Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:08, 23 July 2014

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.

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. 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.

Comment from Cadwallader

Acceptable sources for this story are subject to the .

"Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view)."

"Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Cadwallader (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I deleted an unsourced paragraph that claimed that "propaganda" was being produced by "both sides", that Ukraine was being fought over by Russia and the USA, and that opinions as to what happened were being made prematurely. All of that is POV. We can add some Russian views, but those views only appear to have traction inside the Russian Federation, and they should be presented as such (ie, not on equal terms). The Chinese are not commenting, and the rest of the world seems to be saying that Russian-trained separatists shot it down with a Buk missile. If we find out this is wrong later, we'll just change it. Geogene (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would submit this to WP:arbcom if you would like to make an official statement stick, it would help if you could point out what sources you disagree with rather than give a warning in general. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

GeoGene is a brand new editor (March 2014) who just reverted my paragraph without talking about it FIRST. I will revert his/her changes manually. Cadwallader (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Being a bit aggressive, aren't you? Geogene (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy is that you must talk about changes on the talk page before just deleting someone else's edit. So, Geogene is the aggressive one here.Cadwallader (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages generally does not require users to get permission from others before making any specific edit, nor are new users subject to any probationary period. Furthermore and most importantly, the material which you added (and which Geogene properly removed) was manifestly inappropriate unsourced editorializing. Please don't add it again. I have also partly redacted your comments here, as the Talk page is not a place for editors to spread homebrew conspiracy theories. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with this whole procedure. We do not remove others' comments. Cadwallader only tried to focus on objectivity... Geogene's attitude was not neutral. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not say Geogene needed to "get permission". I said that Misplaced Pages editorial policy is to TALK, ie, give reasons, in the talk section BEFORE deleting or reverting edits. And I agree with Fakirbakir, you do not have permission or authority to redact other editors comments on the TALK page. Furthermore, Geogene removed the material within minutes before I could add references. It would have been better to ask me to remove it, or source it - you know the little tags we insert to point out where sources are needed. As for "homebrew" conspiracy theories - I simply reported on claims made by the Russian Deputy Minister and reported in mainstream media outlets in both the USA and Russia, without commenting on the accuracy or veracity of the claims. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC) ---- This page SHOULD be objectively reporting both sides of the story as printed in their respective news organs without taking sides. If we can't agree to move this page to I will file a complaint through the arbitration procedure. NPOV is one of the most important tenets of Misplaced Pages editorship. Cadwallader (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This comment is a textbook case of assuming bad faith.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Read the opening section of the article - it reports Ukraine's assertion that Russians shot down the aircraft, while failing to report Russia's assertions that a Ukrainian BUK battery stationed near Donetsk shot down the aircraft. The article is heavily biased in favor of assertions by Ukraine/USA, while not telling the other side of the controversy. So, I am not assuming bad faith, I am weighing biased non-NPOV editorial content. Cadwallader (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Putin didn't do it. It might be much simpler if he had. But isn't it Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care if Putin personally rode the missile on the way up to intercept the plane. The point is to publish and NPOV article about an international incident. This crap currently looks like it was written by the US State Department - a neutral source if ever there was one.Cadwallader (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe sources which support the US State Department's view are just easier to find? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not US State Department - more like: a conclusions accepted world-wide with exception of Russian and pro-Russian media. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A NPOV way to introduce this subject would be like this:

Both Russia and Ukraine have blamed the other for firing a BUK missile that is believed to have destroyed the aircraft. No objective investigation with access to the crash scene has yet concluded which party shot down the flight.Cadwallader (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be unsourced editorializing. No. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just because there are two opinions on something doesn't mean each should be given equal prominence or weight. The evidence available to date points to this incident occurring as a result of actions taken by the rebels (possibly aided by Russia). This article should be bold enough to point that out. To give equal weight to unfounded allegations that this was caused by something else is inappropriate, at least until more information emerges. -- anonymous user

There is no evidence, because there has been no collection of it on the ground, no examination of the plane black boxes, no non-neutral investigation commity having put together results. A compilation of statements from ukrainian and american officials is not "available evidence". As per today the article is a pile of crap. Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're saying that the article is prone to contain a lot of speculation, claim and counter-claim before the crash site is properly examined and the black box data analysed. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As for today this article is the best and most objective knowledge we can gather. Unless you want Misplaced Pages to become nothing more than another Kremlin propaganda tube - accept it. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have an idea why not put all of the propaganda into one article and call it Russian media portrayl versus Russian media portrayal. The article here should really focus on the crash and not the media pointing fingers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cadwallader & Centrify: I see that the issue here is "unsourced editorializing". What if there were sources that somehow presented Russia's account of the incident? I'm unqualified and insufficiently informed to make a personal decision on whether Russia or Ukraine (or nobody, as a few claim) were at fault for the downing of the flight (although I have a tendency to hold a raised eyebrow towards Russia, to be completely frank). Despite my quasi-anti-Russian opinion in this instance, there is a plurality of viewpoints and I am pretty sure that respecting them by adding a section called "Russian view of the incident" wouldn't be the end of the world. All the best! Meşteşugarul (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

1. http://online.wsj.com/articles/russia-presents-its-account-of-malaysia-airlines-flight-17-crash-1405952441
2. http://www.businessinsider.com/russias-story-about-mh17-2014-7
3. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/russia-presents-its-account-of-mh17-crash-20140721-01198

Countries included in the Reactions - Countries section

As start - apologies i'm not good at linking to things. I'm still a bit new and don't have all the shortcuts figured out.

In the : https://en.wikipedia.org/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Countries section, I reverted the following edit: 02:58, 21 July 2014‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎ . . (88,707 bytes) (-2,689)‎ . . (→‎Countries: trim predictable responses from uninvolved countries) don't see it being helpful to curb the countries included in the 'response' section. If people have problems with the substance of what's included in the 'response' write-up for a specific country, then i think that's fine.

