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 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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.
While the article is in a state of (enforced) peace, I'd like to raise my concerns about the section titled "Assigning responsibility". It largely contains highly predictable allegations, presented as "The Ukrainian case" and "The Russian case". There are no final facts about who did what. There cannot be yet. Time will (hopefully) deliver facts, but for now we don't have them. I would like to suggest that those subsections at least, and a fair bit of the surrounding wording, simply be removed from the article for now. Once the truth is known, they will be replaced anyway. Why not get rid of them now? HiLo48 ( talk) 04:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
On the 18th this page had over 400,000 page views, on the 19th it was down to 179,420, which is still a significant amount of readers looking for reliable and sourced material. I agree that any unsourced or poorly sourced material needs to be removed immediately, especially the "crap about Carlos" and the rest of it that is currently unsourced or is questionable. This is policy people, content must be sourced to a reliable and verifiable source.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And the falsely attributed quote. That's bordering on WP:HOAX right there. And it's a BLP issue. The rest can wait but these two things (the quote and "Carlos") should be done immediately. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec^2) Thank you! One thing though, the part on the alleged phone conversations is pretty important so the following text:
The [[Security Service of Ukraine]] (SBU) published what they said were wiretaps of separatist commanders reporting that a civilian airliner had been shot down.<ref name="sbu">{{cite web|title=СБУ перехопила переговори терористів: І.Бєзлєр ("Бєс") доповідає своєму куратору полковнику ГРУ ГШ ЗС РФ В.Гераніну про щойно збитий бойовиками цивільний літак |trans_title=SBU intercepted terrorist negotiations: I. Byezlyer ("Byes") reports its curator Colonel CPD Armed Forces V. Geranin just shot down militant civil aircraft |language=Ukrainian |date=17 July 2014 |work=Security Service of Ukraine |url=http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=129035&cat_id=39574 |accessdate=17 July 2014}}</ref><ref>[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/news/1684798.html Над Донецкой областью разбился пассажирский Boeing, 295 человек погибли], by [[Novaya Gazeta]].</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 | title=Боинг БУК М eng1 | publisher=[[Security Service of Ukraine]] | date=18 July 2014 | accessdate=18 July 2014}}</ref> According to one of the recordings, Flight 17 was shot down by a group of pro-Russian separatists manning a checkpoint near the village of [[Chornukhine]], [[Luhansk Oblast]], some {{convert|80|km|mi|abbr=on}} northeast of [[Donetsk]].<ref>[http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/separatists-admit-downing-a-civilian-plane-in-tapped-conversation-full-transcript-356545.html SBU intercepts phone conversations of separatists admitting downing a civilian plane (FULL TRANSCRIPT; VIDEO)], ''Kyiv Post'', 17 July 2014.</ref> Ukrainian authorities said another recording indicated that the weapons system had arrived from Russia with a Russian crew.<ref>[http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=129071&cat_id=39574 Obtained by SBU: talks amongst terrorists acknowledging receipt of the Buk-M anti-aircraft missile system with Russian crew] ''[[Security Service of Ukraine]]'' 18 July 2014</ref>
should be in the article. Possibly in the "Cause" section or the "Aftermath". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a voting about the full protection of this article. Enjoy. Normalgirl ( talk) 00:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
For the time being full protection's fine. But please be conscientious about implementing changes and fixing existing problems. And yes, it will have to be removed after 12 hours or so (it can be re-protected again if problems come back). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I should add that I too do not think that indefinite full protection should be implemented, however, given that especially in the first days after a disaster there tends to be a lot of people coming up with the euphemistic "alternative theories" and the still hectic situation around it, it is probably for the best to keep it on for at least 12 hours and at most 72 hours - then it will remain to be seen whether or not vandalism occurs/persists, and another possible full protection can be implemented based on the results of that. AnnaOurLittleAlice ( talk) 08:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The article currently states 'U.S. President Barack Obama, citing U.S. intelligence officials, said the plane was shot down by a missile and that there was "credible evidence" it was fired from a location held by pro-Russian rebels'. One given source is the New York Times story U.S. Sees Evidence of Russian Links to Jet’s Downing. The article itself says 'He sent his United Nations ambassador, Samantha Power, to the Security Council to describe what she called “credible evidence” that the separatists were responsible.”' Ms. Power said this, not Barack Obama. Small point maybe, but it's a bad start to an article to misattribute a quotation. - Crosbie 14:35, 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. |
