![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
How do we judge which source is best? A case in point would be the summary of the incident in the infobox having 4 sources, all quoting the same comments from Obama. Personally I would like to remove at least 2 of them to remove clutter, but I am unsure how best to judge which ones to keep. Possibly Fox news as the most notable internationally? CSJJ104 ( talk) 21:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Quoting Obama is really typical wikipedia fan boy behavior. Obama has almost nothing to do with this despite efforts to inject Obama into as many articles as possible. It would be different if Obama threatened to bomb Russia to avenge the death of the US citizen. Leave Obama out of this. Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 03:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Reuters is considered a reliable source. "In an interview with Reuters, subject acknowledged..." stands on its own without insinuating that Reuters is not reliable. Any allegation that Reuters "mistranslated" needs to be substantiated with other sources, as opposed to engaging in
WP:original research. The New York Times addressed the Reuters interview
here and noted that:
Almost as soon as the Reuters interview was published, Mr. Khodakovsky tried to take the comments back... Reuters responded by releasing audio of the interview, in which the commander could be clearly heard saying that he was told on the day of the crash that another separatist unit, from Lugansk, had in fact deployed an SA-11 Buk missile system...."
Bottom line is that there was an attack on Reuters' credibility, the New York Times reviewed it, and found no evidence to conclude that Reuters had misrepresented what was said.--
Brian Dell (
talk)
03:41, 26 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. |
One passenger has the German and Dutch nationality. She was reported as German, but she is Dutch. So it are 194 Dutch passengers and 3 German passengers.
There are more sources. http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/3837573/vliegtuigen-met-slachtoffers-mh17-weer-geland-in-eindhoven.html http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/vliegramp-mh17 (is the official Dutch government site)
88.159.208.149 ( talk) 07:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the navigation info in the Crash section para 3 not only confusing but possibly referenced with an admixture of secondary and primary sources and some OR? Juan Riley ( talk) 00:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The article currently states, in the 'Cause' section, "Local eyewitnesses and unnamed separatist sources later stated that the Buk M-1 missile launcher entered Ukraine from Russia with a Russian military crew escorted by two civilian vehicles". This is referenced to the MSN source What happened? The day Flight 17 was downed. The source states: "AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars." The report of the Buk escorted by civilian vehicles was *not* from local eyewitnesses and unnamed separatist sources, but from AP journalists, and this was *not* at a point of entry into the Ukraine, but in the town of Snizhne. - Crosbie 05:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This article needs a mention [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.51.201 ( talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 July 2014
The article currently states 'On 22 July an Italian reporter cited a soldier from "Oplot" separatist squadron who confirmed the plane was shot down by his unit after it was mistakenly identified as a Ukrainian airborne transporter' which is cited to the Corriere della Sera article «Così è stato colpito l’aereo» . Can anyone provide a translation of the key claim in the article? The best I can find with Google translate is "We just hit a plane of the fascists in Kiev, we were told". This supports the claims based on intercepts that separatists believed they had hit a Ukrainian plane at the time of the shoot-down. However the claim that the plane was shot down specifically by this soldier's unit seems to be an interpolation not based on the source. We can say that a soldier from the "Oplot" separatist squadron confirmed his unit was told that separatists has shot-down a Ukrainian aircraft. We can't say that it was this soldier's unit that did it. - Crosbie 06:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The claim that the Buk claimed in the Guardian to have been seen by witnesses in Torez is the same Buk seen by journalist from the Associated Press is Synthesis. - Crosbie 12:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Every time you have one sentence follow another it's WP:SYNTH according to people who fail to understand that WP:SYNTH deals with claims that are not supported by the sources even though the individual components are. What is the claim here that is not supported? The Guardian says it was spotted en route to Snizhne. AP says it was spotted in Snizhne. That's called writing Wikipedia as editors with brains as opposed to simply concatenating copyright-violating quotes. Your contention is apparently that there are two different systems here in a colossal coincidence, a contention you only arrive at by means of WP:original research. The sources say what they say without playing detective.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 13:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
"If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH"-- Brian Dell ( talk) 17:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The end of the article, just before the Notes, contains a Portal template and an in-line comment like this:
{{Portal|Aviation|Current events|Disasters}}
<!-- Please do not add other airliner shootdown incidents. These are already covered in the list wikilink -->
Unless someone objects, I will create a See Also section and replace that with this:
Any objections? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 05:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The source for this is "Pressimus" http://pressimus.com/site/page/about. Surely this can't be considered a Reliable Source. Montenegroman ( talk) 17:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be neutral, not puppets of the Ukrainian government. The neutral way is to call them Ukrainian separatists backed by Russia, not pro-Russia separatists. If you call them pro-Russian separatists, why not call them anti-leukemia separatists because I am sure they are not for leukemia.
