a magnified image of the fighter shooting the missile.) The photo is available at this link (7406x5000 pixels; 1.6MB)
It will be interesting to see how the US and Ukraine respond to this. This story is breaking:
TASS: Russia’s Channel One show satellite photo evidencing MH17 was downed by fighter jet
@PM3: Any thoughts? Do you think this is another Russian fake? – Herzen (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I would rather see Misplaced Pages not conducting its own investigation. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

- this story is breaking - or broken Sayerslle (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The Australian and UK press have picked this up:

Russian media releases satellite image claiming to show MH17 shot down by Ukrainian fighter jet

Is this the moment MH17 was shot down over Ukraine? Shock new images released

To quote from the former:

In what only could be described as an extraordinary coincidence after Mr Putin was confronted by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Beijing this week, Russia’s state broadcaster aired the images supplied by unnamed sources.

Maybe it is time for the Dutch criminal investigation to eliminate another theory. – Herzen (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

the express says 'The Kremlin-owned channel's presenter said: "Today we have all grounds to suppose that a State crime was committed by those who deliberately destroyed the plane.' - it could be more disinformation herzen -  ! Sayerslle (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it could very well be disinformation. The same with the Buk theory. The question here is, is it being reported in reliable sources? (I'm sure everyone here is thrilled to see me. Thank you, thank you very much!) USchick (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at that Twitter link: thanks for that. Someone there noted that there is a discrepancy in the time stamp. Last contact of ATC with MH17 was at 13:19 UTC, whereas the time stamp on the photo is 1:19:47. If this is disinformation, then it is very crude disinformation, if it can be shown to be fake so easily. – Herzen (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Comically poor fake: That being said, WP:RS reporting on Russian propaganda is notable, so those reports should be included in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This is very embarrassing. It also raises my opinion of Bellingcat. Russian Channel One should not have run this story. This is going to be hard to live down. – Herzen (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for acting in good faith. Now, can we not hear anything more about the "Russian Union of Engineers" for at least a few months?  Volunteer Marek  22:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I never tried in a big way to push the Russian Engineers' report. In any case, this fake doesn't necessarily discredit that report. And I wonder where the fake came from: it could be black propaganda, i.e. created by someone hostile to the rebels and Russia in order to discredit them. This kind of thing has happened before: LIFENEWS, I think ran an interview with a woman who said she saw an infant being killed by Ukrainian soldiers or militia in a square in Slavyansk in front of its mother. That story I was immediately skeptical of. It seems that Russian TV news learned nothing from that fiasco. One thing that should have tipped me off in this satellite photo case is that it was based on a letter from some American. How do you run a story this sensational without interviewing the person who sent you the photo? – Herzen (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"I never tried in a big way to push the Russian Engineers' report." - mmm... maybe not in a "big" way, but: . Quote: "This (Russian Union of Engineers) report must be mentioned" and "The theory of the Russian Engineer Union report is the prevailing theory in Russia. That the West prefers a rival theory should not influence WP in the least. That just leads to clear systemic bias.". So when some of us said, this report is not a reliable source, you claimed this was example of this "systemic bias". And now it turns out that this "Union of Russian Engineers" isn't quite what it's cracked up to be either. According to that source the "expert" from the Union doesn't even have an engineering education. Volunteer Marek  20:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you not notice my qualification in a big way? I quickly gave up on using anything from the Russian Engineers' report, as opposed to the Time article about the DSB preliminary report or the Spigel interview with the Dutch chief prosecutor. – Herzen (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you not notice my qualification in a big way? - yes, I did, that's why I said "maybe not in a "big" way."  Volunteer Marek  04:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"some American" is to blame, eh? Perhaps this Yankee villain was not interviewed because interviewing the "enemy" can get you fired. Just ask Galina Timchenko what happened after Lenta.ru interviewed Dmytro Yarosh.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I hate to get all forum-y, but I'll do it anyway. Considering how obviously fake it was (eg ), and that the RUE said "We have thoroughly analyzed this photo to find no signs of fake", it leaves three options regarding RUE: (1) they're not very competent (2) they lied about actually analyzing it (2b) they knew it was a fake. Stickee (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: (2b) makes no sense, because since the fake was crude, they would have known it would be exposed as a fake; (2) makes little sense, because that would be unprofessional. That leaves (1). – Herzen (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is an obvious fake. Livery does not match, engines are by far too small for a Triple-7. This confirms my impression that "Russian Engineers Union" is nothing but a dubious government-controlled propaganda organization. --PM3 (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

