![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I can't figure out why this edit was deleted in the Cause section. It cites published media sources. May I put it back, and can it be protected from being taken down again? Thank you, JP Leonard
/* Cause */ Russian sources, air to air missile possibility
The Russian news agency ITAR-TASS [1] reported that Ukraine moved a BUK system to the Donetsk area on July 16.
The air-to-air missile possibility has received less attention, although the day before the disaster, Kiev claimed a Russian MiG 29 shot down one of its fighters. [2] The Russian journal Politikus.ru [3] concluded the MH17 was downed by an air-to-air fragmented rod warhead [4]. Russia Today/RT posted an eyewitness report of a "Ukrainian air force plane that followed the Malaysian Boeing 777," [5] and gave rise to speculation that the actual target could have been President Putin's jet, which was in the general area at the time, on its return trip from Brazil.[rt.com/news/173672-malaysia-plane-crash-putin/]
JPLeonard ( talk) 08:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
On July 21 Russian Defense Ministry reported, that Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash. “A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km,” said the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov speaking at a media conference in Moscow on Monday. “The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification,” he added. “It’s equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure.” [6] Vavilevskii ( talk) 14:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Arnoutf, what can you say to the evidence brought out by the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman in the above link from RT? With Russia as the accused here, do you subscribe to the principle that accused persons have a right to defend themselves? BTW the R-60_(missile) is a fragmentation rod weapon -- as predicted in the analysis I cited from Politikus.ru, which they based on a photo of damage to the plane. JPLeonard ( talk) 17:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Arnoutf these photos are from a projector screen, DM briefing was held in the open mode and press uploaded only video, but all materials promised would be provided to international organizations soon (radar data).— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
It is well known that the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News loyally follow Washington's lead when reporting on foreign policy, particularly when it comes to ramping up for war. Yet we do not refer to them as "Washington-backed news outlet".
This article refers to Russia Times (rt.com) and Itar-Tass as "Kremlin-backed outlet". To refer to Russian mainstream media as "Kremlin-backed" but not to say the same about American media, or UK media is bias. I suggest such bias be removed from the article. Cadwallader ( talk) 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
What a pointless, POV discussion. We have two posts. One says "It is well known that..." The other says "...is widely viewed as..." That's not good enough folks. Sources, please! Not just opinions. HiLo48 ( talk) 19:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Even with reliable sources documenting or claiming the biases of other reliable sources, I don't see the point of including these as adjectives in front of all the reliable sources we use. The system of Western mainstream media biases is well-documented, and it looks like RT's very strong links to the Russian government are well-documented (I haven't checked in depth, but it's highly credible). But I don't see the point of overriding the consensus in the WP:LEAD of the articles about those journals. The WP:NPOV approach, given Radio Today and Washington Post could be, e.g.
where we take just the first few adjectives considered most important by the Wikipedians editing those articles. (The lack of mention that the Washington Post represent the US military–industrial complex POV in the lead there is presumably related to WP:BIAS, but the place to NPOV that is in that article or justify modification of the RT article lead, not here.) But aren't these descriptions distracting the reader from the main issue? All sources have biases (e.g. Wikipedia is biased towards reliable sources, NPOV, no original research, and structured content), but giving a source should enable the reader to search for more info or make a judgment based on his/her previous judgments of the source.
Another way of saying it: if the reader wants to know what biases to expect from RT or the Washington Post, the MH17 article should let the reader go to those articles to decide for him/herself, rather than imitating biases from reliable sources. The policy on WP:RS is about using the factual type of information from the sources, not the sources' style of hinting to the reader what to think.
Boud ( talk) 22:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I have no doubt that Russian mainstream media are just as much in the pocket of their government as the America, British and Ukrainian media are in the pockets of their respective governments. My point was that prefixing "Kremlin-backed" prior to the Russian media outlets is a deliberate device to sow distrust in the mind of the Western reader, and thus fails NPOV. Cadwallader ( talk) 22:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC) SkywalkerPL ( talk) 10:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks that 3 sentences for such a high-interest section is not enough? I agree that the gigantic section with all the aggressive suggestions/declarations was a bit much, but I do thin that readers coming here are curious at least of a summary of what do the Ukrainians or the Russians accuse each other of, or how do the explain the events. Nergaal ( talk) 06:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Arnoutf, these international players are arguing about the cause, so isn't that where their arguments go? It doesn't seem to bother anyone to have the US-Ukrainian claim about the cause of crash in the Cause section. If you agree that the views of the international players should be posted somewhere, then why not move the Russian viewpoint to that place, rather than just deleting it? Letting only one side have their say is going to give the article a disputed neutrality, isn't it? How about a section for the Russian standpoint. The 2nd paragraph of the article is devoted largely to the Ukrainian view. It is mentioned that the pro Russian rebels deny shooting it down, but the sources given (BBC and AP) lack any of the information that you deleted from my post. The BBC devotes most of its space to the US-Ukraine-BUK POV and only notes a denial by militia with no evidence, and the third source there is headlined "Malaysian plane was shot down by rebels, intercepted phone calls prove, Ukraine’s president says" so this is more of the same US-Ukraine view.
