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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
My understanding of MOS says that at a minimum, we need to remove the flags from the "Reactions" sections. We are already linking the name of the country as the first word of each comment, and the flags are distracting. This isn't a competition table, so the flags add nothing to the reader in the way of enhancing the readability. The inverse is actually true. As I'm admin'ing here, I won't make the edit myself and ask for a consensus to be developed, one way or the other, with a simple, non-verbose poll.
Did you even bother to read that page? Given that the list is not alphabetical, it's pretty obvious that the icons are being used for "navigational function" and as "visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension".
"Most people don't even know what flag refers to what country" - prove it. I'd say that learning what flag belongs to what country is pre-school stuff, so what you're basically doing is assuming the average reader of Wikipedia has a level of education below pre-school. Which is quite obviously nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoryMig ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
On a side note, the is an Internet hype about SBU wiretaps of the separatists being forged. The version I saw was about upload/record date being earlier than the plane crash. Any information on that?
Yutube is good if High commisioner to refuges confirmig this is her voice (abot who kill who). Or Mecrekel say *f* UE nicht gut, commenting VF Nulland insight in future 'election' results. 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 14:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I have included three links below to support this. http://www.financialexpress.com/news/malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-top-5-deadliest-attacks-on-airliners/1271130 http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/17/top-5-deadliest-attacks-on-commercial-airliners http://world.einnews.com/article__detail/214431219?lcode=4ah0VeoaPs62GaRlQf5LNA%3D%3D
And I was also wondering if this fact could be added to the article; as overall it seems much more significant than the fact that it was "the deadliest air incident in the Ukraine, the deadliest involving a Boeing 777 and the deadliest involving Malaysian airlines." Also, isn't it reasonable to say that it was the third deadliest aviation attack overall, after 9/11 and Air India Flight 182? Could this be added as well? Undescribed ( talk) 19:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict)x3 :You'd have to be careful about what criterion you use for "deadliest" and "airline attack". 9/11 is only the deadliest if you count all 4 airplanes as one and count in the people who died who were not on the plane but in the WTC and Pentagon. Konveyor Belt 19:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
So therefore wouldn't it fit the "overall deadliest" criteria? Undescribed ( talk) 22:23, 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. |
|
→ |
|
Shooting down a neutral civilian plane is dastardly by any standard, but this use of 'terrorists' is inconsistent with the tone of the article at this time. — C M B J 18:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I very strongly disagree with the phrasing of the following sentence
"On 19 July 2014 Andriy Lysenko, the spokesman of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine announced to the press that the terrorists removed 38 bodies from the crash site in order to extract from the bodies exploded parts of the rocket used to shoot the plane and destroy the evidence.[100]"
Please remove at least the indirect quote and make it direct. Terrorist is a very strong and subjective term that i think should be used very carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PremiumBananas ( talk • contribs)
"Unconfirmed" should be replaced with attribution, namely attribution to Ukrainian authorities. As far as the Ukrainians are concerned, it's confirmed. And also according to the U.S. given the official U.S. statement: "Audio data provided to the press by the Ukrainian security service was evaluated by Intelligence Community analysts who confirmed these were authentic conversations between known separatist leaders, based on comparing the Ukraine-released internet audio to recordings of known separatists." Now there's always going to be some editors who say the U.S. government is an unreliable source. We do not have to indulge that view by declaring "unconfirmed" despite the U.S. statement of confirmation. We also don't have to go to the other extreme and call it "confirmed" just because the U.S. says it is. We rather simply note that the audio came from Ukraine and the U.S. believes it authentic. Those readers who think those two governments cannot be trusted are not being told they are mistaken. At the same time, readers who believe there has been confirmation, as the U.S. believes, are also not being told they are mistaken (if we use attribution instead of "unconfirmed").-- Brian Dell ( talk) 18:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this Talk page only supposed to be used for discussing which i's to dot and which t's to cross? You see yourself as just taking dictation like a secretary, Ymblanter? I should think my fellow editors here can operate on a more editorial level as befits the title "editor". It's already specific enough to take action with respect to the page: replace "unconfirmed" with the appropriate attribution (e.g. "Ukraine claimed"), and add the (attributed) view of the U.S. that there has been confirmation. Unlock the page so I can edit if you have no objections in principle to my argument here. If you then don't like the details you'd remain free to change my editing, no? Marek gives an example of what can be done here. Other examples may be equally acceptable.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 19:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I request the removal of the "dubious — discuss" tag from the map showing the crash site and approximate launch location published by the NYT. There are some editors who feel, roughly speaking, that published accounts based on information or claims made by the current Ukrainian government should not be treated as reliable sources. My understanding is that part of WP's proper role is to report, not question, mainstream discourse. Thus any NPOV concerns about lending too much weight to Ukraine's claims could be addressed by attribution (e.g., "approximate area of missile launch according to Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense") — personally, I question whether even that much is warranted — and by properly weighted reflection of opposing published views. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following under Recovery of casualties: "On 20 July 2014, Ukrainian emergency workers began loading the remains of the passengers of MH17 into railcars for transportation and identification. Workers were observed by armed seperatists. The remains of 100 people are still missing." Source: Wall Street Journal Nathan121212 ( talk) 17:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have included three links below to support that this was the deadliest aircraft shoot down in history http://www.financialexpress.com/news/malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-top-5-deadliest-attacks-on-airliners/1271130 http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/17/top-5-deadliest-attacks-on-commercial-airliners http://world.einnews.com/article__detail/214431219?lcode=4ah0VeoaPs62GaRlQf5LNA%3D%3D
And I was also wondering if this fact could be added to the article; as overall it seems much more significant than the fact that it was "the deadliest air incident in the Ukraine, the deadliest involving a Boeing 777 and the deadliest involving Malaysian airlines." Also, isn't it reasonable to say that it was the third deadliest aviation attack overall, after 9/11 and Air India Flight 182? Could this be added as well?