the menace of unreality - Russian regime is 'getting beyond it all' - they don't give a stuff any more really . (not forum, I know, I know)Sayerslle (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that that hysterical piece you linked to is relevant here. A news organization that gets duped by a fake this crude is hardly a "menace". Heads at Russia's Channel One should roll for this. – Herzen (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Heads didn't roll after Channel One aired the "crucifixion" allegation. Neither did they roll for recycling a 1995 Chechyna photo.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph claims that this is a crude fake. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11232683/Russia-says-MH17-was-shot-down-by-plane-missiles.html) --64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hehe. . I am now gonna go through all of Misplaced Pages and remove anything sourced to TASS and the dailymail. Volunteer Marek  22:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to start with Dailymail, which is garbage compared to TASS. --PM3 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Scary thing is, you might be right. Volunteer Marek  22:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is also a report from Bellingcat debunking the photo here: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2014/11/14/russian-state-television-shares-fake-images-of-mh17-being-attacked/ --64.253.142.26 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Channel One said the "sensational photograph" came from a certain George Bilt, who claimed to be a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate with more than two decades of experience in the aviation industry. He emailed it to Ivan Andriyevsky, the first vice-president of the Russian Union of Engineers, the report went on. "We can assume that the photograph was taken by an American or British satellite," Andriyevskiy told Channel One'. Taken in hook line and sinker. Lol. SaintAviator lets talk 04:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Whereas in reality it came from a conspiracy theorists webforum: (look at the message from 15 October).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What is your point? Nobody here believes that the photo came from a certain George Bilt. So why are you telling us about what is true "in reality"? What part of "Taken in hook line and sinker" don't you understand? And your ritualstic screaming of "conspiracy theorists!" is getting really tiresome. How many times do I have to say that if Time magazine and the relevant criminal investigative team take a theory seriously, it is not a conspiracy theory? – Herzen (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"Nobody here believes that the photo came from a certain George Bilt"? Yet you said, above, that 'this satellite photo case is... based on a letter from some American," did you not? Which "American" were you referring to? You see what you are invited to do here, Herzen? Withdraw your contention that Channel One was somehow victimized by forces "hostile to the rebels and Russia" seeking "to discredit them." Channel One discredited themselves (again) without Western help. By the way, there's no indication that the Dutch take the shoot-down theory at all "seriously", they simply aren't yet saying that it has been deemed impossible. There are plenty of conspiracy theories that remain on the fringe of remote possibility such that not every reliable authority has specifically addressed them and said that they have been ruled out as impossible. Of course the Kremlin disagrees, but then the Kremlin has now made it official that Misplaced Pages is beyond hope with respect to coverage of Russia and "he creation of an alternative Misplaced Pages has begun."--Brian Dell (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

from brown moses twitter: 'Expert" Vladimir Saluyanovu on the fake MH17 sat image, and why they got caught out with a fake - said they couldn't check because it came from the internet or something - its all to create miasma anyhow - Dezinformatsiya - 'the swine' as Russell Brand would say -Sayerslle (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about adding a sentence about Saluyanovu's explanation of why he was duped to the article? I think that something should be said about that, because this was such a major fail, so it is noteworthy in itself. – Herzen (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, forget it. That whole self-justification is just too ridiculous. If whatever created that photo used the 12 hour convention, the time stamp would have AM/PM in it. Furthermore, I don't see what else any earth orbiting satellite could use for what the time is but UTC. – Herzen (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Both your contention that Russian organizations faked the photo as opposed to were duped by it and that "the Dutch take the shoot-down theory at all 'seriously', they simply aren't yet saying that it has been deemed impossible" are OR. I have not seen any secondary source make either of those points. Furthermore, I do not expect the Dutch investigators ever to conclude that "the shoot-down theory" has been deemed impossible. (1) There are two shoot-down theories: one is that the rebels did it with a Buk missile, the other is that Kiev did it with a fighter jet. Those are the only two theories being considered. (2) The criminal justice system deals with what most likely happened (or what happened, beyond a reasonable doubt), not with what is possible and impossible. So the Dutch investigators are never going to conclude what you apparently believe, that it is impossible that Kiev shot down MH17 with a fighter jet. – Herzen (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know the investigators look at the theories that it was downed by a Buk or A fighter and do not even consider whether it was a Ukrainian, rebel or even Russian fighter at this moment in time, let alone whether it was on orders from Kiev. But perhaps you can provide a source where it is stated explicitly. Arnoutf (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be pedantic. (1) The rebels don't have any planes. (2) If a Russian plane had invaded Ukrainian airspace, Ukraine and NATO would have detected that and immediately protested. So if a fighter plane was involved, it was Ukrainian, or was operating with Ukraine's approval. Editors aren't expected to be as precise in their wording in Talk pages as they are in their edits of articles. The passage the suppression of which is being debated in this section above merely mentions "an attack from another airplane", without saying whose airplane that might have been. – Herzen (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You are suggesting that the Ukraine government shot down a civilian plane over its own territory as, what? Come sort of propaganda thing? You cannot be serious. Every news report--outside of Russia, anyway--indicates that the plane was shot down by the Russian-backed rebels. The notion that Ukraine shot it down is simply not credible. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat myself. See the discussion in Dutch prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down MH17, No watertight evidence so far. Dutch investigator, and Edit war. – Herzen (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

