![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
{{archivetop|Please see: [[Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Response]] - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 03:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} Most of the reactions are just not relevant to the incident but the longer they remain the more and more keep getting added. Most of these reactions are standard diplomatic fare and have no relevance to the incident. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I reworded the following paragraph to something more coherent. I am not entirely certain, however, that it has a place on the MH17 article.
The UK newspaper The Telegraph of 7/18 reported, that the Russian government allegedly modify or delete information on Wikipedia says it helps provide missiles to shoot down military aircraft breakaway Malaysia and changed a Russian language version of a page listing civil aviation accidents to say that "The plane [flight MH17] was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers". An application used to track information on Wikipedia was edited by the computer IP address from within the Russian government bodies discovered above actions.
AnselaJonla ( talk) 10:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Some big news that has just come in in the past few minutes. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/19/pro-russia-rebels-accused-of-cover-up-over-mh17-atrocity-live-updates TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I would also add that "Off-duty coal miners, along with local police and rescue crews, combed through debris searching for any survivors." sentence in the 'Aftermath' section is not in congruence with the source. A more appropriate phrasing would be "Off-duty coal miners, along with local police and rescue crews, combed through debris." We have no idea what they were looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.91.189 ( talk) 14:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
How is this link supposedly not necessary? It definitely is relevant. Dustin (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
What about @spainbuca's comments? He -allegedly- a Spanish air controller in Ukraine. He tweeted that 2 military jets escorted the passanger plain. His twitter page (!10 500 tweets!) has been deleted recently but you can still read his comments (#spainbuca). FOCUS.DE also mentions him [1] Fakirbakir ( talk) 12:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Not every claim about what happened is equally supported by the evidence. Some claims are more conspiratorial and less evidence supported than others. Preferring the better supported account is not politically biased. It is, in fact, politically biased to declared them all conspiracy theories of equal validity. Der Spiegel mentions our Spanish flight controller story to say the story is "falsch". Der Spiegel goes on to note all the other B.S. being spread in the Russian media. Are you going to tell me this German publisher of pro-Edward Snowden stories is "a paid US Govt troll"?-- Brian Dell ( talk) 01:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thoughts on:
Widefox; talk 19:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the flags in the passenger death toll by country per WP:FLAGBIO. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Widefox; talk 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Put them back, especially in the list of world reactions. They make it easy to home in the one or two you want to read, instead of having to scan the whole paragraph. 141.6.11.18 ( talk) 15:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with Knowledgekid87. We regularly use flags to indicate to the countries whose officials reacted on the event, so there is no reason to avoid that practice just because of some trivial reasons stated above. And since the whole section may become rather long with the reaction from every single country, my suggestion is to create a separate page that will list all reactions to the accident and keep just few of them in the section.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 16:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure where exactly this should be mentioned, but there is a growing dispute between Australia and Russia over the shoot-down. The gist is that when the PM addressed parliament and the nation, he characterised it as a crime, and implicated Russia in the disaster (which have since been repeated by the Queensland premier; Brisbane is hosting the G20 summit later this year, which Putin is scheduled to attend).
Now, while I am aware that the prevailing political and public opinion worldwide is that Russia bears some degree of responsibility - exactly how much remains to be seen - the PM was the first world leader to publicly make the connection. MH17 was shot down at 12:15am AEDT, and the PM addressed parliament some time between 8:15am and 11:00am AEDT. To the best of my knowledge, no other world leader brought up Russia's role until at least twenty-four hours after the shoot-down.
The PM's comments and the subsequent summoning of the Russian ambassador to the foreign ministry were not received well by the Russians, to the point where they addressed his comments directly. As far as I know, the Russians have not addressed any other world leader's comments directly the way they have Australia's.
So my question is this: is this unique within the global community, and if so, how should it be addressed in the article? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not trying to POVPUSH - merely trying to ascertain notability, and for that, I had to provide some context - the timeline of events - as to what happened and when, since other countries have since made the suggestion that Russia was in some way responsible. What I am uncertain of is whether or not Russia has taken the time to address the statements of every nation that has accused Russia in some way, shape or form, or if Australia is unique in that regard - and if it is unique, then how that should be addressed in the article. After all, Australia lost 28 citizens in the shoot-down, holds a temporary seat on the UN Security Council, and has already made some pretty serious diplomatic moves against Russia, some of which have been reciprocated. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 07:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
what about those who know what hapened before any investigation ?