So I could put the Russian POV right after the US-Ukrainian case. The reason I posted air-to-air missile under Cause is that this is where it belongs, alongside the surface to air theory. Here I also put Ukraine's accusation of a Russian MIG shooting down their plane by an air to air missile the day before, which indicates the air to air missile theory can be used by either side.
You said to me the facts are 100 to 1 on the US Ukraine side, but to another person you said "So far there are hardly any facts," and the latter statement was true. All we had from the Americans and Kiev were assertions, which filled up the media with that 100 to 1 ratio. What I posted was more factual - the Politikus.ru article has a photo showing damage typical of an air to air missile.
Today, the Russian defense ministry also produced evidence, and challenged the Americans to show theirs. at http://rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/ So we finally have some facts to work with, and they don't bode well for the US-Ukraine POV. JPLeonard ( talk) 00:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
user:Fakirbakir has deleted the following sourced information from the article twice in last hour: [7]. Keep or delete? Geogene ( talk) 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the story brought up by the Christian Science Monitor about Girkens alleged Vkontakte post stating that the rebels had downed a Ukrainian military airraft in the area is no longer mentioned in the article. Has this been debunked or is it not considered RS-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 23:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be the source of all the reports. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0717/Web-evidence-points-to-pro-Russia-rebels-in-downing-of-MH17-video -- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 23:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
You'll have to ask @Nyttend why he removed this after locking down the page despite the fact the U.S. government repeatedly refers to the social media posts as evidence.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 00:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, so the US government have used these social media posts as their sources for claiming that the rebels shot down the plane. That the State Dept. is even outright saying that it was the rebels (or separatists) is significant, and that they used Strelkovs posts as their evidence is also significant. I feel this should be included. Note, I am not saying that I know who shot down the plane myself, nor do I know that these social media posts are authentic. But they are being treated as so by the American govt. to justify their claim that the separatists are responsible. -- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The reference to the Vkontact site has been re-added in the revised lead, including the link to the CS Monitor article. See WP Lead discussion above. Cadwallader ( talk) 11:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The current state of the article (21st july 2014) shows some significant bias towards an Ukranian/US/Europe view on how this tragic incident, the shootdown of a civilian airliner above Ukranian airspace. The exact causes (what kind of missile, air-to-air and/or surface-to-air, launched by whom) and other important circumstances that can shed light on to what the exact series of events were that directly led to this shootdown of a civilian airplane, are not known yet known (besides the non-controversial facts) and are heavily disputed.
We only get much speculation from both sides. Ukrain blames it on the seperatists, that would have shot it with a BUK missile, with military support from Russia. Russia denies involvement and blames the Ukrain military. Also russian defense ministry today released some military intelligence information, that shows an Ukranian SU-25 was real close in the neigbourhood of flight MH17 (3-5 km distance) only minutes before the plane was shot down. This is important information. Also satelite information from russian ministry of defense show pictures of ukranian military air defense locations and acc. to this source, Ukranian military mobile airdefense systems have been moved into seperatists held areas shortly before the catastrophe. Source: RT [10]
Now, I don't want to go into speculations about the way the series of events unfolded, and/or which side is to be regarded as responsible for this tragic shootdown, but I think it can be clear that different scenarios are possible based on this information. At least it means the article should not (unless some objective investigation has taken place) write a one-sided story about what was the cause of this incident. Or stated differently: even when we do have good evidence for the location from where the surface-to-air missile was launched, one can not jump to the conclusion that the seperatists were the one launching that missile. That is some other part of the puzzle which needs seperate evidence.
In the article however, the only way to read this at this moment is that the Ukranian side of the story is put here as if that side of the story is true. We don't know that yet! There are still some missing pieces of the puzzle! For example: what did the Ukranian military plane do there so close to flight MH17 for instance? The released audio tapes of the Ukranian ministry of cell phone calls by seperatists, who allegedly talk about the shooting of flight MH17 is controversial information, since it is not one audio tape, but assembled from 3 seperate audio tracks. So even when the conversations themselves are genuine, they might be taken out of context (for example: it could have been assembled from unrelated military operations that went on earlier, the shooting of military planes), and should therefore not be used (as is done too prominently in the article) as some "evidence" of what happened, perhaps only as a footnote, but with the comment that the source is unreliable. Seperatists themselves have made statetements regarding this tape, to this effect.
I repeat: WHAT DID OR DID NOT HAPPEN TO FLIGHT MH17 WHICH CAUSED IT TO CRASH WE DO NOT YET KNOW IN DETAIL! No conclusion as of yet is possible given the information we have. We should leave room for international investigation to make such conclusions, and till then should be very considerate to not blame one side of this conflict or the other. Since the cause of the incident is disputed and both sides have presented evidence to their point of view, the article can not suggest one version of how the incident unfolded above the other, or regard them as fact, when they may not be facts. So till more conclusive information is established, the nature of that information is that either sides make allegations, and provides sources of information as evidence. Only the part of the story which is not controversial, and can be put in the article as fact.