bilt sys not looking for cheap fame - if you want to add more detail herzen about the lying Russian propaganda there's this too. - and, from a tweet, 'Leontyev backs down from absurd satellite fake from @channelone_rus with backpedaling statement: Sayerslle (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This is such a good example of two people with very bad judgment acting in good faith. An MIT graduate (not an idiot presumably) thinking he's going to send something to a reporter in confidence. NOTHING you ever send to a reports is EVER in confidence. Then the reporter thinking that an MIT guy surely knows what he's talking about, because a) he's American, b) his access to information is not censored, because his media is not state owned, c) any number of other reasons. No one stopped to think about how would a regular guy get access to classified satellite imagery. lol USchick (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, I think a sentence explaining where the photo came from based on that source should be added. (Somehow I don't think there is ever going to be a news report about who created the fake photo.) – Herzen (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. Since you mention "Russian propaganda", I might as well note that the BuzzFeed piece is propaganda (which obviously does not mean that I have anything against treating it as a reliable source). To quote the article:

Mockery soon ensued. Several users posted photos of a Ukrainian Nazi flying saucer shooting down the plane. …

Putin’s public comments have been unrepentant. But he’ll have to do more to convince the rest of the world that he didn’t shoot down MH17.

The article implies that all of the world outside of Russia believes that Putin (himself, personally) shot down MH17. That is very crude propaganda. – Herzen (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yet you're the editor who has introduced this Buzzfeed article to Misplaced Pages. If you do not have an objection to using the source, I remind you that this is not a forum. By the way, I never claimed who faked this, I rather indicated that I doubted your certainty that Channel One had been "duped", to use your term, as if they are trying so hard at Channel One to not spread false stories but they just can't help themselves, etc.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You are probably confusing me with someone else, otherwise I can not really rationally explain some of your points (for xample how can I be tiresome if this was my first post at this talk page may be in a month), but since I am sure you are going to be topic-banned pretty soon, it does not really matter.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to close this thread. It seems we all agree that a central piece of the suggested information - that is the satellite photo - is not a reliable piece of information. So it seems that we have consensus not to add any of this. Arnoutf (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Arnoutf: Note that it has already been added: . Stickee (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

May be there is merit to mention this, but I'm unconvinced of the need to mention any dumb claim which briefly spread. That said, I think this case is a good example of why we need to great care with certain Russian sources (and this isn't the first example, e.g. the time stamping issue mentioned below). Clearly anyone who mentioned this claim as true, would seem to lack the standards we require. Of course we should distinguish between sources which only mentioned that this was getting a lot of attention. This is not to suggest that all Russian sources are the same, although there do seem to be a lot that fall in to that category. And in particular, for all the criticism of "Western" sources, while there are sources like the Daily Mail, who we should always use with great caution if at all, there are also sources like NYT and BBC who despite their controversies and occasional screwups (e.g. Jayson Blair) which sadly seem to be lacking in Russian sources which is IMO unfortunate. (One of the closest that seems to have come is Al Jazeera at least in their English variant, but perhaps they're helped by the fact that their government is small enough that they can't really limit coverage to only their POV and so some of their stuff is more silly than significant, e.g. covering the a speech.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is so funny, but sadly true. beyond hope Good link thanks, hadn't seen it. I recently did some Uni study and saw students get burned trying to ref Misplaced Pages. Lecturers wont take it. And the fight here to even talk about NPOV shows why. SaintAviator lets talk 22:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I made the following edit (added text shown in bold): "Many other Russian media and Western media reprinted the photo." Sayerslle undid that edit, giving the following edit summary: "but that was when it was being dissected as farce rather, no? thers a dufference". But two days ago, when he made a comment at 21:52, Sayerslle must have known that that some Western media reprinted the photo before it was dissected as farce, because the Express story from which Sayeslle quotes does not consider any reasons why the photo may be a fake. And the same is the case with the story that news.com.au published. What appears to have happened here is that Sayeslle is so keen to smear Russia (he has repeatedly uses Talk pages as a forum to attack Russia. as opposed to collaborating with other editors to build an encyclopedia) that his memory is playing tricks on him.
I hope that there will be no objections to my putting the phrase in question back in. Also, I think "Many" in "Many other Russian media" should go. Most Russian media ignored this story, so adding "many" is misleading and not neutral. – Herzen (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, which "many Western media" reprinted the photo, outside the context of it being a fake? DailyMail? That's about it I think. Volunteer Marek  23:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your reading that "many" applied to "Western" as well as "Russian" is tendentious. The following reports from Western media all reproduce the photo without saying anything about it being debunked:

news.com.au

Daily Express

The Mirror

Business Insider

And how do we know that many Russian media reproduced the photo? Nobody has given the links. Some Anglophone media did the same thing some Russian media did. NPOV requires that this be mentioned. – Herzen (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Ymblanter:, since he added the sentence here. Stickee (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This article (note this is not a RS) says that Moskovsky Komsomolets (whil later retracted), Dni.ru., Vesti.ru, NTV, LifeNews, ITAR-TASS, Lenta.ru, Zvezda TV, and Komsomolskaya Pravda, among others, reprinted the photo. I checked some of them: Lifenews, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Lenta.ru. Here Grani.ru, which is a RS, says that some Russian media reposted the news from 1TV, and that Moskovsky Komsomolets later removed the news from the website. I hope this is sufficient. --Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. The "Many" can stay in as far as I am concerned. Thank you very much for confirming that. I've learned that the way Misplaced Pages works is that if you make a claim that is not supported, people will not do the work of supporting it for you. One of the worst cases of that is when people remove a claim because they don't like the source cited in support of it, instead of trying to find a better source. Also, we agree that stopfake (the very name sounds demented) is not a RS.