But I don't think it's reasonable, in the context of this site, to draw a black line on what countries should be included in that section....and if there is a 'blackline' re the inclusion/exclusion of certain countries - that should be clarified in the heading. Otherwise - it's the content of the information that should be reviewed - not the inclusion of any specific country.

Again - sorry if my inclusion on this page isn't totally clean (feel free to leave me a msg giving me tips on how to write better). I hope I expressed my opinion enough that people get what I mean.

• There has already been discussion on this, earlier on this page ("Reactions"). We don't need to clarify in any heading: we need to make a judicious judgment as editors. What you're suggesting is that basically every response by every single entity should be allowed; in my edit summaries I have indicated why certain responses could be deemed relevant. As for content: all those responses say "it's a tragedy and we should do everything to help solve the situation". So I'm going to revert this edit, since clearly South Africa, India, and Switzerland have nothing to do in any material or political sense with the aftermath of the tragedy. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's nice. Then the heading should be changed. I don't understand your reference to 'every single entity' - the topic line specifies 'countries'. If the subject doesn't include responses to all countries (subject to appropriate edits) then the subject line should be changed. Given the topic heading, it's not appropriate for you to exclude things as you have. If you don't think the content of the 'countries' qualifies, that's one thing - but it's not appropriate for you to unilaterally delete response from countries.

On this basis, I've reverted your edit.

This discussion should be elevated. My position is as follows

1. The topic/subtopic is "Reactions - 'countries'" 2. There is no clarification re what 'countries' qualify as being included in the heading 3. There are concerns about 'reactions' being posted for various 'countries' that editors don't perceive as being germane to the topic 4. The response to this is by deleting the 'country' response as though it was never added 5. ^^ is not appropriate.

You need to sign your posts. You can do that by typing four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ (no spaces) or in the alternative you can simply click on the signature icon in the editing area and it will be automatically generated for you. Thanks and welcome to Misplaced Pages.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of this section is really boring and not saying anything really, I would list only responses that are either saying something different than "how sad we are that this has happened" or from countries deeply involved ie The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia.Andrewgprout (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't like these "Reactions" sections as a rule, as they're not very encyclopedic. But if we're gonna have such a section then it makes sense to stick just to the countries directly involved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I 100% agree with the problems with these sections and all else being said. But I still don't agree with the i idea that the section is being presented as 'countries' if people think that there are countries who should be curbed out (subject to the content of 'country' comment being inconsistent with what's appropriate on wikipedia).

For those of you who feel that the section should represent the countries directly involved - then why not change the heading from 'countries' to 'countries direction involved'?

Going back to my original problem - it's not that i'm so insistent that every country get must have a flag with a voice - my problem is if there are 'curbs' on the countries involved (such as 'they must be directly involved' then why would anyone shy away from that clarification?)

we should go one way or the other. if people's opinions are that the only countries that should be included are those who are directly involved, i'm willing to get behind that - so long as the subject heading makes clear those are the countries being included. if your own opinion is that only the countries directly involved warrant inclusion - why would you have a problem with that being specified in the subject heading?

if you want to leave the subject heading as 'countries' - then i think people have to be more open minded re country involvement (subject to the content being in line with wiki standards).

...my point remains - either clarify the heading to make clear inclusion or leave as is and accept the widened net.

I have to agree with VM. Public commiserations are going to be pouring in, the majority keeping a careful political distance from stating that those who are responsible are really naughty and ought to be punished. Does this mean it is in any way constructive to end up with 100+ 'official' expressions of sadness at how awful this was? Keep it down to countries directly involved, or where the country is taking a definitive position with real world political ramifications. If readers are interested to know what countries are taking some form of action or absolute position, they shouldn't need to scroll through a couple of megabytes of flag icons and unremarkable responses. Ergo, this should be interpreted as supporting the idea of redacting the content there and providing an apt subsection title accommodating exclusion of non-significant reactions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If 'countries' responding carries with it a minimizing factor, why not clarify that up front?

I, personally, don't have a theoretical problem with 'minimizing'/'editing' whatsoever - and in fact agree it might be necessary - just as long as the subheading doesn't cause any confusion.

That's my big issue - it's not the editing, it's the subtitle. i just don't like the subtitle with the editing going on. i can deal with the editing as long as it's a better subtitle

• I also agree that some of the memorial quotes need to go. At this point, I think the only ones that should remain are those directly involved and like IH suggested the ones who are "taking a definitive position with real world ramifications". I don't care about the subsection title one way or the other, it looks fine to me. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In thinking on it, I'd agree that there's no problem with the title as it stands. I'd prefer to credit the readers with having enough intelligence to work out for themselves that absolutely every public 'reaction' is not going to be listed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Alphabetised again.... Really?

This whole section turns out to be a nightmare. Everybody wants their country in. Some people want some kind of logical order (e.g. the countries that matter/were stricken hardest somewhere near the top of the list) while others think the alphabet is the best way to organize this (resulting in readers to have to dredge through response of Ireland - 1 dual nationality victim before finding Ukrainian, Malaysian or Dutch response). An alphabetizer has changed the order overnight without any more justification than saying it is now alphabetized (but no explanation why).

In my opinion we have more or less three options now. Either (1) we decide to throw the whole section out, or (2) limit the list to only a few (many fewer than 10) countries - and rigorously stick to that(!); or (3) we go the other way and construct a table with each and every country in the world with their response. We can even make that sortable on alphabet and number of casualties. The current in between compromise has been a POV fork from the start of the whole incident and we need to do something about that.

In case we go for deletion I have been starting to integrate some of the more relevant information into other sections (e.g. half mast in Netherlands and Malaysia to aftermath). This will help to clean up the section later on in any case. Arnoutf (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I trimmed out Ireland and slimmed down some of the worst quoting. --John (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ireland was of course an example, the same would go for Romania, South Africa (each 1 dual nationality), Canada (1 casualty) and to a lesser extend Germany (4 casualties). The loss of these individuals is of course as appalling as all other losses; but I doubt whether readability is served with all those responses. Arnoutf (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it so interesting that none of you question the legitimacy of the United States being included - when they themselves only had '1 dual nationality'. Of course, it's not interesting at all - it's very keeping with the American mentality their views are paramount.