A reference in the Aftermath section is incorrectly formatted and ugly. This is its current wiki code:
<ref>{{cite web|author=<%= item.timeFlag %> |url=http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741304 |title=ITAR-TASS: World - Russian Defense Ministry records Ukrainian missile defense radar on day of Boeing crash |publisher=En.itar-tass.com |date= |accessdate=19 July 2014}}</ref>
I request the reference is changed to this:
<ref name="itar-tass">{{cite news |url=http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741304 |title=Russian Defense Ministry records Ukrainian missile defense radar on day of Boeing crash |agency=[[ITAR-TASS]] |date=18 July 2014 |accessdate=19 July 2014}}</ref>
-- Pingumeister( talk) 13:38, 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. |
At Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Events before the crash:
—The dot after "shot down" should be removed. Mayast ( talk) 15:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Just now we had an update from the Dutch PM. Number of issues that may be useful for the article. Dutch experts will lead the international expert team that will identify the victims. Special memorial session Monday with the PM and King present. Minister of foreign affairs Frans Timmermans flies to New York to talk to UN security council. Should we do something with this or let it lie for now. Arnoutf ( talk) 16:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
When MH370 disappeared, those who've been warning of false flag attempts to incriminate Russia (eg Infowars.com) predicted there would soon be a second Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 incident (presumably to allow the wreckage to be swapped for forensics, i.e. hide real accidental shoot-down of Chinese citizens on MH370 by putting time-bomb on MH17, then swap the wreckage). People were expecting this, and for the article to ignore such a striking prediction is kind of elephant-in-the-room stuff. Silent Key ( talk) 09:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I know, blog. I am not saying "on the basis of this blog the article should be changed". With that out of the way, a blogger for The Economist wrote here that:
Previously, there had been reports about separatist rebels boasting of having captured Buk missiles from a Ukrainian army base near Donetsk. The reports first surfaced on June 29th and were mainly carried by Russian state news agencies. According to sources, the story first ran on TV Zvezda, the news agency of the Russian defence ministry. A major question is whether the missile system was really stolen or whether the story was planted to provide cover for the Russians providing the rebels surreptitiously with advanced weaponry.
I'm unsure of how broadly this speculation has been made or whether it has been made by any sources more reliable than the above blog. I feel this would need more and better sources if any mention were to be made on our article.
At present, the article notes reports of the theft without mention of these claims being (speculatively) disputed. This may well be the correct handling, depending on who has been speculating to this effect/how strongly/etc. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that such speculation exists and may warrant inclusion in the article if it has broad or high-level incidence. Vague | Rant 15:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The Buk may have been stolen from Ukrainian government stocks, as they and Moscow claim. Or it may have come directly from Russia. It makes little difference.
In the report above they mention that the rebels were bragging about capturing Buk missiles. On June 29th there were articles published to this effect, but the stories seem to only be carried by Russian state-operated news agencies. The original source for the story appears to be TV Zvezda, the news agency for the Russian Ministry of Defense. It's not clear that the separatists ever captured Buks from the Ukrainian military or whether these stories were a front to explain how the rebels obtained such advance weaponry.
It seem contextually highly antisemantic to to use words still , theft, most frequently connotated to silent clandestine operation; Imagine during wartime to take posesion of diesel propelled caterpillar vehicle, and what? Push it slowly or harness horses? Not to mention to take it from presumably armed guards. If the above equipment takeover is true use terms booty or at least armed robery. I know the editorials push they bias siding with Jacyniuk Junta but enemy should be respected to preserve humanity. Otherwise is the shambles of war crimes, similar to what they are penning elsewehre. 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 03:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dutch reaction, something like:
In the first week after the crash, the main Dutch travel agencies did not make commercials for flight holidays.