So, can I make the sentence in question "Many other Russian media and several Western news outlets reprinted the photo"? I think four qualifies as several. – Herzen (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds OK imo. SaintAviator lets talk 08:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That whole sentence as it stands seems like OR though. Stickee (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not have any problems with saying "some Russian and Western media", I think this describes the situation in the most accurate way.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

But do we have any sources which state that? Stickee (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For this formulation we can use sources in this thread ("some" is an obviuos generalization and is therefore not OR). For "many" we would need indeed to have sources saying "many", and Herzen's formulation (some Western and many Russian) sounds awkward to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Heres one MSM Oz that ran with it SaintAviator lets talk 09:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Just checked more than five MSM here in Au reprinted the picture, including the SMH, The Australian, SBS, ABC, Courier Mail SaintAviator lets talk 09:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

But once again that's OR. Unless we have a source that says "it was published in X media" we can't include it without performing OR. Stickee (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that it shouldn't be included, although I am more lax about OR than you are, so my reason is different. As I explained below, that the photo got published by other news outlets is not noteworthy. – Herzen (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: I guess technically speaking, it is OR, but then the kind of "research" it is based on is exactly the same as what is involved in editors writing articles based on secondary sources. I personally feel the sentence sounds gossipy and unencyclopedic, but I am not inclined to suggest that it should be removed. Are you? I personally don't feel that it conveys any useful information, since it is utterly routine for news outlets to report what other news outlets have reported, if that is noteworthy. Thus, we had many news outlets report on the Spiegel interview with the Dutch chief prosecutor. Since other news outlets picking up on the Channel One story is what one would expect, mentioning that they did so is UNDUE. – Herzen (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"I am not inclined to suggest that it should be removed" and "mentioning that they did so is undue". I'm confused, don't these sentences contradict? Stickee (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed my mind while writing that, but didn't find it necessary to erase the expression of earlier stages of reasoning. Also, one can think that policy dictates one thing, but that the rules can be bent in a particular case, so there is not a direct contradiction. Human judgement is applied in observing policy; we are not automatons. – Herzen (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Audio record of Pro-Russian rebels discuss the shooting down of an aircraft

The audio record is not credible. The date of creation of first file published on YouTube was July 16, 2014 19:07:41 – about 18 hours before the crash. Minimum it must to be noticed. קירה (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Google employee says it was their fault and there was a "bug that has led to inaccurate timestamps being inserted into MP4 files served from YouTube" (). There's also a more technical explanation (not from Google) here. Stickee (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It explains the upload date only, not the creation date. קירה (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats what I thought SaintAviator lets talk 10:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Not the case: "The "creation_time" in the metadata on the screenshot is the same data that has been returned by the mediainfo command under "Encoded date". It is the same thing."

This is not a forum anyway. Stickee (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly Stickee, its the place we discuss the validity of refs. Correct. Otherwise WP loses respect when nonsense is put in like the Heavy weather plane divert BBC fabrication. Remember that? SaintAviator lets talk 22:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many times and also in many, many refs. There's no reason to discuss it any more. It was always an incredibly stupid claim given that it could be debunked with the simplest OR and understanding. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact the 'upload date' (I presume you mean the date shown on Youtube) is unaffected. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. A very important point - as I see - is NOT mentioned in the article: why was the flight MH17 on that particular date instructed by the Ukrainian air-control people to fly a couple of hundred miles south of its usual route? Another point not questioned: Qui bono? 176.63.161.109 (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC) I've disabled your edit request. Please provide a specific sourced edit. If you can't this should be a discussion and not an edit request until there is such a proposal. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC) In any case this has been discussed to death, you can find it somewhere in the archives. In short - It the northern route was not the only usual route but one among several usual routes. It was indeed used for the few flights in the weeks before but was now avoided due to bad weather. Arnoutf (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Both what 176.63.161.109 and Arnoutf write is wrong, see the preliminary DSB report. MH17 flew the normal route on July 17 up to Dnipropetrovsk. See MH17#Crash for the rest of the flight. --PM3 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Yep the only deviation was 20 NM to the north which was requested by the flight crew "due to weather". Stickee (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

new video of aftermath

from brown moses twitter - new footage 'New footage of the downing of #MH17. 40s in someone says it was hit by a rocket and broke up ' Sayerslle (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Still hearsay, lets wait for the report. Arnoutf (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You must be under a great deal of anguish resulting from there being no eyewitness testimony about a SAM being fired. So then a video appears, in which someone yells off-camera from a crowd in the middle of a burning crash site that the plane was hit by a rocket, and Brown Moses gets all excited and tweets about that, and you decide to start a new Talk section.