This comment could result in both sides hating me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Site: Near Hrabove, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine 48°8′17″N 38°38′20″E
The plane was already east to the crash area! Franz Scheerer (Software) ( talk) 19:14, 26 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 "Unnamed US intelligence officials stated that sensors that traced the path of the missile, shrapnel patterns in the wreckage, voice print analysis of separatists' conversations in which they claimed credit for the strike, and photos and other data from social media sites all indicated that Russian-backed separatists had fired the missile.[15]", as there's no real proof that it was actually shot down by a pro-russian separatist SAM, as all the information provided by the province of Donetsk and other countries show that the missile was shot somewhere in Kiev borders, while the manipulated-by-government West news channel blame Russia for "helping the separatists with advanced weaponry" when Donetsk hasn't got any SAM cappable of reaching such altitude, and neither any Aircraft other than the civilian ones, for the artillery from Kiev. www.infowars.com/u-s-admits-its-mh17-evidence-is-based-on-youtube-clips-social-media-posts/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used U.S. admits its MH17 ‘evidence’ is based on YouTube clips and social media posts.
FenixValor (
talk)
05:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The Netherlands has sent 40 unarmed members of the Royal Marechaussee to Ukraine to aid with the investigation: [11] [12] – Editør ( talk) 18:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
MH made a point of stating that it's entirely avoiding Ukranian airspace:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 13:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
First relatives arrive at crash site, in search for their daughter [13]. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if it could be incorporated in article or not, but might be worth while on a temporary basis
http://www.politie.nl/onderwerpen/flight-mh17.html#upload------------------
StuB63 ( talk) 02:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It reads "The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile, which Ukraine and Western governments believe to have been fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists.". I suggest changing that to "The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile, which Ukraine and Western governments claim to have been fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists.". As we can't look into there brains guessing what they believe is only hypothetical and, indeed, there is some intel that suggest that they actually don't believe their claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydal ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Just take this paragraph for example:
Shortly after the crash, Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatists, was reported to have posted on social media network VKontakte, taking credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. The separatists later denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been destroyed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at that altitude.[112][113][114] On 22 July a soldier revealed to an Italian reporter that fellow separatists had told his unit the plane had been shot down under the assumption that it was Ukrainian.[115]
US officially declares no involvement of Russia on 22.7.14 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-22/u-dot-s-dot-no-direct-russian-involvement-in-mh17-crash
Also the article of the Italian reporter has been proofed to be not correct.