[1]
Sander.v.Ginkel (
talk)
14:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Much of the information regarding the warnings given to airlines, what they did (or didn't do) about it, and which other flights/airlines were still operating in the area at the time of the crash, is scattered all over the article. Much of it has been lumped into that horrendous 'Events before the crash' timeline, rendering it pretty unparsable as a topic in of itself. I would like to change this by putting it all in its own topical section (and add some more info I've found that's not in the article), but the current situation, where it appears even though Wikipedia is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit", each individual change has to be listed here in detail and voted on first, makes this impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoryMig ( talk • contribs)
The airline has released a passenger/crew manifest that appears to be complete, the numbers agree with the current article. It is in a very rough form; one has to deduce from the rest of the entires that KAMSMA/MATTHEUSMR means Mr. Mattheus Kamsma and KAMSMA/QIUMSTR means Mr. Qiu Kamsma. I would be willing to create a table from this data that could be included with a {{ Collapse}}. I have laser-like attention to detail, so I'm perfect for the job; however, to avoid wasting a ton of time, I would want to be sure that it would be used; and I don't want to duplicate someone else's effort. Mandruss ( talk) 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wonder if these had a role to play as well http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/content/dam/malaysia-airlines/mas/PDF/MH17/MH017%20-%20Cargo%20Manifest%203.pdf there was also live cargo consisting of two dogs and nine boxes of birds. inspector ( talk) 17:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the responses section, ICAO's response should read (flag) ICAO - ICAO declared that it was ... In order for it to be consistent with other responses. Nathan121212 ( talk) 18:20, 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. |
Copyedit: please change the sentence " ICAO declared that it's sending its team of experts to assist Ukrainian National Bureau of Incidents and Accidents Investigation of Civil Aircraft (NBAAII), which according to ICAO is the country in charge of the investigation under Article 26 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation." in the "Reactions" section to " ICAO – ICAO declared that it would send a team of experts to assist the National Bureau of Incidents and Accidents Investigation of Civil Aircraft (NBAAII) of the Ukraine, which according to ICAO is the country in charge of the investigation under Article 26 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation." — Mr. Granger ( talk · contribs) 18:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead please add the airline name to fourth paragraph. I was reading the lead and saw that the fourth paragraph is the first that discusses the airline and events related to it.
Thank you. -- Marc Kupper| talk 19:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
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.
According to Oleg Kashin (independent journalist), separatists were expecting a Ukrainian cargo plane at the same time at the same place where MH17 crashed. They have a source of information about cargo flight details in Ukrainian military. That's why separatists were sure that they shot An-26.
I think this info should be added to the timeline section of the article.
Yozh ( talk) 02:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And NATO can't wash its hands of bloodbaths in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen. 92.40.250.86 ( talk) 02:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the following paragraph:
On 18 July a Russian Defence Ministry spokesman reported to journalists that "Russian radar facilities during 17 July detected work of 9S18 "Kupol" (radar station of detection and targeting for 9K37-1 SAM "Buk-M1" squadron), stationed near Ukrainian-controlled village Styla (30 kilometres (19 mi) south of Donetsk)"[87] Ukraine's foreign minister, Pavlo Klimkin stated that Ukraine did not have sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems in the area, and that none had been seized by separatist groups in recent weeks.[88]
It doesn't add anything to the article except muddy the waters, it's just a bunch of (outdated) he-said-she-said. At the very least it does not belong in the "aftermath" section. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
So there are edit warriors out there. There always is. The job of admins to keep THOSE edit warriors from editing, by warnings, bans, whatever. The general editing community is also not so helpless that it cannot organically marginalize non-consensus editors to a large degree without unsolicited "help". Where is the Talk page thread where ordinary editors were complaining of being overwhelmed by edit warriors and expressing little hope that ordinary measures can deal with it? The job of admins is not to restrict the pool of editors to themselves. I've been editing Wikipedia for nine years and haven't felt a need for admin tools because I was mostly just interested in building content. In my opinion we're seeing another precedent develop here for a hierarchy whereby admin status provides more editing rights. The content community has dealt with edit wars for years, without admins coming over the top to impose indiscriminate restrictions.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The same person who locks down the page, @Nyttend, is the same person who then proceeded to delete a massive amount of material with the misleading edit summary "removing a section per Talk". Where was the consensus for such a sweeping change? Where was the consensus to remove "Ukrainian authorities said another recording indicated that the weapons system had arrived from Russia with a Russian crew", just to take an example? If you look at the U.S. statement of the evidence on the Ukraine embassy page, a lot of that evidence was in the article UNTIL Nyttend locked down the page and took it out. Nyttend would likely have been reverted and called upon to justify his removals in detail had he not just denied the community the opportunity to revert.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 19:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And now all those busy-bee little admins are still toying with the flag question....sigh. How about you Ymblanter? 19:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have just lowered the protection level from full protection to semi-protection. In my protection log comment, I wrote that it has been "24 hours since full protection". I only realized after lowering the protection level that it has actually been only 20 hours, not 24 hours, a mistake I made due to time zone differences, but I think 20 hours is close enough to 24 to let the lowered protection level stand; furthermore, earlier on this page, it was suggested by other editors that the period of full page protection only be for 12 hours, so 20 hours of protection is already significantly longer than that. I will note that the original decision to implement full protection was made without clear consensus and over significant opposition, as seen in the comments on this talk page and on WP:ANI. — Lowellian ( reply) 19:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
For whatever reasons, this WP article is no longer listed (as of this moment) by google news on MA17 incident. I just hope it is because of this admin nonsense and not (as I fear) some other site just getting higher ratings. Why is it that WP should care? 20:02, 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. |
On 18 July The Daily Telegraph reported that the Russian government had allegedly modified or deleted information on Wikipedia pages relating to the MH17 incident, to remove claims that it helped provide the missile system used to shoot down the aircraft. Among the pages edited was the Russian version of an article listing civil aviation incidents, to claim that "the plane [flight MH17] was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers".