The BBC Russian Service has on its Web site a news report in which three eyewitnesses tell the reporter that they saw a fighter jet or jets near MH17, but for some reason, that does not interest Brown Moses, who, like some editors here, already knows the one truth, and is only interested in such snippets of information which confirm what he already knows. – Herzen (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A note for those here who are not aware of: "Brown Moses" is Eliot Higgins, the founder of Bellingcat and co-author of #Updated Bellingcat report on the origin of a Buk launcher. And I agree that he is somewhat biased, but though an outstanding citizen journalist. --PM3 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless a secondary reliable source comments on this, it's of no use to us. Volunteer Marek  21:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the video, pretty unequivocal. But as a source it is PRIMARY...--Galassi (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)21:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

yes , not sure why I made that edit really - maybe as an external link the video is intersting as footage of immediate aftermath.( I don't think its right herzen to say he is only interested in certain 'snippets' -or PM3 that he is biased really - if 3 people say something to a reporter that's not what he looks at I don't think , he and his website looks at open source evidence - buk convoy in russia - his bias is toward evidence and reality thereby revealed kind of thing) Sayerslle (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please no more Brown Moses. Take it to a user talk page. Eliot Higgins is a YouTube blogger, and self-proclaimed weapons expert. He is NOT an expert in anything afaik. In 2013 he was offered for sponsorship and/or a job with weapons a manufacturing company whilst consulting for @HRW. Bloggers like him are part of the problem here. Please also discuss this elsewhere, as it will be another epic waste of time. This is Not a Forum. SaintAviator lets talk 23:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

RS dictate - if RS reportage mentions bellingcat that's all that matters. spas don't dictate content, - pov spas are an epic waste of time on wp, not RS Sayerslle (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Now some secondary sources have appeared:

New video of MH17 downing in Ukraine surfaces - Associated Press

New footage claims to show MH17 crash aftermath - BBC

Stickee (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. The BBC story is about the AP story. And the AP story mentions several remarks that people can be heard making in the video, but none of them involve someone saying that a missile hit the plane. – Herzen (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Falsely accusing someone of being a SPA, as you did here, is a personal attack.

This video was uploaded to YouTube by Komsomolskaya Pravda. Its page links to two other interesting videos (apparently without English subs):

Ever more facts indicating that MH17 was downed by a fighter
Dutch experts have begun the collection of fragments at the crash site in eastern Ukraine

These reports are noteworthy because they indicate that the investigators intend to collect all the wreckage and take it off site. The videos, especially the first one, are worth watching even if you don't know Russian, because the reporter examines several pieces of the plane, and because you get different views of the crash site. I have no idea of why Komsomolskaya Pravda is there, but not other news crews. – Herzen (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"the investigators intend to collect all the wreckage and take it off site": They already have taken wreckage off-site, starting today: MH17 flight investigators remove crucial debris. Stickee (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that after you posted the link. But the Komsomolskaya Pravda videos are still interesting. The first one, from Wednesday, shows investigators collecting wreckage with a crane. So investigators have been collecting wreckage (as opposed to taking it off site) at least since Wednesday. – Herzen (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes the old personal attack trick. Its hilariously amateurish. Heres how it works. A dubious blogger who takes fees finds something saying very little, its Original. Awww. Wait someone else says maybe a sec source will come up. Wait for it, it of course gets picked up by a UK approved RS as more evidence supporting that papers 'position'. Oh wow now it can go in here on WP as more 'bloatquote'. BM reminds me of “The Gay Girl in Damascus”. Its all so silly. You know I was totally neutral but all this desperate pushing of POV has me wondering whats going on here. SaintAviator lets talk 00:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Back on topic, others do: ‘A rocket was fired’: New video reportedly shows flaming MH17 wreckage moments after crash as well as "In the video, one resident can be heard in the background saying “a rocket was fired.”". Stickee (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A guy blurts out a few words in a cacophony of voices from a crowd that is in a frenzy because it is trying to put out a fire that was caused by the wreckage of a plane that has just crashed, and this is supposed to be some kind of eyewitness testimony and, who knows, perhaps even evidence? If that guy thinks he saw a rocket, why is there no trace of anyone talking about this rocket after the fire was put out? Grasping at this video as if it were some kind of evidence is the behavior of conspiracy theorists.