Update request:
The link provided (RT/information from Russian Defense Ministry about Malaysia plane MH17) should be referenced in the text (have it a seperate section, where competing evidence of different entities involed in the conflict are presented, and split from sections which contain non-controversial facts). Currently only US and/or Ukranian intelligence souces are referenced with satelite and other intelligence information. And they are mixed into the text, and therefore regarded as factual, which they might not be, or only partial.
It should contain:
1. The evidence of Russian radar an Ukranian SU-25 was in close proximity to flight MH17 mintues before the crash.
2. The statement by Russian defense ministry that Ukranian mobile air defense units (BUK system) were placed into seperatist controlled area before the incident took place, accompanied with the satelite images
and cite the source for this information.
Further:
can we add some section in which new information regarding the causes of the incident, intelligence reports etc. can be placed together (so the part that contains the controversial information). That part must be seperated from the rest of the text which contain un-controversial parts of the story, and undisputed facts. Robheus ( talk)
I have seen this added to all kinds of articles here (And some cases made into articles of their own) on Wikipedia and while I understand no-body wants to talk about it are there any notable conspiracy theories floating around about the crash? I can see the one about there being dead bodies in the plane pre-crash as being one. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand, the conspiracy theories have been getting media attention. But I haven't yet seen a reliable source which is devoted to the conspiracy theories as a topic. I'd wait until such appears or until someone finds one. It might even be a good idea to not include the info here but write a split off article, if and when such sources are available. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:50, 21 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. Can we at least get the quotes marks taken off this please? - Crosbie 03:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
¿Should not the article state that since ProRussian-Separatists destroy evidence, that is evidence of guilt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 ( talk) 04:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Arnoutf - relinked from paper to IATA main page:
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PLS, Add to the main article following:
Tony Tyler, the chief executive of the International Air Transport Association ( IATA), says Ukraine bears responsibility for keeping its airspace open to flights like the doomed MH17. “Airlines depend on governments and air traffic control authorities to advise which air space is available for flight, and they plan within those limits” he said. [1] Vavilevskii ( talk) 19:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
________ ______
Interesting quote from the Sydney Morning Herald, July 20:
"However, an industry source said in this case, the “road” was more like a toll road, as the cash-strapped Ukrainian government was receiving overflight fees for each commercial flight above its territory and therefore had a financial incentive to keep the airspace open as long as possible."
The head of the IATA, Tony Tyler, also says that Ukraine is responsible for the decision to keep the airspace over a war-zone open to commercial traffic.
Link - Ukraine responsible for airspace safety: IATA - Sydney Morning Herald, July 20
I believe that this should be incorporated into the article somehow. -- Tocino 08:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Militia phone call intercepts is fake. “Experts have proved that they are a montage of several separate cuttings done much before the airliner was shot down...” - UN 21/07/2014 russian ambassador [12], [13] 194.186.5.202 ( talk) 07:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
"Audio data provided to the press by the Ukrainian security service was evaluated by Intelligence Community analysts who confirmed these were authentic conversations..." -- US Embassy in Kyiv United States Assessment of the Downing of Flight MH17 and its Aftermath -- Nazar ( talk) 10:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
WP: Original research ? --
220
of
Borg 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(and I still have the opinion that this whole incident has some stinking smell, and that the wikipedia article is not very neutral on this issue...) Robheus ( talk) 20:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
On 14 July a Ukrainian military An-26 transport aircraft flying at 21,000 feet (6,400 m) was shot down using a Buk missile system.[54][55]
One citation refers to the An-26 'apparently' being shot down by a BUK and the other is in Russian. It is still under debate how low the AN-26 was flying and what missile system was used to target it. Strela-10 or SAM-6 missiles could have been used if flying at a lower altitide as suggested here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28309034
203.153.227.17 ( talk) 06:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Happy with the addition of 'allegedly'. Thank you Ansh 666.