Oops. It was fully protected not long ago. Sorry about that. Undescribed ( talk) 03:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I propose that this article be restricted to 1RR given the issues it has had. This can be reported to ANI or be monitored if broken. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1RR is better than locking the article down. But 3RR violators should be getting max discipline before we start demanding 1RR.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 23:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem with 1RR on an article such as this which gets edited a lot is that it's very easy to break it on accident or due to edit conflicts. Often times I make a change, save, then go back and look over to make sure everything's alright. Then often make a follow up change. If somebody jumps in an reverts me in the interim - which happens if article is being edited heavily - I revert them and follow through with my correction. That would show up as a 1RR break right there even though it really should be 1 revert via 2 consecutive edits. And then edit conflicts and stuff... I'd rather see it stay full protected. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure I saw {{ 2013–2014 unrest in Ukraine}} on this page in a collapsed state at some stage, but I can't find it in the history, and with a little bit of checking I haven't found how it would have been implemented. I know it would be against WP:COLLAPSE, but I'd prefer it to be in the article and collapsed than not in the article to "fix the appearance of this template".
And while I tried to confirm how to do this User:Illegitimate Barrister has put the campaign box back in its place, exactly what I was trying to avoid :-( Mark Hurd ( talk) 04:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
2013–2014 unrest in Ukraine}}
was removed by me because it was pushing the passenger/crew by nationality box too far to the left.
Dustin
(talk) 05:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
{{2013–2014 unrest in Ukraine}}
in its current state.
Dustin
(talk) 06:13, 21 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 change "Malaysian actress Shuba Jaya" to "Malaysian actress Shuba Jaya". I believe she may meet our criteria for notability as an actress and I've created a page for her. - A1candidate ( talk) 22:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
"However, in a recent article by Paul Craig Roberts, and in contrast to most main-stream media reports, Roberts is of the opinion that - mistake or otherwise - it was the Ukrainian military who are most likely responsible for the downing of MH17.[162]"-- Source barely notable, referenced article full of unreferenced assertions and assumptions some of which would be laughable if there was anything about this to laugh about, and seems to have been shoved randomly onto the end of the article.
I boldly removed the image of Obama on the phone, on the basis that it demonstrates very little about the plane crash, and this isn't really a major event for the US anyway. And there's no evidence that he's talking to anyone, let alone who the caption says he's talking to. Someone restored the image without even an Edit summary, so I don't know their reasoning. There's mine above. What purpose does that image serve? HiLo48 ( talk) 09:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
According to FlightRadar24 [ http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/mh17/#3d6095b ] the last transponder puts MH17 almost exactly overhead the town of Snizhne at 1321 UTC, hdg: 118, 490kts 33,000 ft. This would indicate that MH17 turned back on itself to reach the crash-site near the village of Hrabove. The maps do not show this. Additionally, one map shows loss of contact at 1315 (ATC ??) and the other at 1321 (transponder ??) which is a bit confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegroman ( talk • contribs)
There's quite a bit of discussion about their reliability, with airlines apparently doubting the site, Der Spiegel using its information, and the site itself claiming reliability and raising its visibility. I think, to keep things on the safe side, that we should continue to use secondary sources and, given the misinformation and doubt about things as basic as flight routes, to tread slowly and carefully. Drmies ( talk) 17:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
FlightRadar24 are quoted as a source earlier in the article :o) They use a network of volunteers with transponder receivers that feed them the received data in real time (or at least within a few seconds - internet-permitting). In any case, transponder timestamps and positions come from GPS signals - so even if it takes a while to reach FlightRadar24 it will still be a record of where the aircraft was at that time. Montenegroman ( talk) 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
OK then, let's look at a minute earlier: At 1320 UTC MH17 transmitted (itself) that it was at 33,000ft (atmittedly this is an approximation as - at those altitides - we are talking in flight levels). Its heading was 118 degrees and had an airsped of 490knots. Its position was slightly south of Rozsypne. All I am trying to get accross here is that MH17 did NOT fly directly to the crash site like the maps show. Montenegroman ( talk) 17:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Would it make sense to add detailed time of the events directly preceding the crash listed on the timeline on 17 July, like this:
This information is currently in the article, but spread over several sections, and it makes much more sense when it's presented in a single timeline. Pawel Krawczyk ( talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Now reports that "Pro-Russian rebels 'stole bodies from MH17 crash site'": [3]. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC):
In the spirit of WP:NPOV, a few minutes ago TVP Info cited the separatists on air (more precisely, I think they cited Alexander Borodai), saying that they are moving bodies to the morgue just to prevent them from decaying in the sun. Mayast ( talk) 12:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Please reorder the nationalities list by the highest to lowest number. Official sources, like that of the Malaysia Airlines, list the number of passengers and their nationalities from highest to lowest number. More pages also have the table in the intuitive and much more useful numerical order, such as: Japan Airlines Flight 123, Air India Flight 182, Iran Air Flight 655, American Airlines Flight 587, Air New Zealand Flight 901, United Airlines Flight 175, Garuda Indonesia Flight 152, Korean Air Flight 801, EgyptAir Flight 990, China Airlines Flight 676, Birgenair Flight 301, LOT Flight 5055, Kenya Airways Flight 431, PIA Flight 268. A complete alphabetical order may make sense if no nationalities are overrepresented or the official source has them listed so. A rationalization made at this page that the alphabetical order is more neutral does not make any sense to me. Supersaiyen312 ( talk) 12:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Nationality | Passengers | Crew | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Netherlands | 193 | 0 | 193 |