So please if Wikipedia want to be serious change the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.145.94 ( talk) 16:10, 27 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. |
Table says that 1 Australia died on board the MH17, where as there were actually 38 on board at the time of the crash. Not sure how this has been overlooked! Here is the reference:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-27/grieving-australian-couple-visit-ukraine-crash-site/5626738
124.168.245.58 (
talk)
11:58, 28 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. |
Passenger counts do not match. See the passenger manifest 95.172.68.149 ( talk) 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Done
Supersaiyen312 (
talk)
13:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there any sense in mentioning Australian passengers by state and territory in the note C? IMO, all of them are Australian citizens anyway and the flight manifest doesn't indicate such info. Brandmeister talk 12:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Other recent event articles such as Air Algérie Flight 5017 and TransAsia Airways Flight 222 (or any other aviation disaster articles) are not semi-protected and all the edits are constructive. Therefore, I propose that the semi-protection be lifted and see how it does. It's also no longer a recent aviation disaster, which is what it was originally protected for. Supersaiyen312 ( talk) 12:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There's something fishy about that bit at the end of "Crash" section. Both news sources have reported that pro-Russian rebels have shot down an Ukrainian AN-26 around the same time at the same location. There there was a phrase "Only the Malaysian plane went down at that time" which had no source, and I replaced it with something more relevant to the stated sources. However, I still don't think it fits there. These reports were the only ones stating that an Ukrainian plane has been shot, because right afterwards news of Flight 17 started coming in on the international level. And these two remained, but never elaborated on. Ukrainian Army never confirmed that they haven't lost a plane, it was never even speculated. All the attention went right for Flight 17. So I think adding anything after this is irrelevant, and even both these sources should rather be moved to "Russian media coverage" instead. I'll give some time to see if we agree, and then if no reply is given to myself, I'll proceed as explained. Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass ( talk) 19:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The functional burden of proof here is on the party contending that two planes were shot down at the same time, when one is editing in such a way as to try and introduce that theory to the reader. You can try and pin the burden of proof on the editor who notes the fact that ITAR-TASS and RIA Novosti were isolated here knowing he can't prove a negative but you can often use Wikipedia rules to serve purposes contrary to the spirit of those rules if one's creative enough. That's why Wikipedia is edited by editors instead of robots, editors who can see that the ITAR-TASS and RIA Novosti evidence that sources friendly to them THOUGHT they shot down a Ukrainian plane is only undermined by the entirely unsupported speculation that two planes were shot down at about the same time. If the consensus here is to greenlight the removal that Spaceinvaders wants, then remove the rest as well, because Spaceinvaders has successfully undermined the relevance of referring to ITAR-TASS and Ria Novosti's reports here with his argument. The reports are false, and it only makes sense to refer to them because these false reports imply something about the cause of the crash. Present them to the reader without the observation that they're false and are you simply presenting reports that easily fail a reliability test.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 01:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
To Martinevens' point above, that this is not really a regular "aviation disaster", I had suggested a while ago (and was mostly shot down by editors who don't seem to grasp my point) to change the name of the article, given the fact that this is NOT a run-of-the-mill "plane crash". But was a SHOOT-DOWN. And I had suggested a modification of the article name to show clearly that (yes the airline etc also) it was a shoot-down in a military conflict context. The article name does not show that at all. And arguably (given the details of the how and why the "crash" happened in the first place) the wording in the article name should show that point and fact clearly. This was NOT just a regular plane crash. Hence the need or desire also for "semi-protection". Regards. Gabby Merger ( talk) 20:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone inserted this text into the Crash section of the article: "Both news reports stopped shortly thereafter, once news of the Malaysian Airliner crash started to appear, yet it remains unclear whether another aircraft was also hit and had also crashed." Eleven days have passed and there's been no announcement or discovery of another plane being shot down at the same time. Nomination to delete the second part of the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.44.187.26 ( talk) 20:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I see Crosbiesmith wants to edit war over whether the aircraft was "likely" downed by a surface-to-air missile as Crosbie wants this attributed to the U.S. government. This is like attributing to the U.S. government that hijackers brought down the Twin Towers. Of course it is entirely true that the U.S. government "assessed" that aircraft hijackers did it. But it is not just the U.S. government that believes that "theory" as opposed to, say, internal demolition, meaning that it's misleading to insinuate that the U.S. government is out on its own limb here. It's a WP:FRINGE theory to contend that this aircraft was downed by something other than a surface-to-air missile like an air-to-air attack or an on-board bomb, at least with the evidence we have at this stage. Do the Guardian, the New York Times, AP, and Reuters attribute to the U.S. government when making a statement like "likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile"? If not, then we shouldn't be adding additional language that creates the misleading impression that this is just a "he said, she said" between the White House and the Kremlin and nobody can make any sense at all of what might be more likely.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 13:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Brian Dell - after your last edit, the text reads "The aircraft crashed over territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists and was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile." That seems entirely unobjectionable to me. - Crosbie 15:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems initial black box data shows evidence of massive explosive decompression possibly caused by multiple hull ruptures. This is according to the experts indicative of the damage of SA11 missile hit. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-17-black-box-findings-consistent-with-blast/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/31522/Vliegtuigcrash-in-Oekraine/article/detail/3701161/2014/07/26/Zwarte-doos-bevestigt-raketinslag-MH17.dhtml Arnoutf ( talk) 19:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.