Another talk page section positively screaming out to be deleted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
As has been reported,here [ [17]], 8 permanent Australian residents were found to have been using Dutch and Malaysian Passports. I have updated the Australian dead, but since they used passports from other countries does this mean they may have been counted among the Malaysian and Dutch dead? -- Empire of War ( talk) 09:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe they should go under dual nationality for now. Supersaiyen312 ( talk) 10:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding information about Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs
Radosław Sikorski (playing an important role in formulating the European response to Russian annexation of Crimea, etc., a few months ago) who travelled to Kiev earlier this week and said (
reportedly on 15 July) that "These are mobile rockets whose sale is governed by international rules and they are forbidden from being supplied to non-state groups, because that creates the possibility of the proliferation of these kinds of weapons, which creates a danger to civil aviation around the world."
Source:
"Polish politics: Where is Radek?".
The Economist. 18 July 2014. (currently on The Economist's front page)
However, I'm not sure which section would be appropriate for this (or maybe it's non-notable anyway?), as it doesn't really qualify as an "event before the crash." —
Mayast (
talk)
10:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Pretty strong press conference by Dutch PM just now. He states to be disgusted by the lack of respect of people messing around at the crash site; against all international treaties. He openly states that Putin is rapidly losing the chance to show the world he is serious about supporting independent investigation. He also states that everyone hindering the salvage operation is making themselves suspects. [20] This is, with Frans Timmermans (foreing minister of NL) press conference of about an hour ago by far the strongest language used by the Dutch. Should we do something with this? Arnoutf ( talk) 16:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
She may not be a big celeb nor matter to western audience but Shuba Jaya http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysian-actress-dutch-hubby-and-baby-die-with-mh17 was a known actress in her country and region, and needs to be included as notable people onboard. inspector ( talk) 15:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Also keep an eye on this article. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not understanding this table, If Dutch-Belgian is included in Belgium dual-citizen section, why isnt the passener along with Dutch-Israeli,-Ducth-Vietnamese,-Dutch-Malaysian, Dutch-American listed in dual-citizen section of Netherlands, same for UK and New Zealand where the UK-South African and a UK-New Zealand citizen should be in the dual-citizen section of UK and New Zealand. How does one know that the people have kept ther own former nationalties and not renounced them in favour of the new ones, should they then be identified with their former countries? no other passenger tables in such articles have the dual citizen section, there was an Indian on Malaysian 370 who took up Canadian citizenship he isnt listed amongst the Indian passengers, only as Canadian. inspector ( talk) 16:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I give a piece of news to those dealing with this article:
RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought it would be useful to keep a list of consensuses on the top of the talk page in order to calm down the edit warring and confusion. Here's what I can gather so far (please correct me if I'm wrong): Flagicons in responses: KEEP Flagicons in passenger list: KEEP Condolences in reactions: REMOVE Timeline of flight: REMOVE Nathan121212 ( talk) 19:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit busy, feel free to implement a Q&A on the top of this page (see example provided above by User:Knowledgekid87) Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Some sources, such as the BBC, are referring to this flight as Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 ( see here for example). Should we move the article to reflect that, or is Flight 17 the correct title? This is Paul ( talk) 18:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The article states "A single BUK missile launcher cannot acquire a target without the radar and target support provided by the other vehicles." Logically this makes no sense, as the whole point of a mobile system is to be able to protect attacking forces as the edge of the battlefield changes. Other sources (e.g. [1]) state that the TELAR itself can track and fire on targets independently but lacks the increased range and global situational awareness that integration with one or more higher levels of C&C provides, including awareness of commercial traffic from civilian ATC sources.
67.173.128.39 ( talk) 20:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Desperate times, y'all. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please expand the first ref (for the map) in "The Ukrainian case" section to:
"Maps of the Crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 - NYTimes.com".
The New York Times. 2014-07-19. Retrieved 2014-07-19. {{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) Cites
National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine as Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense.