203.153.227.17 ( talk) 07:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Are we to use British or American spellings in this article (e.g. organise versus organize)? -- Pingumeister( talk) 14:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This is Malaysian-Russian-Ukrainian related. It's not specifically American or British. Per MOS:RETAIN, I guess British English can be used at default since creation? -- George Ho ( talk) 15:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can establish one form of English considering the variation within this article. Dustin (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
In fact, every occurrence used the "z" spelling prior to that change. I do not wish to revert, however, as I do not want to take on an appearance of edit warring. Dustin (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's time to get bold and trim that section some. I cut Germany ("sympathy, full investigation"), Turkey (ditto), Indonesia (ditto), and a rather meaningless sentence from Canada. Really, additions need to have content beyond the expected, and should come from a country that's actually actively involved in the aftermath one way or another. That a country has said something in response is not relevant--they all have. Drmies ( talk) 03:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
--I understand this site completely. I'm a little surprised that someone as experienced as you are not aware that it's not appropriate to continually delete the work of others over and over until you get your way but rather to raise as part of "talk". Perhaps review the 'edit warring' page rather than repeatedly deleting. It's very arrogant of you to assume that just because you personally disagree with my edit it's because I believe that I should "stick every single little factoid into an article just because there's a link to a newspaper report." Phil Kessel ( talk) 03:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Phil Kessel: Talking to an administrator in that manor is not helping matters. There is consensus to remove that text, so please don't revert again. United States Man ( talk) 03:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think a couple more could go as well. They only contain condolences and the other info is stale, like the EU which says: The EU officials also said that Ukraine has first claim on the plane's black boxes. The black boxes were turned over to the Malaysians already, so who cares what they said 4 or 5 days ago, things have changed since they said that. I don't consider it notable that they demanded a thorough investigation and offered an opinion on "first claim". The OSCE is the same, condolences and it also says: He also stated that "the OSCE stands ready to support Ukraine in this difficult rescue operation in every possible way." That's stale as well, in fact, they are already there and are mentioned in the first paragraph in the Investigation section as to what they are actually doing as opposed to announcing what they intended to do here in the Reactions section. I would also question the other one from ICAO, they are only announcing their intentions as well, "declaring that it was sending a team of experts to assist", so what, did they? Are they on the scene there doing something notable, if so, lets include that rather than their declaration. If no one complains, I'll remove them, or not.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
"Russian military sources state that a Ukrainian Su-25 jet was flying along with the passenger plane.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/malaysia-airlines-mh17-crash-ukrainian-military-jet-was-flying-close-to-passenger-plane-before-it-was-shot-down-says-russian-officer-9619143.html|title=Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Ukrainian military jet was flying close to passenger plane before it was shot down, says Russian officer |first=Natasha |last=Culzac |work=[[The Independent]] |date=21 July 2014 |accessdate=21 July 2014}}</ref>"
User:Volunteer Marek, why is it POV pushing? I dared to cite a British newspaper? Fakirbakir ( talk) 23:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment. The source referred to in this section is: Culzac, Natasha (21 July 2014). "Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Ukrainian military jet was flying close to passenger plane before it was shot down, says Russian officer". The Independent. Retrieved 21 July 2014. [17]. Because of this talk page's formatting is now hovering at the bottom of the page. Geogene ( talk) 00:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Ugh. I think my response to Fakirbakir got edit-conflicted out. Basically that claim is just insinuation. IF and WHEN the Russian government explicitly claims - not insinuated, suggests, spreads rumors about, hints, wink winks - that the MH17 was shot down by the Su-25 jet, THEN you can put that, as a claim by the Russian government, in the lede.
And your question, "(because) I dared to cite a British newspaper?" is obviously made in bad faith. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec)We heard this sort of song and dance once before. Tarc ( talk) 00:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Why does the article state that Russia Today is Kremlin backed when it isn't, why does the article repeatedly attack a media outlet based on hearsay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.148.24 ( talk)
Surely the "Kremlin backed" statement refers to the fact it is funded by them [19] Eckerslike ( talk) 10:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I added Russian version of the crash "Russian officials said crash was due to a R-60 air-to-air missile fired by a SU-25 fighter, 5 km away from the MH-17 flight the post online 21 july 2014". It is worth considering because there were shrapnels on top of the cockpit ( look at this picture) which is a bit odd if crash is due to a surface to air missile ! Lpele ( talk) 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This section has the following three sentences in it:
Which is it - 247 or 272 or 282? Or are we keeping all of them?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
What is wrong with allowing Russian, US etc governments to allow edits and create by them 'they official' POV , given it will be marked as such ? I propose to create sections or separate articles called somehow like Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 by gov of USA , Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 by gov of Russia ... Malasia, Ukraine, Germany ... and also organization like UN, WTO, and even if they will be reluctant to write they 'official desiformation' by grups like CIA, Mossad, KGB, MI, etc. I like to give them equal chance since sum of assigned POV's is (imo) the only neutral point of view. This will give the reader the best way to make his own point of view. Do we want the reader make his own point of view? 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 05:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
add *1 to be neutral require to pinpoint contradicting viewpoints. This particular frase sentence of course will represent a kind of biased POV but by presenting POVS of two side (or mmulti-side) neutralpresentationmay be created. another factor is a language. Th same eg event may described by different words , so assuming the event is described fully, but only words differ, quite differrent impresion reader will build . Allowing as proposed govs to edit they (proposed) pages both data and werbal form may be exposed for sumarial npov.
Go ahead, if you want. I honestly don't understand a word of what they're trying to say! Ansh 666 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that the responses of Malaysia and the Netherlands have been put in the same paragraph concerning the reactions to the accident/incident/disaster/[insert preference here]. However, in this article they are apparently shared under the Malaysian flag, which is unambiguously incorrect. (Because, you know, the Netherlands uses another flag than Malaysia.) I don't myself know how to place these tiny flags into an article, but I propose that either (1) the Dutch reaction gets its own separate paragraph with a separate flag, (2) the Malaysian and Dutch reactions continue to share the same paragraph but that paragraph is introduced with [Malaysian tiny flag]/[Dutch tiny flag], or (3) the tiny flags are completely omitted. Whatever action is chosen, the two nations should at least be separated flag-wise. AnnaOurLittleAlice ( talk) 13:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek has now twice added the following text to the Media coverage section, without explanation:
It's sourced, but I think it's trivial. I don't plan to Edit war, but an explanation for the addition would have been nice. I don't think it's important enough to belong anyway. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:37, 22 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I can't figure out why this edit was deleted in the Cause section. It cites published media sources. May I put it back, and can it be protected from being taken down again? Thank you, JP Leonard
/* Cause */ Russian sources, air to air missile possibility
The Russian news agency ITAR-TASS [1] reported that Ukraine moved a BUK system to the Donetsk area on July 16.