The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.
'User:My very best wishes' - you ask above 'Please provide any WP:RS (other than claims by Russian government and Russian state-controlled news organizations) which claim that missile was fired from another position'. For future reference I provide the following RIA Novosti link MH17 Flight Crashed Within Ukrainian Missile Systems Firing Range - Russian Military "The Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crashed within the operating zone of the Ukrainian army’s self-propelled, medium-range surface-to-air Buk missile systems, the Russian military said Monday." This is a Russian state-controlled news organization reporting on the claims of the Russian military so it doesn't fit your criteria. However, the views of the Russian military are not WP:FRINGE. If we write the article to deliberately exclude the views of pro-Russia sources then I agree, there is no controversy. However, there is controversy and we can only avoid acknowledging this by deliberately excluding the views of pro-Russia sources. - Crosbie 15:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
So we have:
@ sydal - if parry's story is not pursued by RS then wp should leave it where it is. in the ideological putin loving ghettoes that are consortiumnews, globalresearch , mintpress ad nauseam Sayerslle ( talk) 23:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The current wording (as I write this) is fine and accurately reflects reliable sources. Leave it alone, unless some new information comes to light. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Fully endorse
Crosbie's views. The aircraft is believed to have been downed
- believed by whom needs to be stated. Ukraine, US, UK... but not every country. That sentence implicates the pro-Russia separatists. Let's not forget that
Ukraine itself owns the Buk system as well. We should not pre-judge until the results of an official international investigation.
BBC says Western nations have said there is growing evidence that the plane was hit by a Russian-supplied missile fired by rebels. Russia has blamed Ukrainian government forces.
starship
.paint
~ regal
02:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion the SI-system's units are prefred to be used in articles, but there are exceptions. Flight altitude is always meassured in feet (or "flight level" which indicates hundreds of feet). Boeing720 ( talk) 04:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There is currently lot of talk on possible third sanctions package coming from US and EU this week, but I can't seem to find any reliable source. Could we just leave this section open here until a source is found? 24.201.226.168 ( talk) 16:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Should in the aftermath section mention be made of airliners giving greater scrutiny of overflights over conflict zones? The recent Emirates decision to stop flying over Iraq, or the FAA prohibition of US airlines to fly to Tel Aviv, for example, are all a direct results of concerns that have arisen from this crash. I believe a re-evaluation of flights over conflict zones will be the more immediate and long lasting impact from this crash - shouldn't a greater mention of the renewed scrutiny on flight routing be made in the aftermath section? -- DigitalRevolution ( talk) 14:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Please don't take this as serious. 'Tis related to that US vs British spelling thing again. And I know some consensus somewhere is reputed to have decided Standard British is to be used in this article--for whatever reasons. However (he goes on digging himself a hole)in the Cause section we have the use of the word aluminium though the reference given (NYT) clearly states "aluminum". Should we not replace aluminium by "aluminum [sic]"? There is also User:Geogene's recent correction of "British" to "UK" as "more correct" in the article. Well I am not sure that comes under the spelling rubric. My checks (only on headlines mind you) on notable media seems to indicate that US papers tend to use "Britain" while British papers use "UK". Some non-US papers also seem to use Britain. As each of these papers typically have style guides I expect it comes under those. I am not even sure what word we would use as an adjective in the UK case? UKer? Oh my what an invitation for vandalism that would be. Keep smiling. Juan Riley ( talk) 23:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
So why is this page indefinitely edit protected? 93.109.21.53 ( talk) 11:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@ John: and I are having a disagreement about whether or not to include the following three specific incidents in the See Also section:
Our discussion about the changes was archived; here is the entire text:
The end of the article, just before the Notes, contains a Portal template and an in-line comment like this:
{{Portal|Aviation|Current events|Disasters}}
<!-- Please do not add other airliner shootdown incidents. These are already covered in the list wikilink -->
Unless someone objects, I will create a See Also section and replace that with this:
Any objections? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 05:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
John reverted my change [17] in less than 15 minutes with the edit summary "as it says in the hidden note, consensus is against this". I was wondering, what consensus?
Do you believe that we have a consensus to exclude specific incidents in the see also section, at least for the present? (Please place your comments in the appropriate sections below.)