The edit itself for reference, also it's not the only occurrence where Russian governmental structures edit Wikipedia articles. In fact they've been streaming such government edits since some time here using the @RuGovEdits handle (also here through dumps.wikimedia.org ). It wasn't the government itself that edited it, but the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company that is owned by it. -- Arseny1992 ( talk) 17:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not the issue is notable depends on whether or not it is widely covered in reliable sources. Whether the edit was done at English wikipedia or Russian wikipedia is irrelevant. Whether Russian government editing Wikipedia is "surprising" or not is irrelevant. If Russian government edited the Fijian Wikipedia and everyone knew that they always edit Fijian Wikipedia BUT reliable sources for some reason covered their edits extensively then it would STILL be a reason for inclusion.
So yes, this information belongs in this article in the "Aftermath" section. Nothing major - WP:WEIGHT - still applies. But a sentence or so is very appropriate. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Some sources, after a less-than-one-minute search: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]... and I could keep going but I think you get the point. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
the crash site map on the New York Times centered at about (48.127, 38.620). there is no contradiction that can be found in photos and videos I have seen so far. there is no photo of the launch post but it's said near Snizhne or somewhere between Snizhne and Torez (as found in the same page see link below). a reference site might be (48.055, 38.762), the rocket engine may have fallen near Stryukove. source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/17/world/europe/maps-of-the-crash-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.111.176.89 ( talk) 12:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Now that this article has been taken from full protection to semi-protection, my question (to which I think the answer is yes) is whether discretionary sanctions for edit-warring are applicable under WP:ARBEE? Is Ukraine in Eastern Europe as usually defined? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Suggest adding:
ref: http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5456 Juan Riley ( talk) 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It's obviously relevant, especially coming as it did from SACEUR.
Juan Riley ( talk) 17:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Synthesis? As in making things up? And what, exactly, is Juan trying to make up here? He has provided a direct quote, from a senior NATO commander, which was reported in reliable sources after the fact. It is obviously relevant to the article. Stop this nonsense and just add it. Whatever the "good reasons" are for preventing people editing this article, they are surely being out-weighed by the fact that eminently worthwhile additions like this are being prevented, for no good reason at all. RoryMig ( talk) 17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Admins are now being arbitrary and uninformative. I am so sorry I asked you to tell me explicit reasons that the suggested addition is any different from other events given in the timeline. At some stage this just becomes inane. By my current understanding the article should read: ""Something happened...people died"". Oh and yes..I am sure an admin will put a warning on my talk page. We should have barnstars for being warned by autocratic admins. Juan Riley ( talk) 17:57, 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. |
I have posted it in [Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance_theories#Events_in_Ukraine], but because it is relevant, would like to post here as well: I wouldn't be completely surprised if there would be reliable sources about connection between these two events. These two events are completely unrelated and that makes it even more incredible of a coincidence. First, Malaysian airplane disappears and then, another one is being shot down. (Karma? Coincidence? Something more deeper?). But in any case, we cannot ignore the fact that two of the most unusual events in aviation history are involving Malaysian Airways and happened in a relatively condensed period of time. If there will be reliable sources about that, I think we can either post them in this (the one mentioned above) article, unless "unofficial theories" article will be created for this one. Dmatteng ( talk) 16:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
http://www.newsday.com/business/what-to-know-how-malaysia-airlines-can-salvage-its-brand-1.8850131 The first calls the coincidence unprecedented, the second goes into great detail about its effect of the brand. I've not looked properly, but I'd say it's a good bet neither of them even mention conspiracy theory. RoryMig ( talk) 17:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Dennis Brown, I don't know how you managed to misread what I have written. I have clearly said:
I started going over the cites in this section, and found that several were things like Facebook pages, and one was a hate-filled blog by an anonymous party who asserts that the MH17 downing was a false flag operation by the Mossad. Finding some reliable sources for this section might be good! Poindexter Propellerhead ( talk) 22:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
There is very little in the current version of the article about the fate/finding of the black boxes, which is obviously a very important aspect of this tragedy. I don't have time at the moment to formulate a proper edit request but perhaps someone else could suggest something. Here is one source [15], others should be easy to find. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:19, 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. |
To note that Tony Abbott stated that this was not an accident but was a crime. As noted by [ Tony Abbott's response to MH17] I ask it be noted in the Reactions by Country under the section of Australia. TheGRVOfLightning ( talk) 06:02, 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 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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.