Malaysia | 28 | 15 | 43 |
Australia | 27 | 0 | 27 |
Indonesia | 12 | 0 | 12 |
United Kingdom | 10 | 0 | 10 |
Belgium | 4 | 0 | 4 |
Germany | 4 | 0 | 4 |
Philippines | 3 | 0 | 3 |
Canada | 1 | 0 | 1 |
New Zealand | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Total | 283 | 15 | 298 |
In the 4th para of the crash section . . . Malaysia Airlines confirms it received notification from Ukrainian ATC that it had lost contact with flight MH17 at 1415 (GMT) at 30km from Tamak waypoint, approximately 50km from the Russia-Ukraine border. But isn't the Tamak waypoint virtually ON the border?? Montenegroman ( talk) 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
In line with the goal of using NPOV, I propose the word "separatists" should be used instead of "rebels" or "terrorists" when referring to the Donetsk and Lugansk separatist movements. The reason is that terrorist and rebels both pack the assumption of legitimate versus illegitimate. Unlike the Basque separatists, The Donetsk and Lugansk separatists are not known to have deliberately targeted noncombatants, which is the definition of terrorism. They are rightly defined as separatist movements. Even the Basque separatists are referred to as "separatists" even though they might also fit the definition of terrorist and rebels. Cadwallader ( talk) 23:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've restored an official Kremlin photograph of Russian officials observing a moment of silence in memory of the victims because it is directly related to Russia's reactions. I know some may think they're directly responsible for the crash, and that may indeed be the case, but we're not here to make speculations before the investigation is over. - A1candidate ( talk) 12:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for the article? -- John ( talk) 10:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the LAST image that should be in the article should be the Russian government holding a moment of silence in honor of the victims of this crash. They are the ones who are responsible for it, and having this image in the article itself is disrespectful and disgraceful. Imagine having an image of Osama bin Laden praying for the victims of 9/11 on the main 9/11 article. Disgusting. § DDima 03:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"With 298 deaths, the crash of MH17 is the deadliest aviation incident since the 11 September attacks.[22] It is also the deadliest-ever air incident in Ukraine, Boeing 777 hull loss,[23] and airliner shootdown.[24] It is the third-deadliest incident of aviation-related sabotage, behind Air India Flight 182 and the 11 September attacks.[25] The crash was Malaysia Airlines' deadliest major incident, as well as its second of the year, after the disappearance of Flight 370, on 8 March, en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur."
So we have:
...is this really all necessary for the lead? Some of it is mildly useful, but I'm not sure what to trim. 9kat ( talk) 16:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This image was recently uploaded to Commons, and could be used in this article. However, I'm not sure of a good place to put it. It wouldn't really fit in the Reactions section. Any suggestions? -- Pingumeister( talk) 15:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I ended up creating a Memorials section and placing the image there. -- Pingumeister( talk) 17:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
In the introduction and potentially other areas, accident should be changed to incident. Since the exact cause is unknown, it is impossible to tell whether or not the crash was an accident. Further, the airplane was likely shot down by a missile, and targeted missile strikes are generally not accidents. 108.94.106.53 ( talk) 03:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This is definitely an accident as per FAA and NTSB definitions. Note that the NTSB defines an accident as per part 830 of regulations as "an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.". Given the loss of life and total loss of aircraft, it is most definitely an accident as defined by aviation authorities worldwide. We do not need to know the cause at this point to be able to classify it as an accident. -- DigitalRevolution ( talk) 17:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The article says "With 298 deaths, the crash of MH17 is the deadliest aviation incident since the September 11 attacks". Those only involved a total of 246 people on four planes. This is one plane with 298 deaths. I know there were many others killed in the September 11 attacks, but it seems a weird comparison to me. I'm not sure what it demonstrates. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Many news reports name Hrabove as Grabovo, its alternative name. As a non-Russian-speaker, they look different enough that I would think they were different places. Should the article mention that they both refer to the same village? cmɢʟee⎆ τaʟκ 17:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Should MH17 Boeing 777 Plane Crash, Ukraine (Jul 2014) be used as a source in the "Crash" section (as it currently is - see ref 81) or should it be moved to the "External links" section? G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen the need for "reactions": they're words, that's all, and this is an encyclopedia. However, responses in particular by Germany, Ireland, Indonesia, Australia, Romania, and South Africa are particularly meaningless from an encyclopedic point of view, and I suggest removal. Same actually goes for NATO. Unless some responding entity is involved with the investigation or the disaster in some important way, their reaction is not important. And if a country loses one or a few citizens, that doesn't make their reaction important per se; from that rationale, responses by the Dutch, for instance, do have relevance. Drmies ( talk) 15:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, people saying they're shocked adds nothing, but on what planet would it ever be considered remotely unimportant that NATO said "It is important that a full international investigation should be launched immediately, without any hindrance, to establish the facts and that those who may be responsible are swiftly brought to justice"? Since NATO has absolutely no role to play in aircrash investigations or indeed international justice, but has a large role to play in any potential military conflict in Eastern Europe that might arise from this incident, I think a reaction like this is of eminent importance.