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
How do we judge which source is best? A case in point would be the summary of the incident in the infobox having 4 sources, all quoting the same comments from Obama. Personally I would like to remove at least 2 of them to remove clutter, but I am unsure how best to judge which ones to keep. Possibly Fox news as the most notable internationally? CSJJ104 ( talk) 21:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Quoting Obama is really typical wikipedia fan boy behavior. Obama has almost nothing to do with this despite efforts to inject Obama into as many articles as possible. It would be different if Obama threatened to bomb Russia to avenge the death of the US citizen. Leave Obama out of this. Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 03:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Reuters is considered a reliable source. "In an interview with Reuters, subject acknowledged..." stands on its own without insinuating that Reuters is not reliable. Any allegation that Reuters "mistranslated" needs to be substantiated with other sources, as opposed to engaging in
WP:original research. The New York Times addressed the Reuters interview
here and noted that:
Almost as soon as the Reuters interview was published, Mr. Khodakovsky tried to take the comments back... Reuters responded by releasing audio of the interview, in which the commander could be clearly heard saying that he was told on the day of the crash that another separatist unit, from Lugansk, had in fact deployed an SA-11 Buk missile system...."
Bottom line is that there was an attack on Reuters' credibility, the New York Times reviewed it, and found no evidence to conclude that Reuters had misrepresented what was said.--
Brian Dell (
talk)
03:41, 26 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. |
One passenger has the German and Dutch nationality. She was reported as German, but she is Dutch. So it are 194 Dutch passengers and 3 German passengers.
There are more sources. http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/3837573/vliegtuigen-met-slachtoffers-mh17-weer-geland-in-eindhoven.html http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/vliegramp-mh17 (is the official Dutch government site)
88.159.208.149 ( talk) 07:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the navigation info in the Crash section para 3 not only confusing but possibly referenced with an admixture of secondary and primary sources and some OR? Juan Riley ( talk) 00:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The article currently states, in the 'Cause' section, "Local eyewitnesses and unnamed separatist sources later stated that the Buk M-1 missile launcher entered Ukraine from Russia with a Russian military crew escorted by two civilian vehicles". This is referenced to the MSN source What happened? The day Flight 17 was downed. The source states: "AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars." The report of the Buk escorted by civilian vehicles was *not* from local eyewitnesses and unnamed separatist sources, but from AP journalists, and this was *not* at a point of entry into the Ukraine, but in the town of Snizhne. - Crosbie 05:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This article needs a mention [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.51.201 ( talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 July 2014
The article currently states 'On 22 July an Italian reporter cited a soldier from "Oplot" separatist squadron who confirmed the plane was shot down by his unit after it was mistakenly identified as a Ukrainian airborne transporter' which is cited to the Corriere della Sera article «Così è stato colpito l’aereo» . Can anyone provide a translation of the key claim in the article? The best I can find with Google translate is "We just hit a plane of the fascists in Kiev, we were told". This supports the claims based on intercepts that separatists believed they had hit a Ukrainian plane at the time of the shoot-down. However the claim that the plane was shot down specifically by this soldier's unit seems to be an interpolation not based on the source. We can say that a soldier from the "Oplot" separatist squadron confirmed his unit was told that separatists has shot-down a Ukrainian aircraft. We can't say that it was this soldier's unit that did it. - Crosbie 06:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The claim that the Buk claimed in the Guardian to have been seen by witnesses in Torez is the same Buk seen by journalist from the Associated Press is Synthesis. - Crosbie 12:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Every time you have one sentence follow another it's WP:SYNTH according to people who fail to understand that WP:SYNTH deals with claims that are not supported by the sources even though the individual components are. What is the claim here that is not supported? The Guardian says it was spotted en route to Snizhne. AP says it was spotted in Snizhne. That's called writing Wikipedia as editors with brains as opposed to simply concatenating copyright-violating quotes. Your contention is apparently that there are two different systems here in a colossal coincidence, a contention you only arrive at by means of WP:original research. The sources say what they say without playing detective.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 13:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
"If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH"-- Brian Dell ( talk) 17:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The end of the article, just before the Notes, contains a Portal template and an in-line comment like this:
{{Portal|Aviation|Current events|Disasters}}
<!-- Please do not add other airliner shootdown incidents. These are already covered in the list wikilink -->
Unless someone objects, I will create a See Also section and replace that with this:
Any objections? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 05:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The source for this is "Pressimus" http://pressimus.com/site/page/about. Surely this can't be considered a Reliable Source. Montenegroman ( talk) 17:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be neutral, not puppets of the Ukrainian government. The neutral way is to call them Ukrainian separatists backed by Russia, not pro-Russia separatists. If you call them pro-Russian separatists, why not call them anti-leukemia separatists because I am sure they are not for leukemia.