• Please sign your name. The US response is important since, for better or for worse, the US is a main player in geopolitics (duh). The same cannot be said for Ireland or South Africa--I had removed South Africa earlier, but someone stuck it back in. The UK, Romania, Germany--those are predictable reactions from countries that aren't directly involved. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• I didn't know how to sign my name before. Someone had to tell me. If someone else stuck South Africa back in, then maybe you should take the hint there are others who find it relevant and just leave well enough alone. Phil Kessel (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to be confused with MH370?

Do we need the hatnote "Not to be confused with Malaysia Airlines Flight 370"? I don't think someone is going to confuse the number 17 with 370. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you personally - because I know about these things, as do you (and many others). With that said, keep in mind that there are people not so knowledgeable. Bad (but true) example - after this flight when down I was outside and heard my neighbours talking - and one of them asked whether the flight that went down was the same one that disappeared a few months ago - as if MH370 had been flying around the planet the last 5 months and was suddenly shot down. The point being i totally agree with your 'starting point' mentally - but would say just leave well enough alone on the tag - b/c there are people out there who suffer from confusion (and there is no harm for leaving well enough alone imo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Kessel (talk • contribs)

• I agree with Lcmortensen and disagree with Phil Kessel for four reasons: (1) it is immediately clear from the first sentence ("...that crashed on 17 July 2014") that this is a different flight from that in March; (2) the lead already refers to MH 370 ("...after the 8 March disappearance of Flight 370 en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur"); (3) readers would need to be living under a rock not to be aware of the recent crash in order to assume that this article would be about a crash from four months ago; and (4) in general, "Not to be confused" hatnotes should only be used when a term is inherently ambiguous or confusing, not to cater to people who have no sense of current events. The hatnote should be removed. —sroc 💬 10:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the hatnote; I hope there are no objections. Randor1980 (talk | contributions) 11:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion was far too short for you to reasonably argue that there was consensus. I disagree, but unless others are willing to respond as well, there is no gain in voicing my reasoning. Dustin (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am interested in hearing your reasoning. I also agree with you that the discussion was too short. Phil Kessel (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Over 24 hours and still no reasoning. Consensus is derived from discussion based on reasoning, not !votes saying "I disagree". —sroc 💬 01:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...? Oh, to be honest, while I do disagree, I didn't care enough about this discussion and forgot about it. Dustin (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• No hatnote, per sroc and WP:NAMB. 9kat (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If I may kindly be allowed to add something to this discussion, there are people out there who adhere to a conspiracy theory regarding these two flights, saying that MH17 and MH370 were the same plane. Meşteşugarul - U 00:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous and irrelevant. The articles are clearly about different flights/planes/events (whether conspiracy theorists believe they are related or not) and even conspiracy theorists would not be "confused" into mistaking the articles based on their clear titles. —sroc 💬 01:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Press conference of representatives of the Defense Ministry of Russia for the collapse of Boeing-777

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSpeo5RcQQo free copy (a translation) http://russian.rt.com/article/41844 An official copy (a translation)

According to representatives of the United States, they have pictures from space, confirming that the launch in the direction of a Malaysian aircraft made ​​militias. But these pictures no one has seen

Original article: http://russian.rt.com/article/41844 # ixzz387B6CaK2

Russia will transfer operational control data for disaster Boeing international experts

Original article: http://russian.rt.com/article/41844 # ixzz387BDV7uB

The article in russian wikipeida

• Comment on this section: I hold it that this whole section is only an EXCUSE for heavy censoring on this Misplaced Pages article, which does not even allow a russian intelligence source to be added, which add important pieces of information to how this whole drama unfolded..... It is not about adding a "different version" (as to my knowledge, russia does not have a "different version" towards this attack, it only blames the Kiev fascists for the war going on in Ukrain and therefore also blames this whole incident "which would not have happened if there was peace in Ukrain" (Putin) on Kiev. Robheus (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Guys, just for information: you dont even imagine what is going on in the same article in Russia wikipedia. It is just absolutely closed article (no one can edit it exept administrators), and only 2 of administrators (with very pro-Putin viewpoints) editing it. Its just terrible, all neutral information deleted. If Jimmy Wales would know about that. Typical informational war. I guess it must be written here about it. 46.71.6.46 (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this one was fully protected until a short while ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a pro-Putin viewpoint, though. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ough! Here we go again! Those bad russians again! If I look at this Misplaced Pages article, it has itself also some closed mindedness (in some respect at least).... Only western intelligence information is referred to, leaving out russian inteligence (which leaves out important clues on how this tragedy could have unfolded....) Robheus (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Robheus, you fundamentally misunderstand what's going on here, which is why I deleted that mile-long rant of yours in the first place. "Only western intelligence information is referred to" is nonsense: it is simply not true. "Russian intelligence" is not left out either. What you seem to object to is that Russian sources aren't cited as much as you'd like--we don't cite "intelligence", we cite reliable sources. Well, here are some indications of what Russian "media" have to offer, so sorry if we take them with a grain of salt. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(not as much as I like) make that (no reference to russian intelligence sources AT ALL), only the Kiev fascist regime can put their 'credible' intelligence information in AND the american 'credible' intelligence information (remember Tonkin? Iraq WMD? Al Ghoula chemical attack) -- you know what I mean.Robheus (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Gee that is all OR and synthesis and some other WP newspeak. What we need is more Stalin newspeak. Juan Riley (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(JuanRiley) It was Orwelian newspeak isn't it? Big Brother Obama hears what you say... (NSA) Robheus (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Could we see some examples of sourced Russian intelligence being left out? Geogene (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Robheus, I guess you dont even see what is russian informational war. Come to Russia and see it: 24 hours per day only the same thing - pro-Russian separatist did NOt do it, it s all Ukrainian government. And unfortunatell, same in russian Misplaced Pages. 46.71.6.46 (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• I know what information war is - I am old enough to have witnessed the cold war! This is just a different version of it. Robheus (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think its true that 'we don't even imagine what is going on in the same article in Russian Misplaced Pages ' - we can imagine what corruption and lies Russian fascism is capable of games putin plays - Sayerslle (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey I just saw Russian Misplaced Pages on CNN, this is a propaganda war. Seeing that this is making news and isn't likely to go away maybe we should make another article covering the media war? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason why one can't add a section to Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine article. RGloucester — ☎ 02:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh, what does Jimbo Wales have to do with perfectly respective of guidelines editing of an article that any good sir or madam can come and stick their stuff in there? Look at their article and look at ours. THREE times I was removing NATO reporting name of the Buk missile from there (NO, THIS IS NOT RELEVANT FOR GOD'S SAKE!), and THREE times I removed pictures of Obama and such from the Reactions section. Tomorrow morning, betcha anything they'll be there again... Just... What's the point... Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:COOL please, you don't have to place things in caps to get your point across. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass: Are you the one who was removing images when there was still plenty of room? Dustin (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Accident vs. incident