References
Is there a way to get a handle on this? There's now 45 references cluttering up the bottom of the page from various sections above where editors are either suggesting new text or complaining about why text was removed. Tarc ( talk) 14:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
at any point after the last {{
reflist}}
or <references />
, an automatic reflist will appear after the last thread on the page. When this happens, the thing to do is to add a {{
reflist}}
to each section that doesn't already have one, and where there is at least one <ref>...</ref>
. However, it must not be the last thing in the thread, because that will prevent the archive bots from seeing the last timestamp in the thread, so won't archive it. I generally put the reflist after the post that includes the ref,
like this. BTW I'm not watching this page, so if you reply to me, please make sure that you include {{
replyto|Redrose64}}
so that I get a notification. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
reflist-talk}}
is essentially a normal {{
reflist}}
wrapped in code that puts it in a box with a white background and a dashed border, plus the word "References" in boldface. You can see it in action at
Talk:Concrete#Worldwide CO2 emissions and global change where there are two. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Really? 173.228.54.18 ( talk) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. But Girkin being the national spokesman would in my view happen to be incorrect. TheGRVOfLightning ( talk) 06:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this needs to be fixed as well. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest adding a footnote next to 'Novorossiya', stating that 'Novorossiya is a state with limited recognition that has declared independence from Ukraine' in order to prevent confusion. EDIT: I take this back as I realise that instead of clarifying that Novorossiya is not a country, it would likely have the opposite effect on readers. Oakleigh Park 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Novorossiya deserves to be listed, somehow, since they are a direct player in this crash (they control the territory), regardless of their disputed legal status. Maybe Novorossiya should not be listed under "countries" with the rest of the UN member states, but rather under a new category, such as "disputed entities". See the Response section of the Shelling of Donetsk, Russia article as an example for the correct way to treat Novorossiya. -- Tocino 08:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
"Novorossiya" does not exist, and thus should not be listed in any way, shape for form alongside legitimate nations. What should be done is create another section for the non-nation opinions deemed relevant. There you can list NATO, the UN, the ICAO, alongside the statement of the terrorist/separatist/whatever group. Tarc ( talk) 11:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Dustin (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Dustin (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to publish this article?
Materials published on the website of the Ministry of Defense of Russia:
Russian Ministry of Defense a special briefing on the disaster in the sky flight MH17 Ukraine
Objective control materials
These objective Unified control of air traffic related accident flight MH17
In English
213.87.132.87 (
talk) 16:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The name of the article at present in and of itself is A) not sufficient to convey the true substance of the situation and story and issue, and B) is somewhat misleading in a way. This article is NOT really about "Malaysia" per se, nor about a "Malaysian airplane" or "flight" primarily. But about a mistaken shoot-down of a civilian commercial aircraft, in general, over Ukraine, presumably probably by pro-Russia rebels and separatists. The emphasis arguably should be on THAT, in the article name and wording. Nothing in the article name even mentions the word "crash" or "shoot-down" or anything. Just a generic un-informing "airlines flight 17". It should be changed or modified, IMO. Regards. Gabby Merger ( talk) 02:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This TP page is getting pretty long, probably time part of it was archived?
Secondly - editors - PLEASE - do not copy/paste the entire references section from an article to the Talk Page - it is disruptive to read thru - and takes up far too much space - use links and brief summaries instead - anyone can go to the article to get the detailed un-congealed mess if need be. Thanks. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 18:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It didn't come by here last night for some reason, so it is massive today. I, being the one who initially set it to 10 hours when I first set it up, will now cut it down to 8 hours to see if it gets rid of anymore threads. I'll then move it out a good bit after tonight. United States Man ( talk) 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"Russian citizens brought flowers to the Dutch embassy in Moscow. Among the flowers was a note in English that read: "We are very sorry! What a terrible shame!" - Is this worth to be mentioned on Wikipedia? Looks like an anonymous person that happened to be in Moscow (that's all we know) wanted to turn all the blame for the plane crash to Russia and its people and luckily got quoted on Wikipedia. This cannot be referred as a general stance of ordinary Russians on the issue. There is even no proof that the note was written by a Russian. Wikipedia has become a propaganda machine. That's sad.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
My understanding of MOS says that at a minimum, we need to remove the flags from the "Reactions" sections. We are already linking the name of the country as the first word of each comment, and the flags are distracting. This isn't a competition table, so the flags add nothing to the reader in the way of enhancing the readability. The inverse is actually true. As I'm admin'ing here, I won't make the edit myself and ask for a consensus to be developed, one way or the other, with a simple, non-verbose poll.