While the article is in a state of (enforced) peace, I'd like to raise my concerns about the section titled "Assigning responsibility". It largely contains highly predictable allegations, presented as "The Ukrainian case" and "The Russian case". There are no final facts about who did what. There cannot be yet. Time will (hopefully) deliver facts, but for now we don't have them. I would like to suggest that those subsections at least, and a fair bit of the surrounding wording, simply be removed from the article for now. Once the truth is known, they will be replaced anyway. Why not get rid of them now? HiLo48 ( talk) 04:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
On the 18th this page had over 400,000 page views, on the 19th it was down to 179,420, which is still a significant amount of readers looking for reliable and sourced material. I agree that any unsourced or poorly sourced material needs to be removed immediately, especially the "crap about Carlos" and the rest of it that is currently unsourced or is questionable. This is policy people, content must be sourced to a reliable and verifiable source.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And the falsely attributed quote. That's bordering on WP:HOAX right there. And it's a BLP issue. The rest can wait but these two things (the quote and "Carlos") should be done immediately. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec^2) Thank you! One thing though, the part on the alleged phone conversations is pretty important so the following text:
The [[Security Service of Ukraine]] (SBU) published what they said were wiretaps of separatist commanders reporting that a civilian airliner had been shot down.<ref name="sbu">{{cite web|title=СБУ перехопила переговори терористів: І.Бєзлєр ("Бєс") доповідає своєму куратору полковнику ГРУ ГШ ЗС РФ В.Гераніну про щойно збитий бойовиками цивільний літак |trans_title=SBU intercepted terrorist negotiations: I. Byezlyer ("Byes") reports its curator Colonel CPD Armed Forces V. Geranin just shot down militant civil aircraft |language=Ukrainian |date=17 July 2014 |work=Security Service of Ukraine |url=http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=129035&cat_id=39574 |accessdate=17 July 2014}}</ref><ref>[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/news/1684798.html Над Донецкой областью разбился пассажирский Boeing, 295 человек погибли], by [[Novaya Gazeta]].</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 | title=Боинг БУК М eng1 | publisher=[[Security Service of Ukraine]] | date=18 July 2014 | accessdate=18 July 2014}}</ref> According to one of the recordings, Flight 17 was shot down by a group of pro-Russian separatists manning a checkpoint near the village of [[Chornukhine]], [[Luhansk Oblast]], some {{convert|80|km|mi|abbr=on}} northeast of [[Donetsk]].<ref>[http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/separatists-admit-downing-a-civilian-plane-in-tapped-conversation-full-transcript-356545.html SBU intercepts phone conversations of separatists admitting downing a civilian plane (FULL TRANSCRIPT; VIDEO)], ''Kyiv Post'', 17 July 2014.</ref> Ukrainian authorities said another recording indicated that the weapons system had arrived from Russia with a Russian crew.<ref>[http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=129071&cat_id=39574 Obtained by SBU: talks amongst terrorists acknowledging receipt of the Buk-M anti-aircraft missile system with Russian crew] ''[[Security Service of Ukraine]]'' 18 July 2014</ref>
should be in the article. Possibly in the "Cause" section or the "Aftermath". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a voting about the full protection of this article. Enjoy. Normalgirl ( talk) 00:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
For the time being full protection's fine. But please be conscientious about implementing changes and fixing existing problems. And yes, it will have to be removed after 12 hours or so (it can be re-protected again if problems come back). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I should add that I too do not think that indefinite full protection should be implemented, however, given that especially in the first days after a disaster there tends to be a lot of people coming up with the euphemistic "alternative theories" and the still hectic situation around it, it is probably for the best to keep it on for at least 12 hours and at most 72 hours - then it will remain to be seen whether or not vandalism occurs/persists, and another possible full protection can be implemented based on the results of that. AnnaOurLittleAlice ( talk) 08:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The article currently states 'U.S. President Barack Obama, citing U.S. intelligence officials, said the plane was shot down by a missile and that there was "credible evidence" it was fired from a location held by pro-Russian rebels'. One given source is the New York Times story U.S. Sees Evidence of Russian Links to Jet’s Downing. The article itself says 'He sent his United Nations ambassador, Samantha Power, to the Security Council to describe what she called “credible evidence” that the separatists were responsible.”' Ms. Power said this, not Barack Obama. Small point maybe, but it's a bad start to an article to misattribute a quotation. - Crosbie 14:35, 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. |