In numerous places in the article, this fatal event is described as an "incident". There appears to be some confusion about the terminology. As per the FAA, NTSB, ICAO and EASA definitions the terms accident and incidence have very clear and distinct meanings in air safety investigation field:

• An accident is an occurrence where an aircraft sustains serious major damage or there are serious injuries or fatalities
• An incident is an occurrence where, other than an accident, that affects the aircraft's safety of flight (i.e. no fatalities or major damage)

As per the internationally accepted air safety investigation terminology, this event should be described as an "accident", which is the term being used by the investigating authorities for MH17. The two terms have distinct meanings and should not be confused. Please change descriptions of incident to accident. I'd also note that this mix-up of terminology appears to be carried over to several other air accident articles --DigitalRevolution (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In standard speech, however, an "accident" implies it was unintentional, which it was certainly not. KonveyorBelt 00:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes an intentional act is referred to an accident in common usage in certain contexts, because it may have intentional by the perpetrator but not by the victim. "Accident" is the correct aviation term, and is not incorrect in connection with criminal acts. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that? These chuckleheads probably thought they were shooting down a military plane, and now they are in a sh$tstorm of trouble. --Malerooster (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no implication of intentionality in "accident", as when describing an auto accident in common speech. Besides which, accident is the term being used by most media outlets and it is the term used by all air safety investigation agencies for this type of occurrence. Describing it as "deadly air incident" is a complete misnomer, since an incident that involves fatalities is, by definition, an accident. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Road authorities in my part of the world explicitly avoid using the word "accident" to describe most car crashes these days, because most crashes, according to normal English usage, are not accidents. This approach has been followed by the media here. We should be using normal English language here rather than an artificial form used within the aviation industry that doesn't match common and common sense usage. This was no accident. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A criminal act is an accident with respect to the victim. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

An intentional act is by definition not an accident, regardless of how ICAO etc chose to misuse common English - Misplaced Pages is written for the benefit of its readers, not to conform with misleading jargon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we see verse and chapter on that grumpy? Or is it just your current curmudgeonly opinion? Juan Riley (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You need 'chapter and verse' that the English Misplaced Pages is written in English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, a criminal act is considered an accident from the standpoint of the victim. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Where? Everywhere? Are you sure? HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't argue with admins McClenon...then you are a troll and end with another barnstar of infamy on your talk page. Juan Riley (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

So Abraham Lincoln was accidently shot in Ford's Theater? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to disregard the widely accepted international definition of accident for an air safety investigation accident, that's your prerogative. But the term incident shouldn't be used in that case, as incident has a clear (and legally defined) meaning, which this event does not fit. You can call it a "fatal event", "occurrence" or "air crash", but it is not an incident. Using the term incident downplays the severity of this event. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring..else I would have posted something snarky like "The last response/rebuttal to grumpy was incidentally/accidentally archived." Juan Riley (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Using the term 'accident' is misleading, regardless of industry jargon (which has little to do with law anyway). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

DigitalRevolution - I use the word "incident" quite frequently in normal English. For example, as a teacher, I write Incident Reports on misbehaving students. When I, and most of the rest of the world's English speakers use the word, it has no legal implications. This is Misplaced Pages, written in mainstream English. It's not an aviation industry manual written in that industry's jargon. Using the word "accident" in mainstream English is simply wrong for this event. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It should say "disaster", as is in both Russian and Ukrainian WPs. That would cover both terms pretty much. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That I would agree with. And it would remain consistent with the Iran Air 655 shootdown page, in which the word "disaster" is preferred. "Incident" is the incorrect terminology for this event, as it implies an occurrence of minor severity.--DigitalRevolution (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Disaster" can be ambiguous in some cases. "Incident" is the best term here. United States Man (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Incident. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump — clarity to laypeople supersedes technical jargon accuracy. So much the better if an alternative word can be found, though "disaster" seems POV. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Covered by Daily Show

This article (specifically, certain edits to it) was mentioned on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on July 21, 2014. {{press}} doesn't seem well suited to TV coverage so I'll leave that to others. EEng (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(Glad to see you're not wasting your time watching TV programes about MH17, EEng. lol) But what did it say? Which edits did it mention? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

clip EEng (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"THIS VIDEO ONLY PLAYS IN THE UNITED STATES", haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Works for me and I'm on Jupiter. EEng (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The map with all the dots