Did you even bother to read that page? Given that the list is not alphabetical, it's pretty obvious that the icons are being used for "navigational function" and as "visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension".
"Most people don't even know what flag refers to what country" - prove it. I'd say that learning what flag belongs to what country is pre-school stuff, so what you're basically doing is assuming the average reader of Wikipedia has a level of education below pre-school. Which is quite obviously nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoryMig ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
On a side note, the is an Internet hype about SBU wiretaps of the separatists being forged. The version I saw was about upload/record date being earlier than the plane crash. Any information on that?
Yutube is good if High commisioner to refuges confirmig this is her voice (abot who kill who). Or Mecrekel say *f* UE nicht gut, commenting VF Nulland insight in future 'election' results. 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 14:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I have included three links below to support this. http://www.financialexpress.com/news/malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-top-5-deadliest-attacks-on-airliners/1271130 http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/17/top-5-deadliest-attacks-on-commercial-airliners http://world.einnews.com/article__detail/214431219?lcode=4ah0VeoaPs62GaRlQf5LNA%3D%3D
And I was also wondering if this fact could be added to the article; as overall it seems much more significant than the fact that it was "the deadliest air incident in the Ukraine, the deadliest involving a Boeing 777 and the deadliest involving Malaysian airlines." Also, isn't it reasonable to say that it was the third deadliest aviation attack overall, after 9/11 and Air India Flight 182? Could this be added as well? Undescribed ( talk) 19:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict)x3 :You'd have to be careful about what criterion you use for "deadliest" and "airline attack". 9/11 is only the deadliest if you count all 4 airplanes as one and count in the people who died who were not on the plane but in the WTC and Pentagon. Konveyor Belt 19:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
So therefore wouldn't it fit the "overall deadliest" criteria? Undescribed ( talk) 22:23, 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. |
|
→ |
|
Shooting down a neutral civilian plane is dastardly by any standard, but this use of 'terrorists' is inconsistent with the tone of the article at this time. — C M B J 18:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I very strongly disagree with the phrasing of the following sentence
"On 19 July 2014 Andriy Lysenko, the spokesman of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine announced to the press that the terrorists removed 38 bodies from the crash site in order to extract from the bodies exploded parts of the rocket used to shoot the plane and destroy the evidence.[100]"
Please remove at least the indirect quote and make it direct. Terrorist is a very strong and subjective term that i think should be used very carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PremiumBananas ( talk • contribs)
"Unconfirmed" should be replaced with attribution, namely attribution to Ukrainian authorities. As far as the Ukrainians are concerned, it's confirmed. And also according to the U.S. given the official U.S. statement: "Audio data provided to the press by the Ukrainian security service was evaluated by Intelligence Community analysts who confirmed these were authentic conversations between known separatist leaders, based on comparing the Ukraine-released internet audio to recordings of known separatists." Now there's always going to be some editors who say the U.S. government is an unreliable source. We do not have to indulge that view by declaring "unconfirmed" despite the U.S. statement of confirmation. We also don't have to go to the other extreme and call it "confirmed" just because the U.S. says it is. We rather simply note that the audio came from Ukraine and the U.S. believes it authentic. Those readers who think those two governments cannot be trusted are not being told they are mistaken. At the same time, readers who believe there has been confirmation, as the U.S. believes, are also not being told they are mistaken (if we use attribution instead of "unconfirmed").-- Brian Dell ( talk) 18:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this Talk page only supposed to be used for discussing which i's to dot and which t's to cross? You see yourself as just taking dictation like a secretary, Ymblanter? I should think my fellow editors here can operate on a more editorial level as befits the title "editor". It's already specific enough to take action with respect to the page: replace "unconfirmed" with the appropriate attribution (e.g. "Ukraine claimed"), and add the (attributed) view of the U.S. that there has been confirmation. Unlock the page so I can edit if you have no objections in principle to my argument here. If you then don't like the details you'd remain free to change my editing, no? Marek gives an example of what can be done here. Other examples may be equally acceptable.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 19:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I request the removal of the "dubious — discuss" tag from the map showing the crash site and approximate launch location published by the NYT. There are some editors who feel, roughly speaking, that published accounts based on information or claims made by the current Ukrainian government should not be treated as reliable sources. My understanding is that part of WP's proper role is to report, not question, mainstream discourse. Thus any NPOV concerns about lending too much weight to Ukraine's claims could be addressed by attribution (e.g., "approximate area of missile launch according to Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense") — personally, I question whether even that much is warranted — and by properly weighted reflection of opposing published views. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following under Recovery of casualties: "On 20 July 2014, Ukrainian emergency workers began loading the remains of the passengers of MH17 into railcars for transportation and identification. Workers were observed by armed seperatists. The remains of 100 people are still missing." Source: Wall Street Journal Nathan121212 ( talk) 17:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have included three links below to support that this was the deadliest aircraft shoot down in history http://www.financialexpress.com/news/malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-top-5-deadliest-attacks-on-airliners/1271130 http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/17/top-5-deadliest-attacks-on-commercial-airliners http://world.einnews.com/article__detail/214431219?lcode=4ah0VeoaPs62GaRlQf5LNA%3D%3D
And I was also wondering if this fact could be added to the article; as overall it seems much more significant than the fact that it was "the deadliest air incident in the Ukraine, the deadliest involving a Boeing 777 and the deadliest involving Malaysian airlines." Also, isn't it reasonable to say that it was the third deadliest aviation attack overall, after 9/11 and Air India Flight 182? Could this be added as well?