—
Jeff G. ツ
(talk)
23:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Everyone, please remember that uncontroversial requests (like this one) can be fulfilled without discussion. Nyttend ( talk) 23:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes this is interesting... Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17. A political battle has broken out on Wikipedia over an entry relating to the crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, with the Russian government reportedly removing sections which accuse it of providing "terrorists" with missiles that were used to down the civilian airliner TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if true, which country gov is free of they V-column ?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hope someone will add this quote by Australian Prime Minister, I think it is one of the best;
"Russian controlled territory, Russian-backed rebels, quite likely a Russian supplied weapon - Russia can’t wash its hands of this"
HiLo you are well known in the Wikipedia community for you far-left and anti-Abbott views, I understand that. But put aside your politics like Labor and Liberal have done. I'm not a fan of Abbott either, but I think this is one of the clearest and most condemning quotes used against Russia over this tragedy.-- Empire of War ( talk) 01:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
He has told me himself so it's okay, but in my personal experience HiLo has always tried to derail my messages, even on this one. By posting that message he tries to start mini-fights with me. I retract the statement, we should stick to the tragedy and real facts and leave the derailers to their own being-- Empire of War ( talk) 01:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I removed my comments as well Brown? I did it to stop an argument forming, I want to stay on topic here stop derailing it-- Empire of War ( talk) 01:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please fix this redlink: I originally fixed with this edit, but it was broken again by Simfan34 with this edit. Dustin (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
NYT July 19 KIEV, Ukraine — The Ukrainian government said on Saturday that it had proof that Russia had provided the surface-to-air missile system that shot down a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet over eastern Ukraine on Thursday, killing all 298 people aboard. ... At a news conference in Kiev, the capital, Vitaly Nayda, the head of counterintelligence of the Ukrainian State Security Service, displayed photographs that he said showed three BUK-M1 missile systems on the road to the Russian border. Two of the devices, missile launchers mounted on a self-propelled armored vehicle, crossed the border into Russia about 2 a.m. Friday, less than 10 hours after the jet, Flight 17, was blown apart in midair, he said. The third weapon crossed about 4 a.m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith McClary ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
And how it is related to MH17? Local time wrap 10 h back in time. 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 03:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I noted the template on the top of this page saying:
Am I allowed to put that notice on the Malaysia Airlines talkpage? There is a fair amount of activity on that article page, including un-sourced or poorly sourced edits from IPs about who/what brought the aircraft down. I have been removing statements that it was 'definitely' a missile. As the article page infobox here says:
Over there text related to this 'crash' is on the page in about 3 2 places (lead, "
2014 aircraft losses" and "
Accidents and incidents" sections) so there are inconsistencies occuring on the page itself.--
220
of
Borg
05:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Following a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard (section "Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, TheAirplaneGuy and John" at the moment), I've levied indefinite full protection onto this article. This is not an attempt to prevent people from editing: it's meant to prevent the edit-warring that's been happening and to ensure that this develops as an encyclopedia article, not a news story. Please continue to discuss changes; I'll be happy to implement changes that are agreed here if you let me know when something's been agreed. Of course, I'm not appointing myself the ruler of this article; any other administrator can do it, so please use the {{ editprotected}} template if I don't respond or if you want input from someone else.
Note that the protection is indefinite: this is because I have no clue how long we normally protect such high-profile pages in this situation, not because it needs to be protected long-term. I ask for help from any editor familiar with protections in this context: let me know how long we normally make these protections if you're not an administrator (I'll be happy to reduce the duration), or if you are an administrator, please modify protection yourself. Nyttend ( talk) 23:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Entropy ( talk) 03:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Nyttend, thank you. For the full protection, that is. I was about to request that somebody do that, but you beat me to the punch! :) The reason I'm bringing this up is that there is now a news report about the Russian Government editing the Russian Wikipedia page about the incident. ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10977082/Russian-government-edits-Wikipedia-on-flight-MH17.html )
Again, thank you, and happy trails! Dr. Entropy ( talk) 03:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Exclusion of Russian view. It's unfortunate this has been blocked for editing after a very summary and hasty conclusion as to the cause of the disaster being a surface to air missile, according to the US, and excluding the Russian POV. http://politikus.ru/events/24720-strasti-po-boingu-pervye-priznaki-rakety-vozduh-vozduh-sbival-ne-buk-m1.html A Russian newspaper has posted photos showing a wing or tail of the plane was hit horizontally by an air to air missile. There have also been reports, I believe this may have been on RT, that eyewitnesses saw Ukrainian fighters tailing the airliner. JPLeonard ( talk) 06:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is going to assert that the masked men at the debris field are separatists and not anti-separatists what is the evidence? We're told this is a separatist-controlled area, so why are they masked? Are they fakes or is the area not so separatist-controlled after all? A neutral tone is needed. Silent Key ( talk) 21:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the Russian who is leading the "rebels" said, that the debris field is in the rear of their controlled territory and therefor a ceasefire is not necessary. So that should be proof enough first. Furthermore Russia has GRU units operating in Ukraine - so Masks are used in order to conceal the identity of their troops so that they are not identified by the media or Western Intelligence Services. Or perhaps they are masked because they are in fact aliens... :rolleyes: 46.7.56.247 ( talk) 22:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC) M.