I like this map, it is helpful to see the various territories compared with the flight path and crash location. However, I can't seem to find the key for what all the dots mean. I'm assuming they are cities with the dots size-linked to population, BUT there is no way to know this for sure without someone adding them to the key. 72.35.149.153 (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI: At the very top of the article page, right hand corner, look for "Coordinates" and click on the little globe for an interactive map of the region. I don't know if it exactly corresponds to the little red dots you like, but it is the area of the crash site. If you click on the various titles there on that map, it will take you to a WP article about that subject matter. You could also copy and paste those coordinates into google or bing maps and get an overview of the area.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not the only one - see File talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crash site.png. Pinging User:Alex1961, the author, for clarification. Ansh666 07:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

well apparently they just got a 3rr block from editing this page... so not sure how soon (if ever) we'll get an update... anyone know the backstory there? 72.35.149.153 (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No, and I don't want to. Anyways, that was two or three days ago (not sure about time zones), pretty sure they weren't blocked when I pinged. Ansh666 09:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm curious whether the block had to do with the map or not, considering we are considering changes to it (but otherwise happy with it) 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the article may soon need a more localized map, as people are starting to geo-locate some of the evidential photos that have been in circulation. e.g. one of the photos showing a Buk launcher at a garage in Torez has been placed here 48°01′28″N 38°36′55″E / 48.024460°N 38.615144°E / 48.024460; 38.615144, while another has been placed here 48°01′01″N 38°45′20″E / 48.0169453°N 38.7556253°E / 48.0169453; 38.7556253 1.44.71.47 (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The map needs labels, especially for the more important dots. I can add them if someone can identify the places (if so, please leave a message on my Talk page). cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Flags again

After I had spent some time and trouble getting the "reactions" section more into line with WP:PROSE, User:Knowledgekid87 came along and restored the tiny flags, citing this archived discussion. Quite apart from the fact that there was no clear consensus in that discussion that the flags added anything, I referred the user to the excellent essay WP:DRNC; simply reverting a change claiming "no consensus" is bone-headed in the extreme and unWikipedian behaviour. If there is any actual reason to restore the tiny flags, now would be the chance to discuss it. Failing that, I think WP:PROSE and WP:ICONDECORATION (as well as common sense) would indicate that "my" version was the better one. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I never have seen any purpose. Get rid of them. United States Man (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is also another excellent essay, the arguements presented the the former discussion mentioned WP:ICONDECORATION not applying as the flags serve the reader as a visual rather than them seeing a wall of text. Anyways I will have to reply more to this later I have to get back to work here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I liked your version better John, it was definitely an improvement and made that section readable as opposed to a giant wall of text with flag icons.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The results were not in prose though , much of the info was still kept in list format minus the flags. I would see WP:PROSE as being a compromise but as per the guideline it needs to flow well and not still look like a list of countries. There are two ways of presenting information one in stand alone list format and the other in prose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The result you're showing sure looks like prose to me. They were summarized in short paragraphs and sentences rather than bullet points or flag icons.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Suppose it doesn't make any difference now. Someone has added some horrible infobox type structures to really make them stand out.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, that really is horrible. --John (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You are surprising me considering your administrator status. You should know better than to insult others' work. I don't care about the flags, that's not the reason I added the wikitable. Dustin (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

John has a better knowledge of guidelines and policies than most editors here, and a hell of a lot more experience than anyone, except for maybe one. So he calls a spade a spade--how is that wrong? Should he have said that the table was the opposite from pretty? If Misplaced Pages editors need a pat on the shoulder after every edit we'll be here until Doomsday. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Dustin V. S.: John is a tough nut to crack, but he means well at heart. As one might see on his user page, I've had a similar spat with him in the past. In fact, many months ago I believe I suggested that he take a look at Ukraine-related articles, so you can thank me for his "rudeness". Regardless, I've learned now that he was right back then when we had our previous spat, and I'm sure he's right now. Ignore his style, focus on his substance. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is getting tedious now, if not disruptive. The issue was discussed; there was NO CONSENSUS for removal. Therefore, the flags stay. Some editors need to accept that they are in the minority, and move on. Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to follow your own advice if you are finding it tedious. Prose is better than lists for material of this type, and prose doesn't need the tiny flags. Let's continue to discuss towards a compromise. --John (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose the straw poll in the way it is being presented. Misplaced Pages is not a vote. Dustin (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care whether you keep the flags now that I have made the text somewhat organized in a table, but if you remove the flags and the wikitable, you are left with an entirely disorganized mess, and you make it ten times harder to navigate through said mess. Dustin (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Another thing to note about this bad straw poll is WP:!VOTE guideline number 8, consensus has obviously not been reached already, and there is no value in having a poll such as this without associated reasoning. For those reasons, this entire poll so far is useless. Dustin (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Pulling out policy is convincing to no one. Nobody else has objected. United States Man (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If you actually take action solely based on this straw poll, I will report this. Dustin (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Plus, this isn't to determine consensus. It is to see where people stand. United States Man (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If you actually remove both the flags and the table, then you are left with a terribly disorganized mess that complicates it for the reader and doesn't have each country's statement begin with the name of that country. Removing both would have negative consequences which you still fail to address. Dustin (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Im not sure Dustin, there are two ways we can present the information, as I said above if we do condense the reactions into a paragraph and place a picture in the section then it is really no different than the rest of the article. I still have not ruled out making a separate article discussing the reactions and media reactions more in detail about the shootdown of the plane. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, another reason I am unhappy about this is that there are people who are insulting my work. That is my time which would then go completely unappreciated, and worse, it gets insulted. Dustin (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if you take it as a personal attack, proposals and things I have done in the past on Misplaced Pages have been called stupid and dumb as well just keep in mind that the editors who say those things are taking their personal opinion and having it get in the way of editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to seem too sensitive... Dustin (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll

The only way this will get anywhere is if we become clear on where people stand, so pick your favorite and sign your name...