Oops. It was fully protected not long ago. Sorry about that. Undescribed ( talk) 03:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I propose that this article be restricted to 1RR given the issues it has had. This can be reported to ANI or be monitored if broken. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1RR is better than locking the article down. But 3RR violators should be getting max discipline before we start demanding 1RR.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 23:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem with 1RR on an article such as this which gets edited a lot is that it's very easy to break it on accident or due to edit conflicts. Often times I make a change, save, then go back and look over to make sure everything's alright. Then often make a follow up change. If somebody jumps in an reverts me in the interim - which happens if article is being edited heavily - I revert them and follow through with my correction. That would show up as a 1RR break right there even though it really should be 1 revert via 2 consecutive edits. And then edit conflicts and stuff... I'd rather see it stay full protected. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure I saw {{ 2013–2014 unrest in Ukraine}} on this page in a collapsed state at some stage, but I can't find it in the history, and with a little bit of checking I haven't found how it would have been implemented. I know it would be against WP:COLLAPSE, but I'd prefer it to be in the article and collapsed than not in the article to "fix the appearance of this template".
And while I tried to confirm how to do this User:Illegitimate Barrister has put the campaign box back in its place, exactly what I was trying to avoid :-( Mark Hurd ( talk) 04:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
2013–2014 unrest in Ukraine}}
was removed by me because it was pushing the passenger/crew by nationality box too far to the left.
Dustin
(talk) 05:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
{{2013–2014 unrest in Ukraine}}
in its current state.
Dustin
(talk) 06:13, 21 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 change "Malaysian actress Shuba Jaya" to "Malaysian actress Shuba Jaya". I believe she may meet our criteria for notability as an actress and I've created a page for her. - A1candidate ( talk) 22:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
"However, in a recent article by Paul Craig Roberts, and in contrast to most main-stream media reports, Roberts is of the opinion that - mistake or otherwise - it was the Ukrainian military who are most likely responsible for the downing of MH17.[162]"-- Source barely notable, referenced article full of unreferenced assertions and assumptions some of which would be laughable if there was anything about this to laugh about, and seems to have been shoved randomly onto the end of the article.
I boldly removed the image of Obama on the phone, on the basis that it demonstrates very little about the plane crash, and this isn't really a major event for the US anyway. And there's no evidence that he's talking to anyone, let alone who the caption says he's talking to. Someone restored the image without even an Edit summary, so I don't know their reasoning. There's mine above. What purpose does that image serve? HiLo48 ( talk) 09:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
According to FlightRadar24 [ http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/mh17/#3d6095b ] the last transponder puts MH17 almost exactly overhead the town of Snizhne at 1321 UTC, hdg: 118, 490kts 33,000 ft. This would indicate that MH17 turned back on itself to reach the crash-site near the village of Hrabove. The maps do not show this. Additionally, one map shows loss of contact at 1315 (ATC ??) and the other at 1321 (transponder ??) which is a bit confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegroman ( talk • contribs)
There's quite a bit of discussion about their reliability, with airlines apparently doubting the site, Der Spiegel using its information, and the site itself claiming reliability and raising its visibility. I think, to keep things on the safe side, that we should continue to use secondary sources and, given the misinformation and doubt about things as basic as flight routes, to tread slowly and carefully. Drmies ( talk) 17:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
FlightRadar24 are quoted as a source earlier in the article :o) They use a network of volunteers with transponder receivers that feed them the received data in real time (or at least within a few seconds - internet-permitting). In any case, transponder timestamps and positions come from GPS signals - so even if it takes a while to reach FlightRadar24 it will still be a record of where the aircraft was at that time. Montenegroman ( talk) 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
OK then, let's look at a minute earlier: At 1320 UTC MH17 transmitted (itself) that it was at 33,000ft (atmittedly this is an approximation as - at those altitides - we are talking in flight levels). Its heading was 118 degrees and had an airsped of 490knots. Its position was slightly south of Rozsypne. All I am trying to get accross here is that MH17 did NOT fly directly to the crash site like the maps show. Montenegroman ( talk) 17:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Would it make sense to add detailed time of the events directly preceding the crash listed on the timeline on 17 July, like this:
This information is currently in the article, but spread over several sections, and it makes much more sense when it's presented in a single timeline. Pawel Krawczyk ( talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Now reports that "Pro-Russian rebels 'stole bodies from MH17 crash site'": [3]. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC):
In the spirit of WP:NPOV, a few minutes ago TVP Info cited the separatists on air (more precisely, I think they cited Alexander Borodai), saying that they are moving bodies to the morgue just to prevent them from decaying in the sun. Mayast ( talk) 12:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Please reorder the nationalities list by the highest to lowest number. Official sources, like that of the Malaysia Airlines, list the number of passengers and their nationalities from highest to lowest number. More pages also have the table in the intuitive and much more useful numerical order, such as: Japan Airlines Flight 123, Air India Flight 182, Iran Air Flight 655, American Airlines Flight 587, Air New Zealand Flight 901, United Airlines Flight 175, Garuda Indonesia Flight 152, Korean Air Flight 801, EgyptAir Flight 990, China Airlines Flight 676, Birgenair Flight 301, LOT Flight 5055, Kenya Airways Flight 431, PIA Flight 268. A complete alphabetical order may make sense if no nationalities are overrepresented or the official source has them listed so. A rationalization made at this page that the alphabetical order is more neutral does not make any sense to me. Supersaiyen312 ( talk) 12:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Nationality | Passengers | Crew | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Netherlands | 193 | 0 | 193 |