The air-to-air missile possibility has received less attention, although the day before the disaster, Kiev claimed a Russian MiG 29 shot down one of its fighters. [2] The Russian journal Politikus.ru [3] concluded the MH17 was downed by an air-to-air fragmented rod warhead [4]. Russia Today/RT posted an eyewitness report of a "Ukrainian air force plane that followed the Malaysian Boeing 777," [5] and gave rise to speculation that the actual target could have been President Putin's jet, which was in the general area at the time, on its return trip from Brazil.[rt.com/news/173672-malaysia-plane-crash-putin/]
JPLeonard ( talk) 08:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
On July 21 Russian Defense Ministry reported, that Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash. “A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km,” said the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov speaking at a media conference in Moscow on Monday. “The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification,” he added. “It’s equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure.” [6] Vavilevskii ( talk) 14:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Arnoutf, what can you say to the evidence brought out by the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman in the above link from RT? With Russia as the accused here, do you subscribe to the principle that accused persons have a right to defend themselves? BTW the R-60_(missile) is a fragmentation rod weapon -- as predicted in the analysis I cited from Politikus.ru, which they based on a photo of damage to the plane. JPLeonard ( talk) 17:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Arnoutf these photos are from a projector screen, DM briefing was held in the open mode and press uploaded only video, but all materials promised would be provided to international organizations soon (radar data).— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
It is well known that the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News loyally follow Washington's lead when reporting on foreign policy, particularly when it comes to ramping up for war. Yet we do not refer to them as "Washington-backed news outlet".
This article refers to Russia Times (rt.com) and Itar-Tass as "Kremlin-backed outlet". To refer to Russian mainstream media as "Kremlin-backed" but not to say the same about American media, or UK media is bias. I suggest such bias be removed from the article. Cadwallader ( talk) 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
What a pointless, POV discussion. We have two posts. One says "It is well known that..." The other says "...is widely viewed as..." That's not good enough folks. Sources, please! Not just opinions. HiLo48 ( talk) 19:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Even with reliable sources documenting or claiming the biases of other reliable sources, I don't see the point of including these as adjectives in front of all the reliable sources we use. The system of Western mainstream media biases is well-documented, and it looks like RT's very strong links to the Russian government are well-documented (I haven't checked in depth, but it's highly credible). But I don't see the point of overriding the consensus in the WP:LEAD of the articles about those journals. The WP:NPOV approach, given Radio Today and Washington Post could be, e.g.
where we take just the first few adjectives considered most important by the Wikipedians editing those articles. (The lack of mention that the Washington Post represent the US military–industrial complex POV in the lead there is presumably related to WP:BIAS, but the place to NPOV that is in that article or justify modification of the RT article lead, not here.) But aren't these descriptions distracting the reader from the main issue? All sources have biases (e.g. Wikipedia is biased towards reliable sources, NPOV, no original research, and structured content), but giving a source should enable the reader to search for more info or make a judgment based on his/her previous judgments of the source.
Another way of saying it: if the reader wants to know what biases to expect from RT or the Washington Post, the MH17 article should let the reader go to those articles to decide for him/herself, rather than imitating biases from reliable sources. The policy on WP:RS is about using the factual type of information from the sources, not the sources' style of hinting to the reader what to think.
Boud ( talk) 22:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I have no doubt that Russian mainstream media are just as much in the pocket of their government as the America, British and Ukrainian media are in the pockets of their respective governments. My point was that prefixing "Kremlin-backed" prior to the Russian media outlets is a deliberate device to sow distrust in the mind of the Western reader, and thus fails NPOV. Cadwallader ( talk) 22:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC) SkywalkerPL ( talk) 10:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks that 3 sentences for such a high-interest section is not enough? I agree that the gigantic section with all the aggressive suggestions/declarations was a bit much, but I do thin that readers coming here are curious at least of a summary of what do the Ukrainians or the Russians accuse each other of, or how do the explain the events. Nergaal ( talk) 06:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Arnoutf, these international players are arguing about the cause, so isn't that where their arguments go? It doesn't seem to bother anyone to have the US-Ukrainian claim about the cause of crash in the Cause section. If you agree that the views of the international players should be posted somewhere, then why not move the Russian viewpoint to that place, rather than just deleting it? Letting only one side have their say is going to give the article a disputed neutrality, isn't it? How about a section for the Russian standpoint. The 2nd paragraph of the article is devoted largely to the Ukrainian view. It is mentioned that the pro Russian rebels deny shooting it down, but the sources given (BBC and AP) lack any of the information that you deleted from my post. The BBC devotes most of its space to the US-Ukraine-BUK POV and only notes a denial by militia with no evidence, and the third source there is headlined "Malaysian plane was shot down by rebels, intercepted phone calls prove, Ukraine’s president says" so this is more of the same US-Ukraine view.