What difference does wearing a mask make? Even if they were not you could make the case they were pro-government forces "pretending" to be dissidents, which, well, that requires citation, not what is being said by every semi-reliable source (including RT et al) on the ground and as of now not contradicted. They are saying they are separatists, the onus is on one alleging otherwise to make the case. Mind you, I fully expect people to start claiming this- that the "rebels are not in Grabovo. The rebels were never in Grabovo". -- Simfan34 ( talk) 23:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It is the most similar incident that occurred (Asian civilian airline passager plane caught in a tense region of the Soviet/Former Soviet Union), even if we go along with the Russian official theory that the plane was downed by a Ukrainian missile…-- MaGioZal ( talk) 02:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I don't see why it isn't included. United States Man ( talk) 03:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mjroots. That distinction doesn't mean that Korean Flight 007 shouldn't be listed. From Wikipedia:See also (emphasis added): "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I think the similarities between Flight 007 & MH17 are enough to be listed:
Once again, the purpose of the "see also" section is not that the other article is exactly or almost exactly the same, but similar. I think Korean Air Lines Flight 007 is similar enough to be mentioned. I think the other shot-down flights that should be mentioned, because they were in the cruise phase of flight (except the Il-76, because it was nearby/part of same conflict) and involved a large number of deaths are:
Thoughts?? I'm going to be Bold and add the Iran Air & Libyan flights to the article. AHeneen ( talk) 05:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
There was a similar incident s in 2001. At the time Ukrainian military shot down a passenger plane using one of its old missiles systems /info/en/?search=Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812 . It probably is worthy of mention. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article is fully protected and all reactions from world leaders towards Russia are kept out. So we do have a section on International reactions, but at the same time that section is heavily edited to keep out what world leaders are actually saying about this incident. It's rather disgraceful and a huge disservice to Wikipedia.
Some actual quotes from world leaders, cited in WP:RS
Is there any reason, apart from a pro-Russian POV, to continue to keep international reactions out of the article? Jeppiz ( talk) 08:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to construct a paragraph for the investigation section where we discuss that both Dutch PM Mark Rutte and Australian PM Tony Abbott show frustration that Russian president Putin promises to do everything he can to support independent investigation, but that there is no indication that he actually has done (other than making promises) any thing at all to support such an investigation. (NB this is not about the blame of the accident, but about the follow up, recovery of bodies and investigation). What do you think. Arnoutf ( talk) 09:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please place {{
clear right}}
at the bottom of the See also section. That will fix the current bleed-over into the references section. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
11:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the registration number of plane, link to this: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20140717-0
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
See also No-fly zone Trackteur ( talk) 11:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the missing picture from the article. It's been some time since the uploader didn't fix it. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass ( talk) 13:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why has this been totally removed from the article? This is highly notable, and is reported to be the source Obama based his statement of the origin of the missile upon. There are several sources stating this: Ars Technica, NBC News, and New Scientist. This should be readded as soon as possible. Nulla Taciti ( talk) 11:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where it says Flight Data Recorder it should say flight recorder. SAJ (T) 14:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would it not be appropriate to have images of the debris? JDiala ( talk) 03:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
“It would be nice, but we would need pictures that are not subject to copyright. There’s been plenty of copyrighted pictures shown in the media, but that means those media outlets, or their sources, own them. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)”
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 ( talk) 2014-07-20T04:20:51
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Aftermath", the words "the Amsterdam-Kuala Lumpur route" should read "the Amsterdam–Kuala Lumpur route" with an unspaced en dash, per MOS:ENDASH. — sroc 💬 14:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add
to ICAO's reaction in order for flag usage to be consistant, thanks.
Nathan121212 (
talk)
07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've got no strong feelings for or against the flags in that section. My edit was merely to give a consistent appearance for all entries. John, you can always start a RFC here re the issue. Once consensus is established then an edit note or page notice can be made notifying editors of the position. However, I will object to any attempt to remove the flags from the victims table. Mjroots ( talk) 14:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Aftermath" section states:
By 18 July 2014, shares in Malaysia Airlines had dropped by nearly 16%.
It is not clear over what period this drop occurred (e.g., in one day, over several days, this financial year, since MH370, in the past 12 months, etc.). The cited article states: "Malaysia Airlines shares were down nearly 16% in Friday trading..." and later: "Shares are down more than 40% over the last 12 months." I believe this implies that the "nearly 16%" drop occurred in one day. Can this be stated in the article for clarification, or alternatively, if we are not convinced that this is what the source meant, can the figure be deleted from the article as ambiguous, meaningless or potentially misleading. Thank you. — sroc 💬 14:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Removal of By Country subheader in reactions section
I propose to remove the subheader "By country" in the reaction section because
Concur. The subheading should be nixed simply because there are IGOs mixed in with the "by country", which is pretty clearly wrong. And really, there aren't all that many reactions at this point... just lump them together for now. My suggestion would be to separate into IGO, national government, and NGO subsections if it gets to the point where there are that many reactions we want to list. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 11:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
{{archivetop|Please see: [[Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Response]] - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 03:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} Most of the reactions are just not relevant to the incident but the longer they remain the more and more keep getting added. Most of these reactions are standard diplomatic fare and have no relevance to the incident. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I reworded the following paragraph to something more coherent. I am not entirely certain, however, that it has a place on the MH17 article.