Include both the flags and the table

Remove table, keep flags

• There's actually a table! Remove it. I'm not fighting over these here flags, but that table needs to go. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove flags and table, make a paragraph

1. United States Man (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
2. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
3. WWGB (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
4. RGloucester — ☎ 00:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Russia raises 10 more questions

An RT report has come out yesterday which raises 10 more question concerning the downing of MH17. The report can be read here. It also debunks some of the material put out by the Kiev govt. (a video that supposedly shows a BUK carrier on it's way to russia after the incident), while photographic evidence show that the video shot was taken somewhere else. Could a reference to this interesting news report be made in the section: causes in which intelligence reports of both sides are listed? (Something like an addition: Russia asks 10 more questions, and then a link to the footnote that links to the newsreport) Thanks. Robheus (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

maybe time for Russian answers robheus - the wp article isn't meant to be an adjunct to RT misinformation services you know - (have they 'debunked' all the BUK stories, or just selected ones) - apparently the U.S have located where the missile was launched from - - have Russia debunked all the sightings of BUK missiles on the day? I doubt it. Brown Moses has also 'debunked' the red herring BUK carrier and 'it appears there’s a growing consensus of where the aircraft was hit, the front port side,' Sayerslle (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle - I am NOT a supporter of the current American president, but racist remarks on the TP are strictly forbidden and I adjusted your post.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@HammerFilm Fan - I have no idea what racist remarks you are alluding to - lost in translation must be. Brown moses is the nom de plume of Eliot Higgins Sayerslle (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC) @Sayerslle - my apologies - that moniker is often applied to the current American president - I jumped the gun there. I promise to eat a live cockroach in repentence. But I have been known to lie. :-) Sorry.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Answers to what questions? If some entity asks questions russia should answer, the news article that makes such a statement can be presented as well. And I don't answer your questions. These questions are adressed to the accusing party and might be considerd in an overall objective investigation. One of the questions is the release of satelite data from the US satelite. Is that information released yet? And the communication between Kiev and the airplane? And your whole contribution is just bias contra RT information. The RT newsrelease only reports findings the russian defense ministry has and the questions they raise. That is some neutral news.

One can try at least to be neutral towards that information, like similar press releases from other entitities are also presented here (while some/many have severe doubts about those findings as well, for example fro the Ukrainian side). Why should the information from the Kiev regime or the US (which we know have mislead the world in similar circumstances - Iraq remember?) be given more trust then Russian information? Misplaced Pages is not the arbiter of truth in this matter, that should be the task of an international investigation team. Stop being biased. Robheus (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I want non biased articles robheus. a few lines to the Russian regime version, fine. rushing to add every last 'question' RT has for whomever- that's too much imo. Sayerslle (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The Netherlands has been raising only one question to Putin: Why do you promise to do everything in your power to ensure international experts to access the crash (where 193 Dutch national died) but show no observable action in actually ensuring this. No answer has been forthcoming from Russia on that single question. Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

here is an article looks at the ten questions Sayerslle (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Russia and its versions/theories/media reports

I'd like to propose we leave everything the the Russian medias state alone. There is constant debate about whether or not it's propaganda, what is reliable and what isn't, etc. Look, if nobody trusts RT, then don't put up their references. Right now the Russian side of the story is very well covered, the reader knows that they consider there was an Ukrainian plane nearby seconds before the crash. That's it. Adding things up makes people constantly question that statement, and then the debate about whether or not this is true begins each and every time. Please, don't add more information until a non-Russian source confirms this, and don't create sections about the "Russian version", because that obviously serves to instigate the debate. Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree here. This back and forth is helping nothing, especially with the lack of outside sources. United States Man (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What about information from the US government, or even worse the Ukrainian government, that has not been confirmed by outside sources? There is a lot of propaganda and lying happening from both sides. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know where you get that. There are plenty of outside sources. United States Man (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Example: US measurement and signature intelligence satellites of the Space-Based Infrared Systems Directorate and the Defence Support Progamme detected the infrared signature of the missile strike upon flight MH17. These satellites are also likely to have registered the heat signature of the launch of the missile, and the activation of the missile's radar system while in flight to the target (which emits a unique signal). Analysis of the launch plume and trajectory suggested the missile was fired from an area between Torez and Snizhne. How much of this section has been confirmed by outside sources? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were implying that nothing was covered by outside sources. If it isn't backed up, then dump it, no matter what country. United States Man (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

But, unless it is government or government-controlled, it needs to be kept. United States Man (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The information is government controlled. Independent media merely repeating government information do not make the information more credible. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• What needs to be done is a decent discussion on WP:RSN, for starters (I haven't checked their archives), with possibly a separate WP:RFC. We will find, no doubt, that RT for instance is reliable in some aspects but not in others, so a narrow question like "should they be trusted for information on topic X" would be most helpful. For now, this talk page is maybe not the place to do so--but as I'm typing this, I'm wondering. Maybe it is. But whatever we do, let's do it properly and quickly, so we can stop this constant back and forth yelling of "propaganda". Drmies (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I found a few archived discussions on RSN. Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_168#RT_news_and_Crimean_status_referendum.2C_2014 is maybe not so helpful; Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140#Can_RT_be_.22banned.22_on_principle_from_a_particular_article this is interesting since it addresses a specific topic, and I think I agree with the last two commenters; and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_173#Russia_Today is a very recent and heated discussion, with a conclusion that's worth reading, if only because it has a conclusion I think is valid: "No consensus that RT is or is not reliable for general purposes. If someone has a specific claim RT is trying to make about a specific article, they are welcome to request a discussion again". Drmies (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is an adequate comparison, but I personally consider RT's role in this whole affair to be similar to CNN's role in MH370. Spout conspiracy theories, get ignored or ridiculed by mainstream (Western) media. Then again, CNN isn't funded by the Russian government. Ansh666 16:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I disagree. CNN was blatantly trying to tug at heartstrings, and they were doing an experiment on how low they could get Don Lemon to stoop in order to boost ratings. It was a disgusting spectacle, but if it was propaganda it was so only for the almighty dollar. RT's role is quite different here, IMO. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • In Europe publicly funded TV stations are normal, and they usually have higher quality reporting than private media. RT citing Russian government sources or CNN citing US government sources are equally (non)trustworthy. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
      • But the problem is when fringe theories are cited from government sources. Why would we have to repeat conspiracies? Drmies (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      The problem is RT just gets direct and clear instructions from the Kremlin. Whether you call it propaganda or not is not so much important. CNN may be horribly biased at times, but they never go to the White House for instructions.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      And Russian language sources for internal consumption (including all major TV stations) are typically outrageous. For instance, between March and May, when they were talking about Ukrainian Government they would either call it "Kiev Junta", or say "So called government which came to power after an illegal coup". Just all of them, at all programs.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      Look carefully for such language on this talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      Just like the complete Western media had the exact opposite view and considered the revolutionary side legitimate. Just all of them, at all programs. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution removed a president who had been elected in free and fair elections. Why is a EU-backed revolution against the president considered legitimate in the Western media, but a Russian-backed revolution to get separation from Ukraine is not? Or the other way round in Russian media? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      The Western media are debating whether it was legitimate (and indeed often come to a conclusion it was - but not always). In Russian mainstream media, there is no debate whatsoever. Like now, the Ukrainian army deliberately shot down the plane. Period. Not up to debate.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Very well said, the case in a nutshell. /♥фĩłдωəß♥\ 19:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that debating serves nothing, as long as any reasonable proof is found, don't you? If the West wants to debate (what we're doing, basically), have it. Russians don't like debating over things for nothing, they don't have time for that. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and "in the Soviet Union they did not have sex". /♥фĩłдωəß♥\ 20:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the joke aside... Russians, as in most Russians, do not know how to debate over nothing, which is an entirely different animal. They certainly do have the time, but if they were to debate, they most probably will end up in a fight (as Russian and Ukrainian politicians do on TV). /♥фĩłдωəß♥\ 20:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