And I hope you don't actually want to add this to the article when the BBC Russian News Service video with three witnesses telling the reporter on camera that they saw a fighter plane flying next to MH17 has been suppressed from the article. The aim should be to make the article more balanced, not more crazy. – Herzen (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said it should or shouldn't be added. I was simply countering your claim that "none of them involve someone saying that a missile hit the plane", when in fact some do. Stickee (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This should be closed down. No Blogs, no twitter, No You tuber wanna be experts. No time wasting speculative meanderings. We have bloat people. Less is often more SaintAviator lets talk 02:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No blogs, "You tuber" or twitter have been used. Only sources such as the Associated Press or the BBC. Stickee (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Good. SaintAviator lets talk 04:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in the lede there's information from a source VKontakte that was picked up by media. Other unreliable sources were also picked up by the media, but they're not allowed in this article for some reason. I'd like to point out, again, that cherry picking is against policy. USchick (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources in question are the Guardian and the Christian Science Monitor. We've been over this literally a dozen times. Stop playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, and stop beating the dead horse. Volunteer Marek  19:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Investigation - Two Small Proposals

I've got 2 proposals about the Investigation section:

1. Delete the (duplicate) paragraph starting with "A team of investigators at the Dutch Safety Board released a preliminary report...". That paragraph was actually written by me after the report was released, but since then someone has written an actual subsection on it, so this paragraph is effectively a duplicate.
2. Also, add the image seen to the right in the "Initial attempts" section. It's the only one on Commons which shows some sort of investigation.

Just wanted to see what you thought before I did this. Stickee (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds OK Stickee, it lessens the bloat a little. Picture? What about the bigger one, Pilots Cabin remains, with lots of holes? SaintAviator lets talk 03:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. As for the image, they have to be from Commons as a free image. Stickee (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

MH17

About BND report and Ukrainian Military agency feedback

Please, add a note to section about 'Cause of a crash' to paragraph about BND report, that Ukrainian Military agency has denied that rebels captured Buk from Ukrainian army: http://www.mil.gov.ua/news/2014/10/20/informacziya-pro-zahoplennya-teroristami-zenitnogo-raketnogo-kompleksu-buk-m1/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a03:b0c0:2:d0::91:7001 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a primary source from the Ukrainian government that mentions the Spiegel article by name. They deny the allegation that Russian separatists captured a Buk from a Ukrainian military base. It's dated Oct 20, 2014. USchick (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, USchick. We should consider this addition. Where can we find the Spiegel article?--64.253.142.26 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Any Spiegel article that claims the Buk was captured from the Ukrainian military, like this one . This article also mentions that they're investigating it as a possible war crime. USchick (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: they mention Spiegel magazine by name. It says "information published in the German magazine Spiegel..." USchick (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

NYRB article

Useful: .  Volunteer Marek  14:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"...arguably the most egregious act of aggression in the entire Ukrainian conflict thus far." But I think most people believe it was actually a mistake, the result of incompetance on the part of those operating the BUK launcher. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It can be both an act of aggression and a mistake. Volunteer Marek  16:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. But a deliberate act of aggression is very different to a mistaken act of aggression. There have been have quite a few examples of airliners shot down in circumstances far less volatile than this. I'm not sure what extra that NYRB article can provide in terms of this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That article is a russophobic rant. This passage stands out in its absurdity:

The BUK (Russian for beech) is a complicated anti-aircraft missile system devised by the Soviets in the seventies and modernized by the Russians.