A reference in the Aftermath section is incorrectly formatted and ugly. This is its current wiki code:
<ref>{{cite web|author=<%= item.timeFlag %> |url=http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741304 |title=ITAR-TASS: World - Russian Defense Ministry records Ukrainian missile defense radar on day of Boeing crash |publisher=En.itar-tass.com |date= |accessdate=19 July 2014}}</ref>
I request the reference is changed to this:
<ref name="itar-tass">{{cite news |url=http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741304 |title=Russian Defense Ministry records Ukrainian missile defense radar on day of Boeing crash |agency=[[ITAR-TASS]] |date=18 July 2014 |accessdate=19 July 2014}}</ref>
-- Pingumeister( talk) 13:38, 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. |
At Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Events before the crash:
—The dot after "shot down" should be removed. Mayast ( talk) 15:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Just now we had an update from the Dutch PM. Number of issues that may be useful for the article. Dutch experts will lead the international expert team that will identify the victims. Special memorial session Monday with the PM and King present. Minister of foreign affairs Frans Timmermans flies to New York to talk to UN security council. Should we do something with this or let it lie for now. Arnoutf ( talk) 16:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
When MH370 disappeared, those who've been warning of false flag attempts to incriminate Russia (eg Infowars.com) predicted there would soon be a second Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 incident (presumably to allow the wreckage to be swapped for forensics, i.e. hide real accidental shoot-down of Chinese citizens on MH370 by putting time-bomb on MH17, then swap the wreckage). People were expecting this, and for the article to ignore such a striking prediction is kind of elephant-in-the-room stuff. Silent Key ( talk) 09:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I know, blog. I am not saying "on the basis of this blog the article should be changed". With that out of the way, a blogger for The Economist wrote here that:
Previously, there had been reports about separatist rebels boasting of having captured Buk missiles from a Ukrainian army base near Donetsk. The reports first surfaced on June 29th and were mainly carried by Russian state news agencies. According to sources, the story first ran on TV Zvezda, the news agency of the Russian defence ministry. A major question is whether the missile system was really stolen or whether the story was planted to provide cover for the Russians providing the rebels surreptitiously with advanced weaponry.
I'm unsure of how broadly this speculation has been made or whether it has been made by any sources more reliable than the above blog. I feel this would need more and better sources if any mention were to be made on our article.
At present, the article notes reports of the theft without mention of these claims being (speculatively) disputed. This may well be the correct handling, depending on who has been speculating to this effect/how strongly/etc. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that such speculation exists and may warrant inclusion in the article if it has broad or high-level incidence. Vague | Rant 15:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The Buk may have been stolen from Ukrainian government stocks, as they and Moscow claim. Or it may have come directly from Russia. It makes little difference.
In the report above they mention that the rebels were bragging about capturing Buk missiles. On June 29th there were articles published to this effect, but the stories seem to only be carried by Russian state-operated news agencies. The original source for the story appears to be TV Zvezda, the news agency for the Russian Ministry of Defense. It's not clear that the separatists ever captured Buks from the Ukrainian military or whether these stories were a front to explain how the rebels obtained such advance weaponry.
It seem contextually highly antisemantic to to use words still , theft, most frequently connotated to silent clandestine operation; Imagine during wartime to take posesion of diesel propelled caterpillar vehicle, and what? Push it slowly or harness horses? Not to mention to take it from presumably armed guards. If the above equipment takeover is true use terms booty or at least armed robery. I know the editorials push they bias siding with Jacyniuk Junta but enemy should be respected to preserve humanity. Otherwise is the shambles of war crimes, similar to what they are penning elsewehre. 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 03:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dutch reaction, something like:
In the first week after the crash, the main Dutch travel agencies did not make commercials for flight holidays.