See, that's exactly what I meant. People branding "non-mainstream" chain of reported events as "Russian version" and going to criticize it. Also, mainstream = Western? Whoa there! But anyway, just because this medium is backed by the Kremlin doesn't mean we should discuss the medium itself. Rather than that, the only question is whether or not RT is reliable or not. And frankly, I don't want that question being raised any so often. This is why I proposed we keep the "Russian side" short and clear, and based off sources that were confirmed by at least one outside media agency. Considering RT broadcasts in English, maybe there's a way to have another non-Russia affiliated news company reprise what RT says, and reference that in the article? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Secondary sources discussing Russian version of events: Wall Street Journal and CNN-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and this is why it belongs there. Citing just RT would be insufficient, even in English. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Here is the question: should certain "news organizations" be treated as legitimate news, or they should be treated as a PSYOP organizations and operations. In fact, people who intentionally promote an outright disinformation, as described here, are no longer journalists. What they publish has very little to do with news. What they do is promoting confusion and hatred. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

exactly - and heres an article about RT pushing more false claims - this time about the location of a launcher - Sayerslle (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS, "Claim", "Alleged"

As recommended in the MOS, I've been rewording points in the article where "claim", "alleged", and "supposedly" are used so that the article doesn't disparage the assertions of various parties. Instead I've tried attribute the purported facts to whoever is speaking. I doubt this will cause problems, but since I've been doing this for a few days now I wanted to mention it again here. Geogene (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with user:MarsRover on not using "forensic conclusions" but disagree with the editor's re-addition of the word "claim", for the reasons given above. Geogene (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to include RT then the use of the word "claim" is completely accurate. The text is vague claims with a lot of innuendo. All sourced to Kremlin officials. To call it anything else is actually inflating it more than even RT is stating. If you want to get rid of the word "claim" just delete the whole paragraph. --MarsRover (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In this instance it doesn't matter if we're using RT or citing Putin himself. The Russians have made some statements, we're passing along what they said without disclaimers. The things that the Russians have said have generally been ridiculous but that is aside from the point that we aren't supposed to editorialize them as such. In this case RT is probably a reliable source as it is reporting on the Kremlin's viewpoint, something a Kremlin mouthpiece would be particularly good for. Geogene (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem I saw in this regard that when writing about what RT said about what Russian officials said, the first sentence clearly attributed "According to so and so...". But subsequent sentences in a paragraph omitted the attribution and slipped into Misplaced Pages voice, relating various... claims, made by Russian government or media as fact. That's clearly inappropriate. In that case I agree with MarsRover, you do need some "claims" in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The same is also true for any reporting that is based on the statements of any government, including media just reporting on the White House's viewpoint or claims (see Iraq and weapons of mass destruction). It is important to tell who said what, not present any disputed claims as facts. 19:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to retain the attribution of facts. My concern is that it's probably better to do that with "said", "stated", or "wrote" than "claimed" or "alleged", words often used to manipulate a message. We can't actually come out and say that the Russians or US intelligence (pick one) are telling lies, unless we have reliable sources that say the same thing. So logically we shouldn't go out of our way to imply it either. Geogene (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

To the extent that it's grammatically and stylistically possible I agree with you. But we don't want a paragraph with a lot of "and then he said that blah blah blah. And then they said that moo moo moo. And then they said that boink boink boink.". "Claim" is an (imperfect) synonym for "said" so dropping it in once in awhile is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The MOS says that "claim" should not be used when it isn't warranted. For much of this material, however, it clearly is warranted.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple references

Does Misplaced Pages have any policies relating to multiple references for the same fact? This article appears to have this quite often with good sources and I do feel they may be unnecessary excess for the article, but am loathe to remove reliable or notable sources. CSJJ104 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In general one reference per fact should be enough. In practice it is sometimes more subtle; so you need to be sure before pruning down. E.g. my own edits on combined Dutch Malaysian responses required two references as there was no single reference that list the half-mast protocols of both countries in a single source. So in that case we would need both references.

It is getting more tricky with editors who have little understanding of the why of referencing. Some editors seriously believe that more references makes a point more true (so 1+1=2 is more true than 1+1=2).

And then we have the difficult problem that in political issues subtle differences in how sources word a comment can turn out to be all important so some duplication may be warranted.

To be honest I do not think this article is a major problem in this respect at this moment, I would wait out the storm and then we can always start pruning down truly redundant references. Arnoutf (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Controversial statements or statements which will likely be challenged require strong sourcing - not just sourcing. This is especially true of BLP statements, articles in controversial topic areas such as this, and articles that are controversial by themselves such as this.--v/r - TP 19:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple references are perfectly fine, so long as they are different reports on the same topic and not duplicate references — a case which occasionally arises when a few hundred newspapers pull the same story off the same newswire service and publish it verbatim. That both Sky News and Fox News are reporting that Associated Press says an aeroplane was shot down over eastern Ukraine counts as one source, not two, if they're running the same report from the same source. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:74F (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Although to note that a lot of references also set the bullshit alarm going, most facts dont need more than one reliable reference except as TParis states when it is controversial it might mean two or three but any more is a sign of hunting out references to make a point. That said any over referencing can be sorted out later. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

Change:

''], a town in Donetsk Oblast that is approximately {{convert|16|km|m}} southeast of the crash site.''

to:

''], a town in Donetsk Oblast that is approximately {{convert|16|km|mi}} southeast of the crash site.''