The UK newspaper The Telegraph of 7/18 reported, that the Russian government allegedly modify or delete information on Wikipedia says it helps provide missiles to shoot down military aircraft breakaway Malaysia and changed a Russian language version of a page listing civil aviation accidents to say that "The plane [flight MH17] was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers". An application used to track information on Wikipedia was edited by the computer IP address from within the Russian government bodies discovered above actions.
AnselaJonla ( talk) 10:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Some big news that has just come in in the past few minutes. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/19/pro-russia-rebels-accused-of-cover-up-over-mh17-atrocity-live-updates TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I would also add that "Off-duty coal miners, along with local police and rescue crews, combed through debris searching for any survivors." sentence in the 'Aftermath' section is not in congruence with the source. A more appropriate phrasing would be "Off-duty coal miners, along with local police and rescue crews, combed through debris." We have no idea what they were looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.91.189 ( talk) 14:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
How is this link supposedly not necessary? It definitely is relevant. Dustin (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
What about @spainbuca's comments? He -allegedly- a Spanish air controller in Ukraine. He tweeted that 2 military jets escorted the passanger plain. His twitter page (!10 500 tweets!) has been deleted recently but you can still read his comments (#spainbuca). FOCUS.DE also mentions him [1] Fakirbakir ( talk) 12:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Not every claim about what happened is equally supported by the evidence. Some claims are more conspiratorial and less evidence supported than others. Preferring the better supported account is not politically biased. It is, in fact, politically biased to declared them all conspiracy theories of equal validity. Der Spiegel mentions our Spanish flight controller story to say the story is "falsch". Der Spiegel goes on to note all the other B.S. being spread in the Russian media. Are you going to tell me this German publisher of pro-Edward Snowden stories is "a paid US Govt troll"?-- Brian Dell ( talk) 01:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thoughts on:
Widefox; talk 19:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the flags in the passenger death toll by country per WP:FLAGBIO. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Widefox; talk 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Put them back, especially in the list of world reactions. They make it easy to home in the one or two you want to read, instead of having to scan the whole paragraph. 141.6.11.18 ( talk) 15:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with Knowledgekid87. We regularly use flags to indicate to the countries whose officials reacted on the event, so there is no reason to avoid that practice just because of some trivial reasons stated above. And since the whole section may become rather long with the reaction from every single country, my suggestion is to create a separate page that will list all reactions to the accident and keep just few of them in the section.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 16:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure where exactly this should be mentioned, but there is a growing dispute between Australia and Russia over the shoot-down. The gist is that when the PM addressed parliament and the nation, he characterised it as a crime, and implicated Russia in the disaster (which have since been repeated by the Queensland premier; Brisbane is hosting the G20 summit later this year, which Putin is scheduled to attend).
Now, while I am aware that the prevailing political and public opinion worldwide is that Russia bears some degree of responsibility - exactly how much remains to be seen - the PM was the first world leader to publicly make the connection. MH17 was shot down at 12:15am AEDT, and the PM addressed parliament some time between 8:15am and 11:00am AEDT. To the best of my knowledge, no other world leader brought up Russia's role until at least twenty-four hours after the shoot-down.
The PM's comments and the subsequent summoning of the Russian ambassador to the foreign ministry were not received well by the Russians, to the point where they addressed his comments directly. As far as I know, the Russians have not addressed any other world leader's comments directly the way they have Australia's.
So my question is this: is this unique within the global community, and if so, how should it be addressed in the article? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not trying to POVPUSH - merely trying to ascertain notability, and for that, I had to provide some context - the timeline of events - as to what happened and when, since other countries have since made the suggestion that Russia was in some way responsible. What I am uncertain of is whether or not Russia has taken the time to address the statements of every nation that has accused Russia in some way, shape or form, or if Australia is unique in that regard - and if it is unique, then how that should be addressed in the article. After all, Australia lost 28 citizens in the shoot-down, holds a temporary seat on the UN Security Council, and has already made some pretty serious diplomatic moves against Russia, some of which have been reciprocated. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 07:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
what about those who know what hapened before any investigation ?