So I could put the Russian POV right after the US-Ukrainian case. The reason I posted air-to-air missile under Cause is that this is where it belongs, alongside the surface to air theory. Here I also put Ukraine's accusation of a Russian MIG shooting down their plane by an air to air missile the day before, which indicates the air to air missile theory can be used by either side.
You said to me the facts are 100 to 1 on the US Ukraine side, but to another person you said "So far there are hardly any facts," and the latter statement was true. All we had from the Americans and Kiev were assertions, which filled up the media with that 100 to 1 ratio. What I posted was more factual - the Politikus.ru article has a photo showing damage typical of an air to air missile.
Today, the Russian defense ministry also produced evidence, and challenged the Americans to show theirs. at http://rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/ So we finally have some facts to work with, and they don't bode well for the US-Ukraine POV. JPLeonard ( talk) 00:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
user:Fakirbakir has deleted the following sourced information from the article twice in last hour: [7]. Keep or delete? Geogene ( talk) 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the story brought up by the Christian Science Monitor about Girkens alleged Vkontakte post stating that the rebels had downed a Ukrainian military airraft in the area is no longer mentioned in the article. Has this been debunked or is it not considered RS-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 23:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be the source of all the reports. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0717/Web-evidence-points-to-pro-Russia-rebels-in-downing-of-MH17-video -- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 23:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
You'll have to ask @Nyttend why he removed this after locking down the page despite the fact the U.S. government repeatedly refers to the social media posts as evidence.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 00:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, so the US government have used these social media posts as their sources for claiming that the rebels shot down the plane. That the State Dept. is even outright saying that it was the rebels (or separatists) is significant, and that they used Strelkovs posts as their evidence is also significant. I feel this should be included. Note, I am not saying that I know who shot down the plane myself, nor do I know that these social media posts are authentic. But they are being treated as so by the American govt. to justify their claim that the separatists are responsible. -- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The reference to the Vkontact site has been re-added in the revised lead, including the link to the CS Monitor article. See WP Lead discussion above. Cadwallader ( talk) 11:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The current state of the article (21st july 2014) shows some significant bias towards an Ukranian/US/Europe view on how this tragic incident, the shootdown of a civilian airliner above Ukranian airspace. The exact causes (what kind of missile, air-to-air and/or surface-to-air, launched by whom) and other important circumstances that can shed light on to what the exact series of events were that directly led to this shootdown of a civilian airplane, are not known yet known (besides the non-controversial facts) and are heavily disputed.
We only get much speculation from both sides. Ukrain blames it on the seperatists, that would have shot it with a BUK missile, with military support from Russia. Russia denies involvement and blames the Ukrain military. Also russian defense ministry today released some military intelligence information, that shows an Ukranian SU-25 was real close in the neigbourhood of flight MH17 (3-5 km distance) only minutes before the plane was shot down. This is important information. Also satelite information from russian ministry of defense show pictures of ukranian military air defense locations and acc. to this source, Ukranian military mobile airdefense systems have been moved into seperatists held areas shortly before the catastrophe. Source: RT [10]
Now, I don't want to go into speculations about the way the series of events unfolded, and/or which side is to be regarded as responsible for this tragic shootdown, but I think it can be clear that different scenarios are possible based on this information. At least it means the article should not (unless some objective investigation has taken place) write a one-sided story about what was the cause of this incident. Or stated differently: even when we do have good evidence for the location from where the surface-to-air missile was launched, one can not jump to the conclusion that the seperatists were the one launching that missile. That is some other part of the puzzle which needs seperate evidence.
In the article however, the only way to read this at this moment is that the Ukranian side of the story is put here as if that side of the story is true. We don't know that yet! There are still some missing pieces of the puzzle! For example: what did the Ukranian military plane do there so close to flight MH17 for instance? The released audio tapes of the Ukranian ministry of cell phone calls by seperatists, who allegedly talk about the shooting of flight MH17 is controversial information, since it is not one audio tape, but assembled from 3 seperate audio tracks. So even when the conversations themselves are genuine, they might be taken out of context (for example: it could have been assembled from unrelated military operations that went on earlier, the shooting of military planes), and should therefore not be used (as is done too prominently in the article) as some "evidence" of what happened, perhaps only as a footnote, but with the comment that the source is unreliable. Seperatists themselves have made statetements regarding this tape, to this effect.
I repeat: WHAT DID OR DID NOT HAPPEN TO FLIGHT MH17 WHICH CAUSED IT TO CRASH WE DO NOT YET KNOW IN DETAIL! No conclusion as of yet is possible given the information we have. We should leave room for international investigation to make such conclusions, and till then should be very considerate to not blame one side of this conflict or the other. Since the cause of the incident is disputed and both sides have presented evidence to their point of view, the article can not suggest one version of how the incident unfolded above the other, or regard them as fact, when they may not be facts. So till more conclusive information is established, the nature of that information is that either sides make allegations, and provides sources of information as evidence. Only the part of the story which is not controversial, and can be put in the article as fact.