Converting this to metres makes no sense and is clearly a propaganda attempt to make the distance look to be really far (oh, it's SIXTEEN THOUSAND away!!!) when really this is just ten miles. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:74F (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done, I think that was just a typo to be fair. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"According to the WSJ"

For the benefit of CorrectKissinTime, in regard to this edit, no, citing a primary source is never better. Also, your italics are incorrect. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• When all a source is doing is saying FlightAware said and then printing what they said, that is not a secondary source.
• WP:PRIMARY says A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Both websites are using ADS-B, and both are telling when their data is not based on that due to lack of ADS-B coverage.

CorrectKissinTime (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• OK: "when all a source is doing..." is pure nonsense, and shows that you possibly don't understand the concept of editorial oversight. "Both websites are using..."--maybe. But are the reporting/interpreting/displaying correctly? Do they have editorial oversight? Take it to WP:RSN, where you'll find that citing the WSJ will be accepted (even if the WSJ reports what one of those sites said), but that reporting the sites themselves is questionable.

  Admins, I think someone should have a word with this editor about this revert, which is incorrect for reasons given above--and then click "undo". Since they have all of 140 edits on Misplaced Pages it is perfectly understandable that they don't have a very firm grasp of policy and guidelines, but this is a bit disruptive: we should not cite primary sources unless they are filtered through reliable outlets. (And see also Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_1#last_known_position, for instance--and I think there may be a post in a more recent archive about the possible unreliability of such data sites.) Drmies (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Admins, I think someone should have a word with this editor about this edit. Unless it is wanted that a paragraph containing correct information gets changed into a paragraph with obviously incorrect information - wrongly placing heavy blame on the airline. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

80 children

"Eighty of the passengers were children.

- was removed with the edit summary "Removed, source seems unreliable. Says 23 US citizens where there was 1. Eighty is also unreliable as such." But I'm not so sure. I think it's a lot easier to confuse dual-nationals than it is to confuse ages. The "80 children" figure has been widely reported, e.g: , and was actually quoted by Australian Foreign Minister Julia Bishop at the UN: . So I think it should be returned. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think removing that was sort of silly. Go ahead and restore it. United States Man (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It has a little more impact if you realise that over a quarter of the people on board were children - 27%. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• It has no impact whatsoever, and should be removed. Children are no different than anyone else. They are just people. Marking out that "children" were killed is just an attempt at sensationalism and an appeal to pathos. Let the number of dead speak for itself. Do not try and appeal to people's emotions about "children". We must remain neutral and encyclopaedic here. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial for dead children. RGloucester — ☎ 22:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not "trying to appeal to people's emotions about "children". I'm adding facts. But I'd disagree with you, that "Children are no different than anyone else. They are just people." I think that's a fundamentally wrong view, for all sorts of reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Im in favor of adding it because the number of children deaths does stand out and that aspect has been discussed in sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do people keep removing well-sourced and relevant material from the article?

Can anyone answer that question? Dustin (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What's relavent depends on perspective. There is too much pathos in this article as it stands. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to examples of that sort, what I mean is for example, I believe the reactions section regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization involved more than just "my condolences"-type information. That is just one example; there are numerous others. Dustin (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't remove the NATO response, but NATO isn't involved and doesn't want to be involved and according to Rutte shouldn't be involved, so there's three arguments for its removal. A counterquestion might be, why do people keep inserting irrelevant and/or poorly sourced material? Drmies (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• It might be argued that NATO was "involved" by being asked by the Netherlands to take control ? But that position has now changed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In the news (Flight MH17’s Misplaced Pages page edited by Russian government)

Interesting read An IP address associated with Vladimir Putin’s office has made multiple edits to the Misplaced Pages page for the MH17 flight page

The edits were made to the Russian Misplaced Pages so not directly relevant here. WWGB (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikitable

The reason was because there were complaints regarding ordering the countries by direct involvement versus ordering them alphabetically. The formatting does not have any problems, so I don't see why the complaint. Dustin (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Extremely ugly and unencyclopedic IMO. Why do we need a sortable table when there are only about six lines? Please restore prose and/or bullet format. WWGB (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, people on this talk page are extremely rude. While you can say you dislike whatever for whatever reasons, you can keep your rude words to yourself. Dustin (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ugly" is now a rude word? Wow, that's precious. My words would be "rude" if I said it was a F&%#&*@ S#%&$@ I&$@. Have a beautiful day, free from any ugliness. WWGB (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is about the fact that you are insulting my work. Dustin (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian - Malaysian dual citizenship impossible

In the table People on board by nationality another editor persists in adding a note against Australia and Malaysia that there was a dual Malaysian-Australian citizen on flight MH17. Now under Malaysian nationality law, Malaysia does not allow dual citizenship. I have advised the editor of this fact and attempted to remove the false information, but he continues to assert information which is clearly incorrect. I don't want to engage in an edit war, so I would sooner seek the opinion of other interested editors. I just want to remove the reference to dual AU-MY citizenship as it is clearly incorrect. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• You have to discuss based on sources, not based on your "clearly incorrect" claims. The information and source situation for the Australian citizens and residents is currently a mess.
• Based on the information in Ms. Teoh was not an Australian citizen, so why are you discussing her? Mrs. Dewa is a more likely candidate for dual Malaysian/Australian citizenship.
• Malaysian nationality law might not allow dual citizenship. This does not exclude the possibility of someone not telling the Malaysian government that he also has another citizenship.

CorrectKissinTime (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• 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 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