[1]
Sander.v.Ginkel (
talk)
14:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Much of the information regarding the warnings given to airlines, what they did (or didn't do) about it, and which other flights/airlines were still operating in the area at the time of the crash, is scattered all over the article. Much of it has been lumped into that horrendous 'Events before the crash' timeline, rendering it pretty unparsable as a topic in of itself. I would like to change this by putting it all in its own topical section (and add some more info I've found that's not in the article), but the current situation, where it appears even though Wikipedia is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit", each individual change has to be listed here in detail and voted on first, makes this impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoryMig ( talk • contribs)
The airline has released a passenger/crew manifest that appears to be complete, the numbers agree with the current article. It is in a very rough form; one has to deduce from the rest of the entires that KAMSMA/MATTHEUSMR means Mr. Mattheus Kamsma and KAMSMA/QIUMSTR means Mr. Qiu Kamsma. I would be willing to create a table from this data that could be included with a {{ Collapse}}. I have laser-like attention to detail, so I'm perfect for the job; however, to avoid wasting a ton of time, I would want to be sure that it would be used; and I don't want to duplicate someone else's effort. Mandruss ( talk) 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wonder if these had a role to play as well http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/content/dam/malaysia-airlines/mas/PDF/MH17/MH017%20-%20Cargo%20Manifest%203.pdf there was also live cargo consisting of two dogs and nine boxes of birds. inspector ( talk) 17:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the responses section, ICAO's response should read (flag) ICAO - ICAO declared that it was ... In order for it to be consistent with other responses. Nathan121212 ( talk) 18:20, 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. |
Copyedit: please change the sentence " ICAO declared that it's sending its team of experts to assist Ukrainian National Bureau of Incidents and Accidents Investigation of Civil Aircraft (NBAAII), which according to ICAO is the country in charge of the investigation under Article 26 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation." in the "Reactions" section to " ICAO – ICAO declared that it would send a team of experts to assist the National Bureau of Incidents and Accidents Investigation of Civil Aircraft (NBAAII) of the Ukraine, which according to ICAO is the country in charge of the investigation under Article 26 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation." — Mr. Granger ( talk · contribs) 18:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead please add the airline name to fourth paragraph. I was reading the lead and saw that the fourth paragraph is the first that discusses the airline and events related to it.
Thank you. -- Marc Kupper| talk 19:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
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.
According to Oleg Kashin (independent journalist), separatists were expecting a Ukrainian cargo plane at the same time at the same place where MH17 crashed. They have a source of information about cargo flight details in Ukrainian military. That's why separatists were sure that they shot An-26.
I think this info should be added to the timeline section of the article.
Yozh ( talk) 02:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And NATO can't wash its hands of bloodbaths in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen. 92.40.250.86 ( talk) 02:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the following paragraph:
On 18 July a Russian Defence Ministry spokesman reported to journalists that "Russian radar facilities during 17 July detected work of 9S18 "Kupol" (radar station of detection and targeting for 9K37-1 SAM "Buk-M1" squadron), stationed near Ukrainian-controlled village Styla (30 kilometres (19 mi) south of Donetsk)"[87] Ukraine's foreign minister, Pavlo Klimkin stated that Ukraine did not have sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems in the area, and that none had been seized by separatist groups in recent weeks.[88]
It doesn't add anything to the article except muddy the waters, it's just a bunch of (outdated) he-said-she-said. At the very least it does not belong in the "aftermath" section. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
So there are edit warriors out there. There always is. The job of admins to keep THOSE edit warriors from editing, by warnings, bans, whatever. The general editing community is also not so helpless that it cannot organically marginalize non-consensus editors to a large degree without unsolicited "help". Where is the Talk page thread where ordinary editors were complaining of being overwhelmed by edit warriors and expressing little hope that ordinary measures can deal with it? The job of admins is not to restrict the pool of editors to themselves. I've been editing Wikipedia for nine years and haven't felt a need for admin tools because I was mostly just interested in building content. In my opinion we're seeing another precedent develop here for a hierarchy whereby admin status provides more editing rights. The content community has dealt with edit wars for years, without admins coming over the top to impose indiscriminate restrictions.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The same person who locks down the page, @Nyttend, is the same person who then proceeded to delete a massive amount of material with the misleading edit summary "removing a section per Talk". Where was the consensus for such a sweeping change? Where was the consensus to remove "Ukrainian authorities said another recording indicated that the weapons system had arrived from Russia with a Russian crew", just to take an example? If you look at the U.S. statement of the evidence on the Ukraine embassy page, a lot of that evidence was in the article UNTIL Nyttend locked down the page and took it out. Nyttend would likely have been reverted and called upon to justify his removals in detail had he not just denied the community the opportunity to revert.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 19:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And now all those busy-bee little admins are still toying with the flag question....sigh. How about you Ymblanter? 19:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have just lowered the protection level from full protection to semi-protection. In my protection log comment, I wrote that it has been "24 hours since full protection". I only realized after lowering the protection level that it has actually been only 20 hours, not 24 hours, a mistake I made due to time zone differences, but I think 20 hours is close enough to 24 to let the lowered protection level stand; furthermore, earlier on this page, it was suggested by other editors that the period of full page protection only be for 12 hours, so 20 hours of protection is already significantly longer than that. I will note that the original decision to implement full protection was made without clear consensus and over significant opposition, as seen in the comments on this talk page and on WP:ANI. — Lowellian ( reply) 19:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
For whatever reasons, this WP article is no longer listed (as of this moment) by google news on MA17 incident. I just hope it is because of this admin nonsense and not (as I fear) some other site just getting higher ratings. Why is it that WP should care? 20:02, 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. |
On 18 July The Daily Telegraph reported that the Russian government had allegedly modified or deleted information on Wikipedia pages relating to the MH17 incident, to remove claims that it helped provide the missile system used to shoot down the aircraft. Among the pages edited was the Russian version of an article listing civil aviation incidents, to claim that "the plane [flight MH17] was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers".