This comment could result in both sides hating me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Site: Near Hrabove, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine 48°8′17″N 38°38′20″E
The plane was already east to the crash area! Franz Scheerer (Software) ( talk) 19:14, 26 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 "Unnamed US intelligence officials stated that sensors that traced the path of the missile, shrapnel patterns in the wreckage, voice print analysis of separatists' conversations in which they claimed credit for the strike, and photos and other data from social media sites all indicated that Russian-backed separatists had fired the missile.[15]", as there's no real proof that it was actually shot down by a pro-russian separatist SAM, as all the information provided by the province of Donetsk and other countries show that the missile was shot somewhere in Kiev borders, while the manipulated-by-government West news channel blame Russia for "helping the separatists with advanced weaponry" when Donetsk hasn't got any SAM cappable of reaching such altitude, and neither any Aircraft other than the civilian ones, for the artillery from Kiev. www.infowars.com/u-s-admits-its-mh17-evidence-is-based-on-youtube-clips-social-media-posts/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used U.S. admits its MH17 ‘evidence’ is based on YouTube clips and social media posts.
FenixValor (
talk)
05:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The Netherlands has sent 40 unarmed members of the Royal Marechaussee to Ukraine to aid with the investigation: [11] [12] – Editør ( talk) 18:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
MH made a point of stating that it's entirely avoiding Ukranian airspace:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 13:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
First relatives arrive at crash site, in search for their daughter [13]. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if it could be incorporated in article or not, but might be worth while on a temporary basis
http://www.politie.nl/onderwerpen/flight-mh17.html#upload------------------
StuB63 ( talk) 02:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It reads "The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile, which Ukraine and Western governments believe to have been fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists.". I suggest changing that to "The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile, which Ukraine and Western governments claim to have been fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists.". As we can't look into there brains guessing what they believe is only hypothetical and, indeed, there is some intel that suggest that they actually don't believe their claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydal ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Just take this paragraph for example:
Shortly after the crash, Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatists, was reported to have posted on social media network VKontakte, taking credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. The separatists later denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been destroyed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at that altitude.[112][113][114] On 22 July a soldier revealed to an Italian reporter that fellow separatists had told his unit the plane had been shot down under the assumption that it was Ukrainian.[115]
US officially declares no involvement of Russia on 22.7.14 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-22/u-dot-s-dot-no-direct-russian-involvement-in-mh17-crash
Also the article of the Italian reporter has been proofed to be not correct.