Malaysia | 28 | 15 | 43 |
Australia | 27 | 0 | 27 |
Indonesia | 12 | 0 | 12 |
United Kingdom | 10 | 0 | 10 |
Belgium | 4 | 0 | 4 |
Germany | 4 | 0 | 4 |
Philippines | 3 | 0 | 3 |
Canada | 1 | 0 | 1 |
New Zealand | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Total | 283 | 15 | 298 |
In the 4th para of the crash section . . . Malaysia Airlines confirms it received notification from Ukrainian ATC that it had lost contact with flight MH17 at 1415 (GMT) at 30km from Tamak waypoint, approximately 50km from the Russia-Ukraine border. But isn't the Tamak waypoint virtually ON the border?? Montenegroman ( talk) 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
In line with the goal of using NPOV, I propose the word "separatists" should be used instead of "rebels" or "terrorists" when referring to the Donetsk and Lugansk separatist movements. The reason is that terrorist and rebels both pack the assumption of legitimate versus illegitimate. Unlike the Basque separatists, The Donetsk and Lugansk separatists are not known to have deliberately targeted noncombatants, which is the definition of terrorism. They are rightly defined as separatist movements. Even the Basque separatists are referred to as "separatists" even though they might also fit the definition of terrorist and rebels. Cadwallader ( talk) 23:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've restored an official Kremlin photograph of Russian officials observing a moment of silence in memory of the victims because it is directly related to Russia's reactions. I know some may think they're directly responsible for the crash, and that may indeed be the case, but we're not here to make speculations before the investigation is over. - A1candidate ( talk) 12:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for the article? -- John ( talk) 10:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the LAST image that should be in the article should be the Russian government holding a moment of silence in honor of the victims of this crash. They are the ones who are responsible for it, and having this image in the article itself is disrespectful and disgraceful. Imagine having an image of Osama bin Laden praying for the victims of 9/11 on the main 9/11 article. Disgusting. § DDima 03:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"With 298 deaths, the crash of MH17 is the deadliest aviation incident since the 11 September attacks.[22] It is also the deadliest-ever air incident in Ukraine, Boeing 777 hull loss,[23] and airliner shootdown.[24] It is the third-deadliest incident of aviation-related sabotage, behind Air India Flight 182 and the 11 September attacks.[25] The crash was Malaysia Airlines' deadliest major incident, as well as its second of the year, after the disappearance of Flight 370, on 8 March, en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur."
So we have:
...is this really all necessary for the lead? Some of it is mildly useful, but I'm not sure what to trim. 9kat ( talk) 16:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This image was recently uploaded to Commons, and could be used in this article. However, I'm not sure of a good place to put it. It wouldn't really fit in the Reactions section. Any suggestions? -- Pingumeister( talk) 15:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I ended up creating a Memorials section and placing the image there. -- Pingumeister( talk) 17:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
In the introduction and potentially other areas, accident should be changed to incident. Since the exact cause is unknown, it is impossible to tell whether or not the crash was an accident. Further, the airplane was likely shot down by a missile, and targeted missile strikes are generally not accidents. 108.94.106.53 ( talk) 03:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This is definitely an accident as per FAA and NTSB definitions. Note that the NTSB defines an accident as per part 830 of regulations as "an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.". Given the loss of life and total loss of aircraft, it is most definitely an accident as defined by aviation authorities worldwide. We do not need to know the cause at this point to be able to classify it as an accident. -- DigitalRevolution ( talk) 17:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The article says "With 298 deaths, the crash of MH17 is the deadliest aviation incident since the September 11 attacks". Those only involved a total of 246 people on four planes. This is one plane with 298 deaths. I know there were many others killed in the September 11 attacks, but it seems a weird comparison to me. I'm not sure what it demonstrates. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Many news reports name Hrabove as Grabovo, its alternative name. As a non-Russian-speaker, they look different enough that I would think they were different places. Should the article mention that they both refer to the same village? cmɢʟee⎆ τaʟκ 17:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Should MH17 Boeing 777 Plane Crash, Ukraine (Jul 2014) be used as a source in the "Crash" section (as it currently is - see ref 81) or should it be moved to the "External links" section? G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen the need for "reactions": they're words, that's all, and this is an encyclopedia. However, responses in particular by Germany, Ireland, Indonesia, Australia, Romania, and South Africa are particularly meaningless from an encyclopedic point of view, and I suggest removal. Same actually goes for NATO. Unless some responding entity is involved with the investigation or the disaster in some important way, their reaction is not important. And if a country loses one or a few citizens, that doesn't make their reaction important per se; from that rationale, responses by the Dutch, for instance, do have relevance. Drmies ( talk) 15:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, people saying they're shocked adds nothing, but on what planet would it ever be considered remotely unimportant that NATO said "It is important that a full international investigation should be launched immediately, without any hindrance, to establish the facts and that those who may be responsible are swiftly brought to justice"? Since NATO has absolutely no role to play in aircrash investigations or indeed international justice, but has a large role to play in any potential military conflict in Eastern Europe that might arise from this incident, I think a reaction like this is of eminent importance.