Update request:
The link provided (RT/information from Russian Defense Ministry about Malaysia plane MH17) should be referenced in the text (have it a seperate section, where competing evidence of different entities involed in the conflict are presented, and split from sections which contain non-controversial facts). Currently only US and/or Ukranian intelligence souces are referenced with satelite and other intelligence information. And they are mixed into the text, and therefore regarded as factual, which they might not be, or only partial.
It should contain:
1. The evidence of Russian radar an Ukranian SU-25 was in close proximity to flight MH17 mintues before the crash.
2. The statement by Russian defense ministry that Ukranian mobile air defense units (BUK system) were placed into seperatist controlled area before the incident took place, accompanied with the satelite images
and cite the source for this information.
Further:
can we add some section in which new information regarding the causes of the incident, intelligence reports etc. can be placed together (so the part that contains the controversial information). That part must be seperated from the rest of the text which contain un-controversial parts of the story, and undisputed facts. Robheus ( talk)
I have seen this added to all kinds of articles here (And some cases made into articles of their own) on Wikipedia and while I understand no-body wants to talk about it are there any notable conspiracy theories floating around about the crash? I can see the one about there being dead bodies in the plane pre-crash as being one. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand, the conspiracy theories have been getting media attention. But I haven't yet seen a reliable source which is devoted to the conspiracy theories as a topic. I'd wait until such appears or until someone finds one. It might even be a good idea to not include the info here but write a split off article, if and when such sources are available. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:50, 21 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. Can we at least get the quotes marks taken off this please? - Crosbie 03:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
¿Should not the article state that since ProRussian-Separatists destroy evidence, that is evidence of guilt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 ( talk) 04:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Arnoutf - relinked from paper to IATA main page:
![]() | This
edit request to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PLS, Add to the main article following:
Tony Tyler, the chief executive of the International Air Transport Association ( IATA), says Ukraine bears responsibility for keeping its airspace open to flights like the doomed MH17. “Airlines depend on governments and air traffic control authorities to advise which air space is available for flight, and they plan within those limits” he said. [1] Vavilevskii ( talk) 19:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
________ ______
Interesting quote from the Sydney Morning Herald, July 20:
"However, an industry source said in this case, the “road” was more like a toll road, as the cash-strapped Ukrainian government was receiving overflight fees for each commercial flight above its territory and therefore had a financial incentive to keep the airspace open as long as possible."
The head of the IATA, Tony Tyler, also says that Ukraine is responsible for the decision to keep the airspace over a war-zone open to commercial traffic.
Link - Ukraine responsible for airspace safety: IATA - Sydney Morning Herald, July 20
I believe that this should be incorporated into the article somehow. -- Tocino 08:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Militia phone call intercepts is fake. “Experts have proved that they are a montage of several separate cuttings done much before the airliner was shot down...” - UN 21/07/2014 russian ambassador [12], [13] 194.186.5.202 ( talk) 07:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
"Audio data provided to the press by the Ukrainian security service was evaluated by Intelligence Community analysts who confirmed these were authentic conversations..." -- US Embassy in Kyiv United States Assessment of the Downing of Flight MH17 and its Aftermath -- Nazar ( talk) 10:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
WP: Original research ? --
220
of
Borg 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(and I still have the opinion that this whole incident has some stinking smell, and that the wikipedia article is not very neutral on this issue...) Robheus ( talk) 20:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
On 14 July a Ukrainian military An-26 transport aircraft flying at 21,000 feet (6,400 m) was shot down using a Buk missile system.[54][55]
One citation refers to the An-26 'apparently' being shot down by a BUK and the other is in Russian. It is still under debate how low the AN-26 was flying and what missile system was used to target it. Strela-10 or SAM-6 missiles could have been used if flying at a lower altitide as suggested here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28309034
203.153.227.17 ( talk) 06:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Happy with the addition of 'allegedly'. Thank you Ansh 666.