So please if Wikipedia want to be serious change the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.145.94 ( talk) 16:10, 27 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. |
Table says that 1 Australia died on board the MH17, where as there were actually 38 on board at the time of the crash. Not sure how this has been overlooked! Here is the reference:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-27/grieving-australian-couple-visit-ukraine-crash-site/5626738
124.168.245.58 (
talk)
11:58, 28 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. |
Passenger counts do not match. See the passenger manifest 95.172.68.149 ( talk) 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Done
Supersaiyen312 (
talk)
13:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there any sense in mentioning Australian passengers by state and territory in the note C? IMO, all of them are Australian citizens anyway and the flight manifest doesn't indicate such info. Brandmeister talk 12:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Other recent event articles such as Air Algérie Flight 5017 and TransAsia Airways Flight 222 (or any other aviation disaster articles) are not semi-protected and all the edits are constructive. Therefore, I propose that the semi-protection be lifted and see how it does. It's also no longer a recent aviation disaster, which is what it was originally protected for. Supersaiyen312 ( talk) 12:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There's something fishy about that bit at the end of "Crash" section. Both news sources have reported that pro-Russian rebels have shot down an Ukrainian AN-26 around the same time at the same location. There there was a phrase "Only the Malaysian plane went down at that time" which had no source, and I replaced it with something more relevant to the stated sources. However, I still don't think it fits there. These reports were the only ones stating that an Ukrainian plane has been shot, because right afterwards news of Flight 17 started coming in on the international level. And these two remained, but never elaborated on. Ukrainian Army never confirmed that they haven't lost a plane, it was never even speculated. All the attention went right for Flight 17. So I think adding anything after this is irrelevant, and even both these sources should rather be moved to "Russian media coverage" instead. I'll give some time to see if we agree, and then if no reply is given to myself, I'll proceed as explained. Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass ( talk) 19:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The functional burden of proof here is on the party contending that two planes were shot down at the same time, when one is editing in such a way as to try and introduce that theory to the reader. You can try and pin the burden of proof on the editor who notes the fact that ITAR-TASS and RIA Novosti were isolated here knowing he can't prove a negative but you can often use Wikipedia rules to serve purposes contrary to the spirit of those rules if one's creative enough. That's why Wikipedia is edited by editors instead of robots, editors who can see that the ITAR-TASS and RIA Novosti evidence that sources friendly to them THOUGHT they shot down a Ukrainian plane is only undermined by the entirely unsupported speculation that two planes were shot down at about the same time. If the consensus here is to greenlight the removal that Spaceinvaders wants, then remove the rest as well, because Spaceinvaders has successfully undermined the relevance of referring to ITAR-TASS and Ria Novosti's reports here with his argument. The reports are false, and it only makes sense to refer to them because these false reports imply something about the cause of the crash. Present them to the reader without the observation that they're false and are you simply presenting reports that easily fail a reliability test.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 01:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
To Martinevens' point above, that this is not really a regular "aviation disaster", I had suggested a while ago (and was mostly shot down by editors who don't seem to grasp my point) to change the name of the article, given the fact that this is NOT a run-of-the-mill "plane crash". But was a SHOOT-DOWN. And I had suggested a modification of the article name to show clearly that (yes the airline etc also) it was a shoot-down in a military conflict context. The article name does not show that at all. And arguably (given the details of the how and why the "crash" happened in the first place) the wording in the article name should show that point and fact clearly. This was NOT just a regular plane crash. Hence the need or desire also for "semi-protection". Regards. Gabby Merger ( talk) 20:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone inserted this text into the Crash section of the article: "Both news reports stopped shortly thereafter, once news of the Malaysian Airliner crash started to appear, yet it remains unclear whether another aircraft was also hit and had also crashed." Eleven days have passed and there's been no announcement or discovery of another plane being shot down at the same time. Nomination to delete the second part of the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.44.187.26 ( talk) 20:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I see Crosbiesmith wants to edit war over whether the aircraft was "likely" downed by a surface-to-air missile as Crosbie wants this attributed to the U.S. government. This is like attributing to the U.S. government that hijackers brought down the Twin Towers. Of course it is entirely true that the U.S. government "assessed" that aircraft hijackers did it. But it is not just the U.S. government that believes that "theory" as opposed to, say, internal demolition, meaning that it's misleading to insinuate that the U.S. government is out on its own limb here. It's a WP:FRINGE theory to contend that this aircraft was downed by something other than a surface-to-air missile like an air-to-air attack or an on-board bomb, at least with the evidence we have at this stage. Do the Guardian, the New York Times, AP, and Reuters attribute to the U.S. government when making a statement like "likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile"? If not, then we shouldn't be adding additional language that creates the misleading impression that this is just a "he said, she said" between the White House and the Kremlin and nobody can make any sense at all of what might be more likely.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 13:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Brian Dell - after your last edit, the text reads "The aircraft crashed over territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists and was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile." That seems entirely unobjectionable to me. - Crosbie 15:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems initial black box data shows evidence of massive explosive decompression possibly caused by multiple hull ruptures. This is according to the experts indicative of the damage of SA11 missile hit. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-17-black-box-findings-consistent-with-blast/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/31522/Vliegtuigcrash-in-Oekraine/article/detail/3701161/2014/07/26/Zwarte-doos-bevestigt-raketinslag-MH17.dhtml Arnoutf ( talk) 19:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.