The edit itself for reference, also it's not the only occurrence where Russian governmental structures edit Wikipedia articles. In fact they've been streaming such government edits since some time here using the @RuGovEdits handle (also here through dumps.wikimedia.org ). It wasn't the government itself that edited it, but the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company that is owned by it. -- Arseny1992 ( talk) 17:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not the issue is notable depends on whether or not it is widely covered in reliable sources. Whether the edit was done at English wikipedia or Russian wikipedia is irrelevant. Whether Russian government editing Wikipedia is "surprising" or not is irrelevant. If Russian government edited the Fijian Wikipedia and everyone knew that they always edit Fijian Wikipedia BUT reliable sources for some reason covered their edits extensively then it would STILL be a reason for inclusion.
So yes, this information belongs in this article in the "Aftermath" section. Nothing major - WP:WEIGHT - still applies. But a sentence or so is very appropriate. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Some sources, after a less-than-one-minute search: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]... and I could keep going but I think you get the point. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
the crash site map on the New York Times centered at about (48.127, 38.620). there is no contradiction that can be found in photos and videos I have seen so far. there is no photo of the launch post but it's said near Snizhne or somewhere between Snizhne and Torez (as found in the same page see link below). a reference site might be (48.055, 38.762), the rocket engine may have fallen near Stryukove. source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/17/world/europe/maps-of-the-crash-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.111.176.89 ( talk) 12:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Now that this article has been taken from full protection to semi-protection, my question (to which I think the answer is yes) is whether discretionary sanctions for edit-warring are applicable under WP:ARBEE? Is Ukraine in Eastern Europe as usually defined? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Suggest adding:
ref: http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5456 Juan Riley ( talk) 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It's obviously relevant, especially coming as it did from SACEUR.
Juan Riley ( talk) 17:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Synthesis? As in making things up? And what, exactly, is Juan trying to make up here? He has provided a direct quote, from a senior NATO commander, which was reported in reliable sources after the fact. It is obviously relevant to the article. Stop this nonsense and just add it. Whatever the "good reasons" are for preventing people editing this article, they are surely being out-weighed by the fact that eminently worthwhile additions like this are being prevented, for no good reason at all. RoryMig ( talk) 17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Admins are now being arbitrary and uninformative. I am so sorry I asked you to tell me explicit reasons that the suggested addition is any different from other events given in the timeline. At some stage this just becomes inane. By my current understanding the article should read: ""Something happened...people died"". Oh and yes..I am sure an admin will put a warning on my talk page. We should have barnstars for being warned by autocratic admins. Juan Riley ( talk) 17:57, 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. |
I have posted it in [Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance_theories#Events_in_Ukraine], but because it is relevant, would like to post here as well: I wouldn't be completely surprised if there would be reliable sources about connection between these two events. These two events are completely unrelated and that makes it even more incredible of a coincidence. First, Malaysian airplane disappears and then, another one is being shot down. (Karma? Coincidence? Something more deeper?). But in any case, we cannot ignore the fact that two of the most unusual events in aviation history are involving Malaysian Airways and happened in a relatively condensed period of time. If there will be reliable sources about that, I think we can either post them in this (the one mentioned above) article, unless "unofficial theories" article will be created for this one. Dmatteng ( talk) 16:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
http://www.newsday.com/business/what-to-know-how-malaysia-airlines-can-salvage-its-brand-1.8850131 The first calls the coincidence unprecedented, the second goes into great detail about its effect of the brand. I've not looked properly, but I'd say it's a good bet neither of them even mention conspiracy theory. RoryMig ( talk) 17:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Dennis Brown, I don't know how you managed to misread what I have written. I have clearly said:
I started going over the cites in this section, and found that several were things like Facebook pages, and one was a hate-filled blog by an anonymous party who asserts that the MH17 downing was a false flag operation by the Mossad. Finding some reliable sources for this section might be good! Poindexter Propellerhead ( talk) 22:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
There is very little in the current version of the article about the fate/finding of the black boxes, which is obviously a very important aspect of this tragedy. I don't have time at the moment to formulate a proper edit request but perhaps someone else could suggest something. Here is one source [15], others should be easy to find. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:19, 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. |
To note that Tony Abbott stated that this was not an accident but was a crime. As noted by [ Tony Abbott's response to MH17] I ask it be noted in the Reactions by Country under the section of Australia. TheGRVOfLightning ( talk) 06:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)