References
Is there a way to get a handle on this? There's now 45 references cluttering up the bottom of the page from various sections above where editors are either suggesting new text or complaining about why text was removed. Tarc ( talk) 14:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
at any point after the last {{
reflist}}
or <references />
, an automatic reflist will appear after the last thread on the page. When this happens, the thing to do is to add a {{
reflist}}
to each section that doesn't already have one, and where there is at least one <ref>...</ref>
. However, it must not be the last thing in the thread, because that will prevent the archive bots from seeing the last timestamp in the thread, so won't archive it. I generally put the reflist after the post that includes the ref,
like this. BTW I'm not watching this page, so if you reply to me, please make sure that you include {{
replyto|Redrose64}}
so that I get a notification. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
reflist-talk}}
is essentially a normal {{
reflist}}
wrapped in code that puts it in a box with a white background and a dashed border, plus the word "References" in boldface. You can see it in action at
Talk:Concrete#Worldwide CO2 emissions and global change where there are two. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Really? 173.228.54.18 ( talk) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. But Girkin being the national spokesman would in my view happen to be incorrect. TheGRVOfLightning ( talk) 06:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this needs to be fixed as well. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest adding a footnote next to 'Novorossiya', stating that 'Novorossiya is a state with limited recognition that has declared independence from Ukraine' in order to prevent confusion. EDIT: I take this back as I realise that instead of clarifying that Novorossiya is not a country, it would likely have the opposite effect on readers. Oakleigh Park 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Novorossiya deserves to be listed, somehow, since they are a direct player in this crash (they control the territory), regardless of their disputed legal status. Maybe Novorossiya should not be listed under "countries" with the rest of the UN member states, but rather under a new category, such as "disputed entities". See the Response section of the Shelling of Donetsk, Russia article as an example for the correct way to treat Novorossiya. -- Tocino 08:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
"Novorossiya" does not exist, and thus should not be listed in any way, shape for form alongside legitimate nations. What should be done is create another section for the non-nation opinions deemed relevant. There you can list NATO, the UN, the ICAO, alongside the statement of the terrorist/separatist/whatever group. Tarc ( talk) 11:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Dustin (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Dustin (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to publish this article?
Materials published on the website of the Ministry of Defense of Russia:
Russian Ministry of Defense a special briefing on the disaster in the sky flight MH17 Ukraine
Objective control materials
These objective Unified control of air traffic related accident flight MH17
In English
213.87.132.87 (
talk) 16:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The name of the article at present in and of itself is A) not sufficient to convey the true substance of the situation and story and issue, and B) is somewhat misleading in a way. This article is NOT really about "Malaysia" per se, nor about a "Malaysian airplane" or "flight" primarily. But about a mistaken shoot-down of a civilian commercial aircraft, in general, over Ukraine, presumably probably by pro-Russia rebels and separatists. The emphasis arguably should be on THAT, in the article name and wording. Nothing in the article name even mentions the word "crash" or "shoot-down" or anything. Just a generic un-informing "airlines flight 17". It should be changed or modified, IMO. Regards. Gabby Merger ( talk) 02:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This TP page is getting pretty long, probably time part of it was archived?
Secondly - editors - PLEASE - do not copy/paste the entire references section from an article to the Talk Page - it is disruptive to read thru - and takes up far too much space - use links and brief summaries instead - anyone can go to the article to get the detailed un-congealed mess if need be. Thanks. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 18:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It didn't come by here last night for some reason, so it is massive today. I, being the one who initially set it to 10 hours when I first set it up, will now cut it down to 8 hours to see if it gets rid of anymore threads. I'll then move it out a good bit after tonight. United States Man ( talk) 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"Russian citizens brought flowers to the Dutch embassy in Moscow. Among the flowers was a note in English that read: "We are very sorry! What a terrible shame!" - Is this worth to be mentioned on Wikipedia? Looks like an anonymous person that happened to be in Moscow (that's all we know) wanted to turn all the blame for the plane crash to Russia and its people and luckily got quoted on Wikipedia. This cannot be referred as a general stance of ordinary Russians on the issue. There is even no proof that the note was written by a Russian. Wikipedia has become a propaganda machine. That's sad.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])