The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.
'User:My very best wishes' - you ask above 'Please provide any WP:RS (other than claims by Russian government and Russian state-controlled news organizations) which claim that missile was fired from another position'. For future reference I provide the following RIA Novosti link MH17 Flight Crashed Within Ukrainian Missile Systems Firing Range - Russian Military "The Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crashed within the operating zone of the Ukrainian army’s self-propelled, medium-range surface-to-air Buk missile systems, the Russian military said Monday." This is a Russian state-controlled news organization reporting on the claims of the Russian military so it doesn't fit your criteria. However, the views of the Russian military are not WP:FRINGE. If we write the article to deliberately exclude the views of pro-Russia sources then I agree, there is no controversy. However, there is controversy and we can only avoid acknowledging this by deliberately excluding the views of pro-Russia sources. - Crosbie 15:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
So we have:
@ sydal - if parry's story is not pursued by RS then wp should leave it where it is. in the ideological putin loving ghettoes that are consortiumnews, globalresearch , mintpress ad nauseam Sayerslle ( talk) 23:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The current wording (as I write this) is fine and accurately reflects reliable sources. Leave it alone, unless some new information comes to light. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Fully endorse
Crosbie's views. The aircraft is believed to have been downed
- believed by whom needs to be stated. Ukraine, US, UK... but not every country. That sentence implicates the pro-Russia separatists. Let's not forget that
Ukraine itself owns the Buk system as well. We should not pre-judge until the results of an official international investigation.
BBC says Western nations have said there is growing evidence that the plane was hit by a Russian-supplied missile fired by rebels. Russia has blamed Ukrainian government forces.
starship
.paint
~ regal
02:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion the SI-system's units are prefred to be used in articles, but there are exceptions. Flight altitude is always meassured in feet (or "flight level" which indicates hundreds of feet). Boeing720 ( talk) 04:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There is currently lot of talk on possible third sanctions package coming from US and EU this week, but I can't seem to find any reliable source. Could we just leave this section open here until a source is found? 24.201.226.168 ( talk) 16:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Should in the aftermath section mention be made of airliners giving greater scrutiny of overflights over conflict zones? The recent Emirates decision to stop flying over Iraq, or the FAA prohibition of US airlines to fly to Tel Aviv, for example, are all a direct results of concerns that have arisen from this crash. I believe a re-evaluation of flights over conflict zones will be the more immediate and long lasting impact from this crash - shouldn't a greater mention of the renewed scrutiny on flight routing be made in the aftermath section? -- DigitalRevolution ( talk) 14:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Please don't take this as serious. 'Tis related to that US vs British spelling thing again. And I know some consensus somewhere is reputed to have decided Standard British is to be used in this article--for whatever reasons. However (he goes on digging himself a hole)in the Cause section we have the use of the word aluminium though the reference given (NYT) clearly states "aluminum". Should we not replace aluminium by "aluminum [sic]"? There is also User:Geogene's recent correction of "British" to "UK" as "more correct" in the article. Well I am not sure that comes under the spelling rubric. My checks (only on headlines mind you) on notable media seems to indicate that US papers tend to use "Britain" while British papers use "UK". Some non-US papers also seem to use Britain. As each of these papers typically have style guides I expect it comes under those. I am not even sure what word we would use as an adjective in the UK case? UKer? Oh my what an invitation for vandalism that would be. Keep smiling. Juan Riley ( talk) 23:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
So why is this page indefinitely edit protected? 93.109.21.53 ( talk) 11:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@ John: and I are having a disagreement about whether or not to include the following three specific incidents in the See Also section:
Our discussion about the changes was archived; here is the entire text:
The end of the article, just before the Notes, contains a Portal template and an in-line comment like this:
{{Portal|Aviation|Current events|Disasters}}
<!-- Please do not add other airliner shootdown incidents. These are already covered in the list wikilink -->
Unless someone objects, I will create a See Also section and replace that with this:
Any objections? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 05:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
John reverted my change [17] in less than 15 minutes with the edit summary "as it says in the hidden note, consensus is against this". I was wondering, what consensus?
Do you believe that we have a consensus to exclude specific incidents in the see also section, at least for the present? (Please place your comments in the appropriate sections below.)