203.153.227.17 ( talk) 07:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Are we to use British or American spellings in this article (e.g. organise versus organize)? -- Pingumeister( talk) 14:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This is Malaysian-Russian-Ukrainian related. It's not specifically American or British. Per MOS:RETAIN, I guess British English can be used at default since creation? -- George Ho ( talk) 15:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can establish one form of English considering the variation within this article. Dustin (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
In fact, every occurrence used the "z" spelling prior to that change. I do not wish to revert, however, as I do not want to take on an appearance of edit warring. Dustin (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's time to get bold and trim that section some. I cut Germany ("sympathy, full investigation"), Turkey (ditto), Indonesia (ditto), and a rather meaningless sentence from Canada. Really, additions need to have content beyond the expected, and should come from a country that's actually actively involved in the aftermath one way or another. That a country has said something in response is not relevant--they all have. Drmies ( talk) 03:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
--I understand this site completely. I'm a little surprised that someone as experienced as you are not aware that it's not appropriate to continually delete the work of others over and over until you get your way but rather to raise as part of "talk". Perhaps review the 'edit warring' page rather than repeatedly deleting. It's very arrogant of you to assume that just because you personally disagree with my edit it's because I believe that I should "stick every single little factoid into an article just because there's a link to a newspaper report." Phil Kessel ( talk) 03:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Phil Kessel: Talking to an administrator in that manor is not helping matters. There is consensus to remove that text, so please don't revert again. United States Man ( talk) 03:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think a couple more could go as well. They only contain condolences and the other info is stale, like the EU which says: The EU officials also said that Ukraine has first claim on the plane's black boxes. The black boxes were turned over to the Malaysians already, so who cares what they said 4 or 5 days ago, things have changed since they said that. I don't consider it notable that they demanded a thorough investigation and offered an opinion on "first claim". The OSCE is the same, condolences and it also says: He also stated that "the OSCE stands ready to support Ukraine in this difficult rescue operation in every possible way." That's stale as well, in fact, they are already there and are mentioned in the first paragraph in the Investigation section as to what they are actually doing as opposed to announcing what they intended to do here in the Reactions section. I would also question the other one from ICAO, they are only announcing their intentions as well, "declaring that it was sending a team of experts to assist", so what, did they? Are they on the scene there doing something notable, if so, lets include that rather than their declaration. If no one complains, I'll remove them, or not.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
"Russian military sources state that a Ukrainian Su-25 jet was flying along with the passenger plane.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/malaysia-airlines-mh17-crash-ukrainian-military-jet-was-flying-close-to-passenger-plane-before-it-was-shot-down-says-russian-officer-9619143.html|title=Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Ukrainian military jet was flying close to passenger plane before it was shot down, says Russian officer |first=Natasha |last=Culzac |work=[[The Independent]] |date=21 July 2014 |accessdate=21 July 2014}}</ref>"
User:Volunteer Marek, why is it POV pushing? I dared to cite a British newspaper? Fakirbakir ( talk) 23:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment. The source referred to in this section is: Culzac, Natasha (21 July 2014). "Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Ukrainian military jet was flying close to passenger plane before it was shot down, says Russian officer". The Independent. Retrieved 21 July 2014. [17]. Because of this talk page's formatting is now hovering at the bottom of the page. Geogene ( talk) 00:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Ugh. I think my response to Fakirbakir got edit-conflicted out. Basically that claim is just insinuation. IF and WHEN the Russian government explicitly claims - not insinuated, suggests, spreads rumors about, hints, wink winks - that the MH17 was shot down by the Su-25 jet, THEN you can put that, as a claim by the Russian government, in the lede.
And your question, "(because) I dared to cite a British newspaper?" is obviously made in bad faith. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec)We heard this sort of song and dance once before. Tarc ( talk) 00:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Why does the article state that Russia Today is Kremlin backed when it isn't, why does the article repeatedly attack a media outlet based on hearsay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.148.24 ( talk)
Surely the "Kremlin backed" statement refers to the fact it is funded by them [19] Eckerslike ( talk) 10:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I added Russian version of the crash "Russian officials said crash was due to a R-60 air-to-air missile fired by a SU-25 fighter, 5 km away from the MH-17 flight the post online 21 july 2014". It is worth considering because there were shrapnels on top of the cockpit ( look at this picture) which is a bit odd if crash is due to a surface to air missile ! Lpele ( talk) 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This section has the following three sentences in it:
Which is it - 247 or 272 or 282? Or are we keeping all of them?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
What is wrong with allowing Russian, US etc governments to allow edits and create by them 'they official' POV , given it will be marked as such ? I propose to create sections or separate articles called somehow like Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 by gov of USA , Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 by gov of Russia ... Malasia, Ukraine, Germany ... and also organization like UN, WTO, and even if they will be reluctant to write they 'official desiformation' by grups like CIA, Mossad, KGB, MI, etc. I like to give them equal chance since sum of assigned POV's is (imo) the only neutral point of view. This will give the reader the best way to make his own point of view. Do we want the reader make his own point of view? 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 05:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
add *1 to be neutral require to pinpoint contradicting viewpoints. This particular frase sentence of course will represent a kind of biased POV but by presenting POVS of two side (or mmulti-side) neutralpresentationmay be created. another factor is a language. Th same eg event may described by different words , so assuming the event is described fully, but only words differ, quite differrent impresion reader will build . Allowing as proposed govs to edit they (proposed) pages both data and werbal form may be exposed for sumarial npov.
Go ahead, if you want. I honestly don't understand a word of what they're trying to say! Ansh 666 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that the responses of Malaysia and the Netherlands have been put in the same paragraph concerning the reactions to the accident/incident/disaster/[insert preference here]. However, in this article they are apparently shared under the Malaysian flag, which is unambiguously incorrect. (Because, you know, the Netherlands uses another flag than Malaysia.) I don't myself know how to place these tiny flags into an article, but I propose that either (1) the Dutch reaction gets its own separate paragraph with a separate flag, (2) the Malaysian and Dutch reactions continue to share the same paragraph but that paragraph is introduced with [Malaysian tiny flag]/[Dutch tiny flag], or (3) the tiny flags are completely omitted. Whatever action is chosen, the two nations should at least be separated flag-wise. AnnaOurLittleAlice ( talk) 13:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek has now twice added the following text to the Media coverage section, without explanation:
It's sourced, but I think it's trivial. I don't plan to Edit war, but an explanation for the addition would have been nice. I don't think it's important enough to belong anyway. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)