This is the first time I have seen Russians distinguished from Soviets. By almost everyone, Russians and Soviets are treated as the same people. During the Cold War, in the US, the opponent was usually referred to as Russians (or "Russkies"), not Soviets. Just have a look at the Dr Strangelove script. "Russian" is used interchangeably with "Soviet", and the word "Russian" is used more often. – Herzen (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, I would expect that the distinction between Soviets and Russians is being made there to denote the change in regimes from the USSR when the Buk was developed, to its modern form, which has obviously be modified by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. I don't think that distinction makes the article absurd or a "rant".--64.253.142.26 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is clearly a russophobic rant. Just consider the title: "Flight MH17: Will Russia Get Away With It?" Our MH17 article notes that the Bundesnachrichtendienst has explained that Russia had nothing to do with the downing of MH17, but the author of this piece continues to circulate that claim anyway. The change in "regimes" was inconsequential as far as military technology is concerned. (And you call the Russian government a "regime", a word that is reserved for governments that the US intends to topple, as it has done with Iraq and Libya.) The distinction between Russians and Soviets was made to reinforce the meme that after the collapse of the USSR, Russia stopped being a superpower. The USG position is that Russia lost the Cold War, so it should submit, like Germany and Japan did. This NY Review piece is just more propaganda pushing that line. – Herzen (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I've met (both in rl and here on Misplaced Pages) quite a number of Russians who *insist* on the distinction between "Russian" and "Soviet", mostly because they don't feel like they should be blamed for what the commies did. And rightly so. So the article has it right. No, the distinction was not "invented" to "reinforce a meme" (wtf?) that Russia stopped being a superpower (that's a... "meme"? Really?). The distinction was made simply because Russia ain't the Soviet Union. Remember that part? And no, there's nothing "Russophobic" about it, and neither is it a rant. You do realize that it's written by one of the top experts on the history of Russia and the Soviet Union? Perhaps you should reconsider what you believe to be "Russophobic". Criticism of Russian government actions DOES NOT make one "Russophobic" anymore than criticism of American government actions makes one "Anti-American". I'll incorporate some info from the source into the article shortly. Volunteer Marek  05:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And oh yeah, the Bundesnachrichtendienst isn't the omniscient final authority on the question, especially when you consider that that report was severely toned down for political reasons. The Bellingcat analysis, and common sense, suggest that Russian government had plenty to do with it. Volunteer Marek  05:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in your conspiracy theory Web sites. And "common sense" indicates that Kiev did it. The Ukrainian government is officially Nazi now. Shooting down airliners is standard Nazi behavior. – Herzen (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You are getting progressively more ridiculous and extreme, Herzen. Canada is "officially Nazi" as well if that's your evidence that Ukraine is Nazi since the two countries voted the same way against that Russian-sponsored UN resolution. With respect to what German and Russian sources are saying, you cannot have it both ways. RT reports that the German foreign ministry more or less disowned the Spiegel's reporting on BND report, calling it "incomplete and arbitrarily taken out of context." If you are going to accept RT's reliability here, then you should be dialling down everything in that Spiegel report as dubious. But because there's one thing in it you like, you demand that that Spiegel report be assigned maximum credibility. Which do you want to us to believe, Herzen, RT or Der Spiegel? Because RT is telling us the German govt, who knows what it's own position is on MH17, considers Der Spiegel a poor source on this particular report.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? Are you saying the New York Review of Books is a conspiracy website? Or Bellingcat is a conspiracy website? Which is cited by authoritative sources. And please, spare us the links to idiots' blogs. Volunteer Marek  19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe when you were referring to "conspiracy theory Web sites" you were ... foreshadowing the link you were about to provide? I don't get it. "Shooting down airliners is standard Nazi behavior" - honestly, Herzen, I'm almost concerned that your account has been compromised. Volunteer Marek  19:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that was Russia Today? It tells this plane was shoot down by NATO and a lot more about Polish aggression against Russia , . My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Re NY Book review. Sums up one POV nicely. Nothing new. Tempted to Soap/Forum this thread. SaintAviator lets talk 23:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuits Again

One of the lawsuits previously discussed here has progressed one more stage to the filing (read more). Notable? I think not: same thing as last time. Also read about the other lawsuits here, here, here, here. Stickee (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

They look like dragging on. SaintAviator lets talk 07:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "same thing as last time". Last time, there was only talk of filing a lawsuit; this time, a lawsuit has been filed. I don't see how you can claim that that is not notable. Before, I said that this was not notable, because I did not think it would go anywhere, but now we see that is going somewhere. It is impossible to avoid the impression that some editors of Ukraine related articles are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to avoid any mention in articles of anything that puts Ukraine in a bad light, and to insert anything into them that puts the rebels or Russia in a bad light. Editors are not even trying to maintain any appearance of being interested in trying to maintain NPOV. – Herzen (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit war, again

I would like to remind everyone this article is still under sanctions. There was a BRD process interrupted by this edit from User:Volunteer Marek who is obviously edit warring. Would you like to discuss now? And self revert? USchick (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "interrupt" any BRD process. I didn't see you discussing anything either. You reverted someone else. You are the one who made a simple revert into an edit war. You are the one who is "obviously edit warring". You are the one who should've followed BRD. You didn't, then you come here and post a typically false summary of the situation. As you have on many previous occasions.

As to the merits, it's simple and already discussed. The main conclusion of the German report is that the flight was shot down by the separatists. The details about how the US justice system are WP:UNDUE and unneeded. What are these supposed to add to the article anyway? Volunteer Marek 16:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This was a bold edit by User:Stickee. I reverted it. According to WP:BRD the next step is to discuss, not to gang up and revert again. Please self revert and allow for a discussion to happen. USchick (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