Another talk page section positively screaming out to be deleted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
As has been reported,here [ [17]], 8 permanent Australian residents were found to have been using Dutch and Malaysian Passports. I have updated the Australian dead, but since they used passports from other countries does this mean they may have been counted among the Malaysian and Dutch dead? -- Empire of War ( talk) 09:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe they should go under dual nationality for now. Supersaiyen312 ( talk) 10:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding information about Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs
Radosław Sikorski (playing an important role in formulating the European response to Russian annexation of Crimea, etc., a few months ago) who travelled to Kiev earlier this week and said (
reportedly on 15 July) that "These are mobile rockets whose sale is governed by international rules and they are forbidden from being supplied to non-state groups, because that creates the possibility of the proliferation of these kinds of weapons, which creates a danger to civil aviation around the world."
Source:
"Polish politics: Where is Radek?".
The Economist. 18 July 2014. (currently on The Economist's front page)
However, I'm not sure which section would be appropriate for this (or maybe it's non-notable anyway?), as it doesn't really qualify as an "event before the crash." —
Mayast (
talk)
10:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Pretty strong press conference by Dutch PM just now. He states to be disgusted by the lack of respect of people messing around at the crash site; against all international treaties. He openly states that Putin is rapidly losing the chance to show the world he is serious about supporting independent investigation. He also states that everyone hindering the salvage operation is making themselves suspects. [20] This is, with Frans Timmermans (foreing minister of NL) press conference of about an hour ago by far the strongest language used by the Dutch. Should we do something with this? Arnoutf ( talk) 16:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
She may not be a big celeb nor matter to western audience but Shuba Jaya http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysian-actress-dutch-hubby-and-baby-die-with-mh17 was a known actress in her country and region, and needs to be included as notable people onboard. inspector ( talk) 15:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Also keep an eye on this article. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not understanding this table, If Dutch-Belgian is included in Belgium dual-citizen section, why isnt the passener along with Dutch-Israeli,-Ducth-Vietnamese,-Dutch-Malaysian, Dutch-American listed in dual-citizen section of Netherlands, same for UK and New Zealand where the UK-South African and a UK-New Zealand citizen should be in the dual-citizen section of UK and New Zealand. How does one know that the people have kept ther own former nationalties and not renounced them in favour of the new ones, should they then be identified with their former countries? no other passenger tables in such articles have the dual citizen section, there was an Indian on Malaysian 370 who took up Canadian citizenship he isnt listed amongst the Indian passengers, only as Canadian. inspector ( talk) 16:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I give a piece of news to those dealing with this article:
RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought it would be useful to keep a list of consensuses on the top of the talk page in order to calm down the edit warring and confusion. Here's what I can gather so far (please correct me if I'm wrong): Flagicons in responses: KEEP Flagicons in passenger list: KEEP Condolences in reactions: REMOVE Timeline of flight: REMOVE Nathan121212 ( talk) 19:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit busy, feel free to implement a Q&A on the top of this page (see example provided above by User:Knowledgekid87) Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Some sources, such as the BBC, are referring to this flight as Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 ( see here for example). Should we move the article to reflect that, or is Flight 17 the correct title? This is Paul ( talk) 18:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The article states "A single BUK missile launcher cannot acquire a target without the radar and target support provided by the other vehicles." Logically this makes no sense, as the whole point of a mobile system is to be able to protect attacking forces as the edge of the battlefield changes. Other sources (e.g. [1]) state that the TELAR itself can track and fire on targets independently but lacks the increased range and global situational awareness that integration with one or more higher levels of C&C provides, including awareness of commercial traffic from civilian ATC sources.
67.173.128.39 ( talk) 20:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Desperate times, y'all. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please expand the first ref (for the map) in "The Ukrainian case" section to:
"Maps of the Crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 - NYTimes.com".
The New York Times. 2014-07-19. Retrieved 2014-07-19. {{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) Cites
National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine as Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense.
—
Jeff G. ツ
(talk)
23:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Everyone, please remember that uncontroversial requests (like this one) can be fulfilled without discussion. Nyttend ( talk) 23:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes this is interesting... Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17. A political battle has broken out on Wikipedia over an entry relating to the crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, with the Russian government reportedly removing sections which accuse it of providing "terrorists" with missiles that were used to down the civilian airliner TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if true, which country gov is free of they V-column ?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hope someone will add this quote by Australian Prime Minister, I think it is one of the best;
"Russian controlled territory, Russian-backed rebels, quite likely a Russian supplied weapon - Russia can’t wash its hands of this"
HiLo you are well known in the Wikipedia community for you far-left and anti-Abbott views, I understand that. But put aside your politics like Labor and Liberal have done. I'm not a fan of Abbott either, but I think this is one of the clearest and most condemning quotes used against Russia over this tragedy.-- Empire of War ( talk) 01:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
He has told me himself so it's okay, but in my personal experience HiLo has always tried to derail my messages, even on this one. By posting that message he tries to start mini-fights with me. I retract the statement, we should stick to the tragedy and real facts and leave the derailers to their own being-- Empire of War ( talk) 01:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I removed my comments as well Brown? I did it to stop an argument forming, I want to stay on topic here stop derailing it-- Empire of War ( talk) 01:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please fix this redlink: I originally fixed with this edit, but it was broken again by Simfan34 with this edit. Dustin (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
NYT July 19 KIEV, Ukraine — The Ukrainian government said on Saturday that it had proof that Russia had provided the surface-to-air missile system that shot down a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet over eastern Ukraine on Thursday, killing all 298 people aboard. ... At a news conference in Kiev, the capital, Vitaly Nayda, the head of counterintelligence of the Ukrainian State Security Service, displayed photographs that he said showed three BUK-M1 missile systems on the road to the Russian border. Two of the devices, missile launchers mounted on a self-propelled armored vehicle, crossed the border into Russia about 2 a.m. Friday, less than 10 hours after the jet, Flight 17, was blown apart in midair, he said. The third weapon crossed about 4 a.m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith McClary ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
And how it is related to MH17? Local time wrap 10 h back in time. 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 03:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I noted the template on the top of this page saying:
Am I allowed to put that notice on the Malaysia Airlines talkpage? There is a fair amount of activity on that article page, including un-sourced or poorly sourced edits from IPs about who/what brought the aircraft down. I have been removing statements that it was 'definitely' a missile. As the article page infobox here says:
Over there text related to this 'crash' is on the page in about 3 2 places (lead, "
2014 aircraft losses" and "
Accidents and incidents" sections) so there are inconsistencies occuring on the page itself.--
220
of
Borg
05:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Following a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard (section "Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, TheAirplaneGuy and John" at the moment), I've levied indefinite full protection onto this article. This is not an attempt to prevent people from editing: it's meant to prevent the edit-warring that's been happening and to ensure that this develops as an encyclopedia article, not a news story. Please continue to discuss changes; I'll be happy to implement changes that are agreed here if you let me know when something's been agreed. Of course, I'm not appointing myself the ruler of this article; any other administrator can do it, so please use the {{ editprotected}} template if I don't respond or if you want input from someone else.
Note that the protection is indefinite: this is because I have no clue how long we normally protect such high-profile pages in this situation, not because it needs to be protected long-term. I ask for help from any editor familiar with protections in this context: let me know how long we normally make these protections if you're not an administrator (I'll be happy to reduce the duration), or if you are an administrator, please modify protection yourself. Nyttend ( talk) 23:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Entropy ( talk) 03:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Nyttend, thank you. For the full protection, that is. I was about to request that somebody do that, but you beat me to the punch! :) The reason I'm bringing this up is that there is now a news report about the Russian Government editing the Russian Wikipedia page about the incident. ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10977082/Russian-government-edits-Wikipedia-on-flight-MH17.html )
Again, thank you, and happy trails! Dr. Entropy ( talk) 03:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Exclusion of Russian view. It's unfortunate this has been blocked for editing after a very summary and hasty conclusion as to the cause of the disaster being a surface to air missile, according to the US, and excluding the Russian POV. http://politikus.ru/events/24720-strasti-po-boingu-pervye-priznaki-rakety-vozduh-vozduh-sbival-ne-buk-m1.html A Russian newspaper has posted photos showing a wing or tail of the plane was hit horizontally by an air to air missile. There have also been reports, I believe this may have been on RT, that eyewitnesses saw Ukrainian fighters tailing the airliner. JPLeonard ( talk) 06:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is going to assert that the masked men at the debris field are separatists and not anti-separatists what is the evidence? We're told this is a separatist-controlled area, so why are they masked? Are they fakes or is the area not so separatist-controlled after all? A neutral tone is needed. Silent Key ( talk) 21:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the Russian who is leading the "rebels" said, that the debris field is in the rear of their controlled territory and therefor a ceasefire is not necessary. So that should be proof enough first. Furthermore Russia has GRU units operating in Ukraine - so Masks are used in order to conceal the identity of their troops so that they are not identified by the media or Western Intelligence Services. Or perhaps they are masked because they are in fact aliens... :rolleyes: 46.7.56.247 ( talk) 22:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC) M.
What difference does wearing a mask make? Even if they were not you could make the case they were pro-government forces "pretending" to be dissidents, which, well, that requires citation, not what is being said by every semi-reliable source (including RT et al) on the ground and as of now not contradicted. They are saying they are separatists, the onus is on one alleging otherwise to make the case. Mind you, I fully expect people to start claiming this- that the "rebels are not in Grabovo. The rebels were never in Grabovo". -- Simfan34 ( talk) 23:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It is the most similar incident that occurred (Asian civilian airline passager plane caught in a tense region of the Soviet/Former Soviet Union), even if we go along with the Russian official theory that the plane was downed by a Ukrainian missile…-- MaGioZal ( talk) 02:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I don't see why it isn't included. United States Man ( talk) 03:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mjroots. That distinction doesn't mean that Korean Flight 007 shouldn't be listed. From Wikipedia:See also (emphasis added): "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I think the similarities between Flight 007 & MH17 are enough to be listed:
Once again, the purpose of the "see also" section is not that the other article is exactly or almost exactly the same, but similar. I think Korean Air Lines Flight 007 is similar enough to be mentioned. I think the other shot-down flights that should be mentioned, because they were in the cruise phase of flight (except the Il-76, because it was nearby/part of same conflict) and involved a large number of deaths are:
Thoughts?? I'm going to be Bold and add the Iran Air & Libyan flights to the article. AHeneen ( talk) 05:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
There was a similar incident s in 2001. At the time Ukrainian military shot down a passenger plane using one of its old missiles systems /info/en/?search=Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812 . It probably is worthy of mention. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article is fully protected and all reactions from world leaders towards Russia are kept out. So we do have a section on International reactions, but at the same time that section is heavily edited to keep out what world leaders are actually saying about this incident. It's rather disgraceful and a huge disservice to Wikipedia.
Some actual quotes from world leaders, cited in WP:RS
Is there any reason, apart from a pro-Russian POV, to continue to keep international reactions out of the article? Jeppiz ( talk) 08:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to construct a paragraph for the investigation section where we discuss that both Dutch PM Mark Rutte and Australian PM Tony Abbott show frustration that Russian president Putin promises to do everything he can to support independent investigation, but that there is no indication that he actually has done (other than making promises) any thing at all to support such an investigation. (NB this is not about the blame of the accident, but about the follow up, recovery of bodies and investigation). What do you think. Arnoutf ( talk) 09:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please place {{
clear right}}
at the bottom of the See also section. That will fix the current bleed-over into the references section. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
11:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the registration number of plane, link to this: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20140717-0
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
See also No-fly zone Trackteur ( talk) 11:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the missing picture from the article. It's been some time since the uploader didn't fix it. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass ( talk) 13:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why has this been totally removed from the article? This is highly notable, and is reported to be the source Obama based his statement of the origin of the missile upon. There are several sources stating this: Ars Technica, NBC News, and New Scientist. This should be readded as soon as possible. Nulla Taciti ( talk) 11:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where it says Flight Data Recorder it should say flight recorder. SAJ (T) 14:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would it not be appropriate to have images of the debris? JDiala ( talk) 03:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
“It would be nice, but we would need pictures that are not subject to copyright. There’s been plenty of copyrighted pictures shown in the media, but that means those media outlets, or their sources, own them. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)”
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 ( talk) 2014-07-20T04:20:51
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Aftermath", the words "the Amsterdam-Kuala Lumpur route" should read "the Amsterdam–Kuala Lumpur route" with an unspaced en dash, per MOS:ENDASH. — sroc 💬 14:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add
to ICAO's reaction in order for flag usage to be consistant, thanks.
Nathan121212 (
talk)
07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've got no strong feelings for or against the flags in that section. My edit was merely to give a consistent appearance for all entries. John, you can always start a RFC here re the issue. Once consensus is established then an edit note or page notice can be made notifying editors of the position. However, I will object to any attempt to remove the flags from the victims table. Mjroots ( talk) 14:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Aftermath" section states:
By 18 July 2014, shares in Malaysia Airlines had dropped by nearly 16%.
It is not clear over what period this drop occurred (e.g., in one day, over several days, this financial year, since MH370, in the past 12 months, etc.). The cited article states: "Malaysia Airlines shares were down nearly 16% in Friday trading..." and later: "Shares are down more than 40% over the last 12 months." I believe this implies that the "nearly 16%" drop occurred in one day. Can this be stated in the article for clarification, or alternatively, if we are not convinced that this is what the source meant, can the figure be deleted from the article as ambiguous, meaningless or potentially misleading. Thank you. — sroc 💬 14:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Removal of By Country subheader in reactions section
I propose to remove the subheader "By country" in the reaction section because
Concur. The subheading should be nixed simply because there are IGOs mixed in with the "by country", which is pretty clearly wrong. And really, there aren't all that many reactions at this point... just lump them together for now. My suggestion would be to separate into IGO, national government, and NGO subsections if it gets to the point where there are that many reactions we want to list. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 11:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)