On topic, what does a sentence about US legal systems have to do with the core of this article? There are many other, much more serious problems with gathering evidence (for example the ongoing war) and this seems to be much less relevant. So I agree this problem seems somewhat undue to me. Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If there was any evidence against Russia, it would have already been presented, since everyone is pointing fingers at Russia for being responsible. The US is in a great position to present actual evidence from satellite data. If this information is classified, it will be almost impossible to show what happened, especially if the evidence is not pointing at Russia, since the US is blaming Russia. This is why the US legal system is so important in this case. It's much easier to launch a propaganda campaign than to present actual satellite evidence, apparently. USchick (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Various evidence has been presented. Anyway, your original research is irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Spiegel article outlines the evidence presented. It has been in the article ever since Der Spiegel came out. Volunteer Marek can not unilaterally determine that "Stickee is right" and delete sourced information. Please put it back. USchick (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Stickee made the edit makes it not unilateral (by definition). Also, responsible is not the same as guilty of pulling the trigger. The Russian destabilizing politics in former Soviet Republics makes them at least to some extent responsible for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine, without which the plane would never have been shot down. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That is one of the most non-NPOV, bad faith edits I have seen here for some time. Feel free to hate Russia and Stickee privately, but you have no right to shove that opinion in front of everyone here. HiLo48 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Were you addressing me HiLo48? In fact I agree with Stickee's removal of this text; so why would you think I hate them? And I do not hate Russia but you cannot deny they have annexed the Crimea, or fought a minor war with Georgia a few years ago which is hardly a sign of a stable relationship with your neigbbours (or is it in your view? - in which please explain). Arnoutf (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing about the edit that is non-NPOV nor bad faith. Stop scare mongering. And STOP. ACCUSING. EDITORS. OF "Hating Russia". One more outburst like that and off to WP:AE we go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that, even without the capitals, whenever you post anything here, I get the impression you're shouting at us? HiLo48 (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason why you think that anyone here "hates Russia". I.e. the problem is with *you* and your perception of reality, not the reality itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps because throwing insulting abbreviations in all caps at people makes people somewhat unhappy with you? Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok do we want to discuss the inclusion of the line? In my view it is undue, as it is only part of the evidence, and minor part at that. So I am not sure we need to add this Arnoutf (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the results of investigations must be added, however, text in question only tells that investigators do not have results (yet). Hence this text does not add anything important and can be omitted. However, I believe this discussion (see above) is highly problematic, because the initial statement by Uschick accuses a contributor, instead of discussing improvement of the article. HiLo48 does the same . Remember, this page is only for debating improvement of content. If you have complaints about users, this should be debated on WP:AE or WP:ANI, not here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that an investigation going from considering four scenarios to considering only two "does not add anything important" is preposterous. It does not matter how many times you make that claim: it will always be preposterous. Repeating a preposterous game ad infinitum is a case of gaming the system. If this development were not important, the Dutch chief prosecutor would not have mentioned it and Spiegel would not have published it. So your claim that this development is "not important" is nothing but original research. Also, your Talk page says that you are "taking a WikiBreak for his academic commitments." So why do you not keep your word, instead of engaging in unrestrained battleground behavior and personal attacks? – Herzen (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am accusing one editor of breaking BRD and edit warring instead. Just like the title if this thread states. I have taken the same editor to ANI previously for disruptive editing. So here we are witnessing the same disruptive behavior. Again. USchick (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The disruptive behavior is debating other people instead of content on article talk pages, even after your complaint on ANI was not supported by any admins. My very best wishes (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I'm pointing out to the edit warrior that they are engaged in an edit war (which they deny). I'm doing it out of courtesy, to give the edit warrior an opportunity to revert. I believe this is the courteous thing to do. USchick (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Drop the name calling, especially since you're the one who initiated the edit warring. Or should I start writing things like "I'm just pointing out to the troll that they are engaged in trolling (which they deny). I'm doing it out of courtesy (hahahahaha!) to give the troll an opportunity to stop. I believe this is the courteous thing to do"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Where would you prefer to continue this discussion? The sanctions noticeboard or the edit war noticeboard? USchick (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at past history, perhaps the "giant waste of time and 13000 words noticeboard"? Stickee (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Spinoff discussion about definition of "who's responsible"

"responsible is not the same as guilty of pulling the trigger" This is an interesting concept. It may be the reason for all this arguing, since we all have different ideas what "responsible" means. Would anyone like to elaborate? When it comes to "destabilizing force in the region" it's not clear to me that Russia is responsible for that. Everything has been stable for 20 years, and the only new event is the government change in Ukraine. So it appears to me (as an outsider) that the destabilizing force is the new government in Ukraine. Russia is just as stable as it ever was for the past 20 years. This is why I'm asking people to elaborate, because obviously, we all have very divergent opinions, and simply quoting sources hasn't gotten us anywhere. USchick (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, people waiting for the results of this investigation, will be extremely disappointed, because the investigation was set up from the beginning to come up "inconclusive" at the end. People who understand the US legal system, understand that no other conclusion is possible in this particular case. This is why the investigation is a lot more important than the result. The US is holding evidence that will never come to light due to the US legal system, which is set up to produce a certain outcome. USchick (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but WP:NOTAFORUM and most of us here are not particularly interested in your speculations/theorizing/original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Several people brought up these issues, (see above) so "most of us" are in fact interested. USchick (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@USchick: I changed the title to something slightly more specific. Is this okay? Stickee (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. :) USchick (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• @USchick. The banner above tells: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.", but this is not even something about the subject of this article, just as your accusations with respect to other contributors. Is'not it clear? My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class aviation articles
• B-Class Aviation accident articles
• Aviation accident task force articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Mid-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• B-Class Malaysia articles
• Mid-importance Malaysia articles
• WikiProject Malaysia articles
• B-Class Netherlands articles
• All WikiProject Netherlands pages
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment