Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 13

Italian newspaper article with pro-Russian saying his group attacked the plane, and comparison of shrapnel photos
Two sources:
 * 1. Abbattuto, Aereo. "«Così è stato colpito l’aereo»." Corriere della Sera. 22 July 2014.
 * English: Day, Michael. "Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Pro-Russian rebel 'admits to shooting down plane'." The Independent. Tuesday July 22, 2014.
 * 2. Powell, Rose. "Photo of MH17 wreckage proves missile attack, claims report." Sydney Morning Herald. July 22, 2014.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Antagonistic Framing of the Article
I think that this article, while presenting the facts of the shoot down (as we currently know them) in an accurate manner, sets up an unreasonable framing of the event as especially egregious. For example, the article states in the opening that this was 'the deadliest airliner shoot down in history' - which is technically true, but within 8 casualties of the next deadliest, which was Iran Air 655. And that article did not declare that it was the 'deadliest' shoot down, as if this was some sort of contest.

At the very least, such claims should be put in context, in my opinion.

President Jyrgunkarrd (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So you suggest to reframe it in a way that suggest shooting down airliners is just some normal thing that happens from time to time. We are talking mass murder here. Of course that is framed antagonistic towards the killers. Arnoutf (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's antagonistic. I just went to List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft and randomly clicked on ones with 100+ deaths. Most of them seemed to include how they ranked compared to everything else (eg "deadliest crash in a DC-8", "deadliest air disaster in the history of Afghanistan", "second highest death toll of any aviation accident in Indonesia" etc). So it seems it's precedent on Wikipedia to do that. Stickee (talk)  12:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * President Jyrgunkarrd - I think Arnoutf just proved your point. HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you really mean this incident is not "especially egregious"? Arnoutf (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not our place to opine about whether it was bad or how bad it was, even though as human beings most of us would agree it was pretty bad. Is there a better superlative that we could use than "deadliest"? Would that answer the OP's query? --John (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree we should not . But in this case the facts do tell a pretty grim picture, and we should not hide that out of a perception to present a neutral point of view. I would be open to another term, but it should be clear and short - I cannot come up with another term very fast. Perhaps we could use something like "it is among the deadliest" without being specific about the exact ranking? Arnoutf (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Related page
There is currently an AfD about a related article. As a note of order, this related page is in a poor condition/outdated. Everyone is welcome to contribute. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality
Looking at the references section, one can unambiguously see that the vast majority of stories cited are Western media and US state department / Ukrainian govt briefings. There is an assumption that a Western media sources are "objective" versus (say) Russia media sources. This is compounded by the fact that Russian media sources as tagged specifically as for example "Russian funded RT.com" whereas the Western media sources (eg BBC, RFE/RL) are not. Especially given that there has been ZERO factual briefings from the Western governments to date versus one from the Russian military (and refutations if audio transcripts provided by the Ukranian military as fake), 3 weeks after the fact, it is indeed surprising that the theory that the rebels shot down the plans is regarded by the Western media as proven fact and is bandied about as much. In short,there are numerous weasel words, and an overall prejudicial Western media narrative independent of known facts.

This article is non neutral. Statements from only one part of the conflict are presented as facts : nor Kiev authorities or US state départment are RS as they are directly involved in the conflict and the crash : US authorities are actually protecting there men in Kiev who are the direct responsables of the catastroph. This plane should not have been over a war zone and this war should not have been hapen unless US actions to support a coup in Kiev, to support a war against civilian of the eastern of ukraine, this war should be over if US goverment strongly demande an immediatly cease fire... Actually, results form internationnal query are not known. The article should equally presents the versions from both sides, without judgement or appreciation. This actually not the case. Why should we be more confident in the statements form USA than from Russia? even if Russia has revealled a large and strong file of facts that infermed US version. During the same times, US an Ukies refuse to communicate the facts their statements are based on. Former US analysts and well knowned journalists publicaly protest againts that. Everyone should remind that, not as long ago as two years ago, Kerry accused syrian governement of the use of chemical weapons. All the occidental press aggreed with Kerry's accusations, that were presented as trustfull statements, and strong as real truth. Few months laters, it was revealed he was lying. History of US internationnal policy is made of numerous lying used to influence US opinion. So, this article must be very carrefull. And instead of taking US propagenda as facts, article should only give proven facts, article shoud be writing in the way, "US said..." "Kiev said..." "Moscow said...". A section should documented the mass information war that is actually leading by all the sides. Wikipedia must not be a weapon of information war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.175.187 (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not have the time to edit this article for a few days but it is not neutral. The first thing it should be saying are that the cause is under investigation. This should come before any claims and beliefs about the cause. I personally may or may not not have full confidence the findings of a U.N. or other international investigation but for the purposes of wikipedia any definite finding should be considered definitive. Until that time this article should be open minded and not weighted towards the preferred explanation of the U.S. or Ukrainian governments, as per present. Even western governments and media are no longer being categoric about blaming 'rebels' and they have now had more than two weeks to place evidence in the public domain. Wikipedia should not have an anti Russian bias. I anticipate returning to edit this in a few days time and in the mean time would appreciate comments. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports what the RS's are saying. The RS's are saying that it is believed to be shot down by a missile from separatist controlled territory, so that's what Wikipedia says. As a side note, this has been discussed in the Attribution for separatist territory launch section. Stickee (talk)  06:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There a43 plenty of RSs saying 'it is believed' in Russia that the plane was shot down by Ukrainians. Just because an RS reports a widespread belief doesn't make the belief either more nor less reliable in itself. Let's put facts before claims and beliefs, surely a good rule anywhere. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If anything the article gives too much attention to the Russian media point of view - which has a section of its own. In some western newspapers there have been speculations that the BUK was operated by Russian army or that the missile was in fact launched from inside Russia. For some reason these Western fringe theories are not reported while the Russian speculations are. Arnoutf (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The solution is to remove almost all the media and political claims and speculation. We cannot know what is true, and each of us is probably going to be influenced in our judgements by our own prejudices. By including it Wikipedia becomes a player in the propaganda war that began long before this plane crashed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As I suggested above, would it be worth creating a section to outline all points of view, possibly split into mainstream, Russian, and other theories? CSJJ104 (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there needs to be any speculation in the article. Let's stick to the facts that we do know and wait for the commission to finish investigation. Wikipedia should not be used as a weapon in information war.rampa (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the Russian media section got left behind there after discussing the media section in general. I think it maybe just got overlooked rather than being anything deliberate.  My own opinion is that if it wasn't worth mentioning in all the preceding sections then it's not worth mentioning here.  And if it has gone before then it's just repetition. Montenegroman (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not everything is "propaganda," HiLo. It's the propagandists who want you to think so since that muddies the waters.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there "plenty of RSs saying" "that the plane was shot down by Ukrainians"? No there are not. As for what it "is believed" in Russia, see WP:FRINGE.--Brian Dell (talk)
 * There are three different sides (US, Ukraine, Russia) making various claims. WP:FRINGE seems to be a good excuse here to push through the point of view of the US/Ukrainian side in violation of WP:NPOV (Avoid stating opinions as facts.). Presenting as a fact that it was a Buk from a separatist area is propaganda. Was that a claim from President Obama or only from some unnamed US official? Who has answered what to conflicting Russian claims? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "that it was a Buk from a separatist area" is not propaganda. It's as solidly supported by RS as the typical claim found on Wikipedia.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Russia doesn't have a side; it has propaganda, let's not pretend otherwise. The other "sides" are dealing in facts. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The worst propaganda I have ever seen was US Secretary of State Colin Powell telling the United Nations blatant lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. So let's not pretend statements from the US government would always be facts - sometimes they are blatant lies. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Colin Powell isn't the one pointing out that the Kremlin insinuation a ground-attack aircraft shot down MH17 is extremely dubious. Independent experts who know the capabilities of the Su-25 have called the Russian claim into question.  A not insignificant part of the circumstantial evidence that suggests the missile was fired from separatist controlled territory comes from sources like the Associated Press and social media that have no necessary relationship with the the U.S. government.  You haven't been edit warring over whether there are WMD in Iraq, you and Monty have been edit warring over allowing into the article the U.S. observation about "a full-court press by the Russian government to instruct affiliated or friendly elements to manipulate the media environment to spread Russia’s version of the story."  Show us some evidence that calls doubt upon this statement akin to the evidence that raises doubt about the Su-25 claim.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right that this is not the US Secretary of State pointing that out - it is only some unnamed US official of unknown rank. That is not even an official "U.S. observation", that is a statement of one anonymous US official. And the whole statement is anyway problematic since the RS is merely citing a primary source and not analyzing the accuracy of the claim. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post thought it was notable, and credible enough to include the quote in its story. But you question the Post's judgment, eh?  You think "a full-court press by the Russian government to instruct affiliated or friendly elements to manipulate the media environment to spread Russia’s version of the story" reaches the level of such self-serving dubious B.S. that it cannot even be introduced the article with clear attribution?  Why are there so many media watchers unaffiliated with the U.S. govt out there expressing the same or similar view if it's such total propagandistic nonsense?--Brian Dell (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And by additionally claiming that all major Russian media are not RS or that all Russian statements are propaganda you have succeeded in making Wikipedia a repeater of US and Ukrainian propaganda. Even the most hilarious propaganda claims of the Ukrainian government were repeated in Western RS. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's so then point out those "hilarious propaganda claims" and which "Western RS" carried them so we can be more informed in our evaluation of just how R those Western RS are.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I do personally think that the most likely cause of the MH17 crash was an accidental shootdown by separatists who mistook it for a valid military target. But that is not relevant for the article. I do not want a one-sided US/Ukrainian propaganda article based on the claim Russian media are propaganda, so they cannot be sources for anything. And many Ukrainian claims that are repeated in Western RS are completely hilarious. There won't be more objective information before the official investigation publishes first results. So let's list all claims with proper attributions who said what, and if available with responses from the other side. RT might not be a good source for independent analysis, but it is a very good source for statements from Russian officials. And instead of blindly discarding all Russian statement as propaganda, I would rather see the information that a Su-25 can't go over 7km added again to the article (it should be easy to find a good secondary source for that, including attribution where that information is coming from). CorrectKissinTime (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There's plenty in the article about the views and statements of the Russian government. If anything, too much. Right now the article is fairly neutral in that it accurately represents reliable sources. It appears you want to tilt the article in a non-neutral direction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Read what Tarc wrote here in this discussion, and then rethink who wants to tilt the article into a non-neutral direction. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tarc's statement is unhelpful. We cannot claim that any country is free from using propaganda to advance its cause. That's why I would rather see almost none of the claims and speculation in this article. It really doesn't add anything. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's like saying that nobody is free of germs. Everybody's got them but some more and more harmful than others. Let's not engage in false equivocation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

this entire article is propaganda. There's not a smidgen of actual fact checking - for example, the fuselage shows signs of machine gun fire from an angle that could only have come from two trailing fighter planes. Where's the ATC transcript? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.103.162.236 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Wacky conspiracy theories from extremist fringe sources don't belong in an encyclopedia. Keeping that junk OUT is what makes an article neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I object using wikipedia as a propaganda avenue. I'll be escalating this matter. Whoever is writing this article has an agenda. rampa (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This article and especially the cause section is not neutral. As it stands only one view is discussed in depth - the view that the plane was shot down by pro-russian rebels. There are actually 3 more theories that should be discussed: 1) The plane was shot down by Ukrainian military via a ground to air missile. 2) The plane was shot down by Ukrainian military via a air to air missile from SU-25 that was tracking the boeing 3) The plane had a bomb on board which caused the explosion, which could have been the doing of US government. At this stage all 4 theories are just as likely based on pure evidence. The evidence presented for the current theory has been shown to be fake. For example, the audio recording between Pro-russian rebeks has been made from previous recordings and its timestamp is a day before the plane even took off. The video of a pro-russian truck carrying the missile is also fake - it was made on pro-west territory as the car sale sign shows. The claim by Ukrainian government that they have analyzed the black boxes is also fake. The black boxes have been sent to british experts for decoding and Ukranian government had no access to them. All this information needs to be included in a neutral manner. Otherwise this article is another propoganda war and has zero credibility. 118.210.130.94 (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * the truck was in lugansk ,- you are just getting your 'info' from globalresearch or RT or some where - anything can be added withRS, but not  globalresearch or RT b/s - why do all the most credulous suckers up of the most blatant propagancda , say it is only they who can see through propaganda? bizarre really. and anyone who says ' I object using wp as a propaganda avenue' - a sure sign that is someone who only wants to use wp as a propaganda avenueSayerslle (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence to your claims. You are just getting information from Western media, so it will obviously conflict with my information. I don't want to point any fingers or claim who is right or wrong. All I am saying is that an article about an important international event like this one should be rid of all biases and prejudice. This article should aim to be neutral and present ALL the available theories, no matter what the media is claiming. After all isn't this the point of having Wikipedia? 118.210.130.94 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to post the following at the end of the Cause section:
 * "On Aug. 7, Malaysia’s leading English-language newspaper The New Straits Times posted an article entitled, “US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft.” The writer also noted that "there has not been a shred of tangible evidence" that separatists shot down the plane with a Buk missile."
 * if nobody has a compelling reason why it should not be posted. I think it's significant and not posting it could adversely affect this Wiki page's neutrality. JPLeonard (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * malaysias defence minister obviously doesn't read the new straits times surface to air missile  says hussein - thers loads of evidence - you obviously just got a putinist pov so don't care to check on it Sayerslle (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sayerslle, first of all you are being rude, which is not indicated here.
 * Secondly, why did you not read the Straits Times article? What can you say to counter the points it made? Can you seriously exclude the POV of Malaysia's leading newspaper by calling it Putinist?
 * Thirdly, this talk section is about neutrality. Is your definition of neutrality to exclude the Russian POV, which you attempt to denigrate as "putinist"?
 * You are also saying that the air to air hypothesis must a priori be excluded? Then maybe this article should be flagged as Neutrality in Dispute.
 * About the "loads of evidence" - what *tangible* evidence is there for a Buk? Journalists could find no traces of the launch. The US has not revealed the satellite photos it claims show the launch. We have zero hard evidence for it. The only hard evidence presented was by Kartopolov and it concerns an aircraft, not a Buk. Can you prove me wrong on this? And the Straits Times didn't even mention the neutral observers who told BBC Russian service they saw a jet fighter shoot down the airliner.
 * Seems like everything is "obvious" to you? Can't you explain your position, so you just call it obvious? JPLeonard (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Also I don't see how the US State Dept can be considered a reliable source, after the WMD deception debacle that destroyed Iraq. And when Kerry doesn't even show his evidence. Indeed, is it not a violation of neutrality here that mention of the challenge to the US to show their evidence, made by the Russian defense ministry, was deleted from the article, perhaps because it could put the US position in a bad light. JPLeonard (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * you didn't provide a link to the article for editors to read did you. - if you add content from RS you are at liberty to do so - to say there is no evidence for the buk is just not true - you are a true beliver kind of thing - i'm too old to bother with it - there is plenty of evidence - the buks travel from Donetsk in the morning via torez and then back via lugansk to Russia is all well tracked -paris match/guardian articles etc  Sayerslle (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Contrary to your assertion the Russian POV is included in the article and it is labeled as statements of the Russian government. The article talk page is not the place to pontificate about politics or carry out polemics. Quite simply, we use reliable sources. That's it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"False flag" attempt to deliberately shoot down an Aeroflot flight (but it missed)
According to Security Service of Ukraine, the MH17 was hit by the "separatists" by mistake. The actual target was allegedly a passenger plane by Aeroflot. The shouting down this plane would be used as a casus belli for Russian invasion, according to the SBU see here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * we don't expect much from a half-wit, low-level troll but - even so - this is way beyond stupid. Did the the gas-industry shill set you up for this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegroman (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh... did you miss the notice above about discretionary sanctions which apply to this article?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I request disciplinary action against User:Montenegroman for casting aspersions on me with his "gas industry shill" remark. Geogene (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is included it ought to be described as a Ukrainian official "claims" because there isn't much here, at least not yet, besides a claim.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we need a professional quality translation of that source. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There will probably be secondary RS tomorrow. Wouldn't hurt to wait. Geogene (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's here in English. However, I am not about to oppose HiLo HERE about whether to include this at all because in THIS CASE we've got a dubious claim from a partisan source that's both isolated in terms of corroboration and scant in terms of supplied evidence.  This contention by the SBU this time is much more conspiracy theory-like than, say, the wiretaps.  That doesn't mean I don't appreciate an inclusion argument that says it should be noted that Kiev may be as capable as Moscow of throwing eyebrow raising accusations out there.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is verified that the Security Service of the Ukraine is making this claim, then I think that's sufficiently notable to be included in the article. Same as with any claims or accusations that Russian government or Separatists organizations make. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I too believe this should be included. If true, this is extraordinary important, but not surprising given, for example, the previous history of Russian apartment bombings allegedly organized by the FSB as a similar casus belly for the 2nd Chechen War. Interestingly, SBU spokesmen Nalivaichenko said (among other things) that "the Russian-provided Buk anti-air missile battery which was used to down MH17 had been transferred [from Russia] to Ukraine for that purpose, and that the Aeroflot plane with Russian passengers on board was supposed to have been shot down over territory controlled by Ukrainian government troops". My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

For now - as in for a day or so - I'd favor not including this in the article, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL (sort of). Basically, it's not clear whether this is an official position of the Ukrainian government or just one guy shooting his mouth off. Personally I don't buy this story - if this false flag op was supposed to be coordinated with the separatists, why would Girkin brag about shooting down a "Ukrainian military transport" seconds after the plane went down? If they were trying to shoot down a Russian passenger jet and make it look like Ukrainians did it, he would've kept his mouth shot. Likewise on the recordings, at least the separatists (if not their Russian counterparts) sound genuinely surprised that what they shot down was a civilian plane. The meant-to-shoot-down-Ukrainian-military-transport-shot-down-passenger-plane-by-mistake explanation still makes the most sense and it is the one supported by the evidence.

Basically I want to keep out crazy conspiracy theories out of this article, whether they originate with the Russian side or the Ukrainian side. There was a mention of a separate article devoted to that sort of thing, but AFAIK nobody got around to creating one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * According to SBU version, Girkin and other rebels did not know anything about this plan, being used in a "blind" manner, exactly as they suppose to be used in any operation like this. Regardless, this is just a version by SBU, but it seems to be notable enough (published and re-published by a huge number of sources), and this is criterion for inclusion in WP. More here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since we now have in this article the official version by Russian Ministry of Defense (which is probably OK?), we must also include the "opposite" version by a similar official organization from another (Ukrainian) side, which is SBU. They said this is result of their official investigation. This is per WP:NPOV. I am not suggesting placing any claims by individual "analysts" no one knows about. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC) . Here is their original statement (English). This is now everywhere. Here is one of discussions by analysts - with maps. Here is one their findings (on the maps). The Aeroflot flight SU2074 carefully flied around the war zone through Russian territory (obviously, for safety reasons) all the time except July 16 and July 17! My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC) More here by RFE/RL. Ukrainian officials emphasize here that the Buk was operated by a professional military team from Russia (who acted on the orders directly from Russia), that rebels did not know about the intended target (rebels thought this suppose to be an Ukrainian plane), and make analogy with Russian apartment bombings. My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It is much more likely that Ukraine/USA are the ones trying to setup a false flag event. There is a theory that the plane was shot down by pro-West Ukrainian military forces in order to blame the pro-Russian rebels and gain a political edge in the conflict. One possible scenario is that it was shot down by an Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet which was recorded in the proximity of the Boeing-777. . So if any false flag theories are to be included then this theory would be the prime candidate for the article. 118.210.35.227 (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Like I said, we should keep out all conspiracy theories out of the article. That includes crude Russian propaganda. As far as the false flag by Russia theory, I still want to see more reliable mainstream sources reporting on it. I've seen it in Moscow Times and Kyiv Post so I can see us adding a sentence or so to the article about it, but I'm still skeptical about including it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft
KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it.

This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.

rampa (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if true, the airplane pieces were in possession of rebels who could shoot them from a machine gun, whatever... My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point. But if they were so smart, why did they give both of the black boxes to NATO member Netherlands? If they were smart and devious, they would have held one back to make sure NATO/NL/UK are honest. JPLeonard (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This was deleted earlier by another user from the article. The source for this is GlobalResearch, who are conspiracy theorists (eg 9/11 Truth in 2014: Is a Breakthrough Possible?). As per WP:FRINGE, they shouldn't be included. Stickee (talk)  02:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fringe? Are Ukrainian papers RS? .... I think the opinions of Malaysian newspapers are quite important in the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So the theory comes from Associated Press reporter Robert Parry: "Parry also cited a July 29 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) investigators to arrive at the scene of the disaster, near Donetsk." - so the theory is that someone shot at this aircraft with a machine gun, yes?? An odd weapon for a fighter jet. And fired across and into the cockpit?? Quite a manoeuvre that, even from a Su-25 at  7,000 m. Neither Parry not Bociurkiw tell us how we can know when the machine gun holes were made. Ah look, the story also appears  here. Does that make it more or less believable?  Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your opinion doesn't not really matter even if you were a military expert... Fakirbakir (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Global research is WP:FRINGE. If a Malaysian newspaper cites them, that newspaper is not RS for that instance. And an "AP reporter", if involved, does not carry the same weight that the AP does, unless AP carried the report. Geogene (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's fringe conspiracy crap. It stays out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Two-third of the reports are crap in the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. But let's not add more. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe the theory that a Ukrainian fighter plane attacked MH17 should at least be mentioned: the original source for this article appears to be Robert Parry who has a track record for independent international stories that turned out to be right. His conclusion considers (a) analysis of photos of key segments of the plane (b) the only official briefing of radar data given by any side so far showing the presence of a fighter jet (c) a plausible motive. Of course he does not consider ATC tapes, black box recordings, or any detailed US/UKR radar tracking ... because after 23 DAYS for reasons which are unclear NOTHING has been released. We had more official factual tracking info of MH370 even WITHOUT the plane being found than with MH17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.40.181 (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Amen. Hit the nail on the head. The only tangible evidence is the Russian radar showing the jet fighter closing on the airliner, and the apparently neutral eyewitnesses who saw the fighter shoot it down. For the Buk theory there is "no tangible evidence" like the Straits Times says. There is only a lot of innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations. JPLeonard (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

What's up with these talk page ref sections? If the sources were brought up once, there's no need to add them again, otherwise it seems like some google juice seo.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The references added in the parent post of this section appear at the very bottom of this talk page; which is undesirable of course. The template above places the refs in the section they are originally placed. Stickee (talk)  08:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's Wikipedia current intro paragraph on Robert Parry:
 * "Robert Parry (born June 24, 1949) is an American investigative journalist best known for his role in covering the Iran-Contra affair for the Associated Press and Newsweek, including breaking the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) and the CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal in 1985. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984. He has been the editor of ConsortiumNews.com since 1995."
 * Award winning investigative journalist. Sounds like the man for the job and a pretty good reliable source on a controversial issue that certain factions would rather not see published.

Let's see the Straits times piece referenced, OK! JPLeonard (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Parry's claims are (just as they were in Syria, after the Ghouta chemical attack) basically fringe views, and assigning any sort of significant weight to them just because he's a (self-published) "journalist" would be undue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And the description above just shows that there are some problems with the Parry article, which is basically just a fluff filled promo piece, probably with some WP:COI going on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is all just subjective opinion. Fluff filled, fringe, this is just throwing adjectives around. The Straits Times article is much more objective and forensic in tone. Instead of impugning the integrity of an award winning journalist, why not answer the question: WHY does the ONLY HARD EVIDENCE we have indicate MH17 was shot down by AIRCRAFT?
 * So this is what you call logic? Malaysia's newspaper of record is a fringe source if it writes up evidence presented by an award-winning journalist, because - the conclusions don't agree with those of known liars like the US State Dept. -- who once again have not shown the evidence they claim to have.
 * By the way, speaking of evidence, Malaysia wants the Air Traffic Control tapes that Kiev is "missing." JPLeonard (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * have you provided a link to this straits times article for us to read at all? you keep ignoring the fact the buk has been tracked through the day of the shoot down from Donetsk to torez  and then to lugansk - and the Malaysian defence minister has said it was a surface t air missile brought the plane down - please provide a link to the article you believe has the only hard evidence - (if it is global researchdumbdumbdumb, or Robert parrys thesis though, I don't think they provide hard evidence, merely hard evidence of their putinist shil-ing , I believe its called in the vernacular popular at this time) Sayerslle (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article JPLeonard's referring to is the first one in the reference section above. And yes, it uses Parry and GlobalResearch as its source, which has been dismissed above as fringe views. Stickee (talk)  12:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * oh thanks, I wasn't sure if he meant something different from the parry/globalresearch material. Sayerslle (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Time of crash
In the map above Route of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 you can reed the time of last contact 13:15 UTC. So 14:15-is some mistake of company .It is impotent put a RIGHT time. Check a German wikipedia. Sorry.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zasdcxz (talk • contribs) 09:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * According to a footnote in the article, "The time stated by Malaysia Airlines is erroneous; the correct time should be 13:15 (UTC) or 14:15 (Westerm European Summer Time)." Geogene (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Plane Redirection
The plane has been redirected from its normal path into the war zone. There is a nice graphic that compares its flight to the last 10 flights clearly showing the redirection. I think this fact should be discussed in detail, probably in a separate section. Some important questions need to be answered here: Why was the plane redirected? Who is responsible for the redirection? Who benefits from the redirection and how? There have been claims that the redirection allowed Malaysian airlines to save on fuel and money. However, why was this particular flight redirected and not any of their previous flights. 118.210.130.94 (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * wasn't it the weather? if RS discuss it, we as editors are free to add what we like. if tis considered undue emphasis it can still get undone however. I don't think wp is here to raise 'important questions' , it is  to reflect what is reported in RS. as for 'who benefits' - this is becoming a frequent  cliché now of the eternal conspiracists , same as at Damascus chemical attacks  ( which was answered, assad regime did it - assad regime benefited btw ) - not  for wp to question who benefits, unless RS are doing so -  who knows anyhow. Taoism  tells us never to be sure of anything ! - Sayerslle (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any claims about the weather causing it. I have seen two claims. 1) The plane was redirected by Malaysian airlines to save on fuel and 2) The plane was redirected by Ukrainian air traffic controllers in order to setup a false flag event. The first claim doesn't make much sense to me - why weren't previous flights redirected and only this one. So as far as I can tell the second claim is the most likely to be true. Perhaps something worth including in the article. 118.210.35.227 (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The talk page of an article is not the place to spin conspiracy theories or repeat the same. Reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So put the matter in the article. Did you know there is a false flag article in Wikipedia? altho some people like to delete the ones attributed to the US and leave only Mukden and Gleiwicz. JPLeonard (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No we need reliable sources, preferably secondary, for that. Arnoutf (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
Apologies to all that I unknowingly broke the three revert rule. The definition of 'revert' existed in two wordings: I knew only the version in the lead to edit warring which I have changed, not the version in the red box in the main part of the article. It won't happen again. Sincerely Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Claim of responsibility by the rebels
In fact, no such claim has been made. The sentence "Immediately after the crash, a post appeared on the VKontakte social media page of Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatists, claiming responsibility for shooting down a military aircraft" contains two wrong points.

First, the page "Reports from militia of Novorossiya" (formerly - "Reports from Strelkov Igor Ivanovich") is not a page of Igor Girkin (Strelkov). It is a social network community where information from various sources from the pro-Russian side is posted. The particular post was attributed not to Igor Girkin but had only a subheading "information from the militia".

Second, even the unnamed member of the militia did not take responsibility for shooting down the plane. The Russian "сбили самолет" (without the subject) corresponds to "a plane was shot down". No detail was given there who or how shot down the plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.62.1 (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is really splitting hairs. Geogene (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The entire accusation of rebels is based on such shaky ground. That's why I think one needs to be precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.62.1 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is basically interpreting primary sources (in this case the original post). That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia, it's original research. We rely on what reliable secondary sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, the point is that the interpretation of the original post given in the article is twisted to the point it provides false information to the reader. Rebels never took responsibility for shooting down the plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.62.1 (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The attribution of this VK community post directly to Girkin/Strelkov is dubious at best. I think that the wording in the article needs to be changed to reflect it (i.e. adding "purported" or "a page claimed to be of"). Below are a few references and notes to the contrary:

1) Here is a source doubting the attribution ("The VK account may not actually be run by Strelkov at all. BuzzFeed's Max Seddon spoke to eastern Ukrainian rebels who said the page "is a fake made by fans."):

2) Strelkov has not ever admitted to have an account in the social media and has directly declined to have any accounts on the Internet other than one. In an interview with a major Russian newspaper, Komsomolskaya Pravda, on 12-th of June 2014 Girkin/Strelkov has has said the following: "In the Internet I am writing only on one resource, out of which a few people have the right to make verbatim reproductions of my messages" and that he had not had access to the Internet for three days. The one resource most likely hints to http://forum-antikvariat.ru of which Girkin/Strelkov has admitted to be a longtime user. His posts there are accessible here http://forum-antikvariat.ru/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=22728&search_app=forums&userMode=content&sid=ee7aa4dd25a52b94fe05ff77a3f7bf65&search_app_filters[forums][searchInKey]=&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&st=100. The link to the video of the interview (the remark was made in the very end of it): and the transcript in Russian:. I have translated the corresponding part of the transcript here: http://pastebin.com/1Dp8uvBT

3) A decent portion of the posts in the VK community strelkov_info, in which the discussed "responsibility claim" was published, has Girkin/Strelkov name in the heading, such as " Игорь Иванович Стрелков снова на связи." ("Igor Ivanovich Strelkov reporting") and are marked with the following picture: https://pp.vk.me/c620231/v620231519/9f37/_6deaQpPZ_0.jpg which has a text in Russian saying "Strelkov informs:" and a picture of Girkin/Strelkov. The majority of the posts are not marked with this picture and start with a different heading, often attributing messages to different other people (i.e. former self-proclaimed major of Slavyansk). This heading and picture seems to distiguish between the relayed messages of Girking/Strelkov (with the picture below the post) and messages by administrators of the strelkov_info community or from other people (without the picture below the post). This seems to sound in accord with Girkin/Strelkov's words "few people have the right to make verbatim reproductions of my messages" in the interview above. The purpoted "responsibility claim" in the community did not have that picture and started with "Сообщение от ополчения" ("A message from the militia"), and thus is unlikely to come from Girkin/Strelkov himself, but rather from the administrators of the community (or at least was attributed as not coming directly from Girkin/Strelkov at the time of publishing). I understand that this third point is OR and could not be included as is, but I will try to find sources if this makes sense to the editors. 93.153.182.18 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That so many reliable sources have reported on it means it belongs in the article. Also, reliable sources (such as the Christian Science Monitor article used as a source) attribute the post to Girkin/Strelkov and treat it as a claim of responsibility for shooting down an "AN-26". As far as I can tell, the wording seems to reflect the situation as it is understood, wrongly or not, by the sources. But I see some sources have been presented above that may be different, so it may be that we should review it. Geogene (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not yet confirmed that the plane was shot down
There is still no solid evidence that the plane was shot down. It is PRESUMED to be have been shot down due to the circumstances surrounding it. Until the investigators say they have found evidence of a missile being involved OR someone confirms they did it, it will remain PRESUMED.

P.S. The evidence the United States have can't be used to confirm the shoot down.

Rihaz (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Talk page not a place to discuss one's personal views on the matter. Nor do we get to set standards of evidence required (btw, a number of people confirmed they did it, including some of the separatists themselves).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not about my personal views. It's about whether we know what happened. We don't. The article implies that we know that it was shot down. We don't. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * no its not about your personal views so if it is routinely described as 'shot down' in RS that is all wp cares about I believe, - so in the guardian they write straightforwardly MH17 was shot down in eastern Ukraine on 17 July, killing all 298 on board. Around 228 coffins have been returned to the Netherlands.   Sayerslle (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this conversation. Why do my personal views get mentioned at all? And why did you mention the deaths and coffins? They prove nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * just pointing out a sentence in RS, as an example, that includes 'shot down' - without  any qualification kind of thing. so -MH17 was shot down in eastern Ukraine on 17 July, killing all 298 on board  - just forget the other sentence, I cut and pasted and must have clicked on two sentences! sorry to confuse you, blimey - this is getting absurd Sayerslle (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. Why do my personal views get mentioned at all? And why did you mention the deaths? They prove nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The plane was shot down. Hundreds of sources say so. Therefore, the article should say so. If reliable sources later decide that aliens did it, then we'll change the article to reflect that. The only standard of truth is RS. Geogene (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How do those sources know it was shot down? Unfortunately, this incident happened in the middle of the propaganda war. A lot of people have been impacted by that propaganda, including many here. I don't believe anything about this plane crash yet, apart from the fact that it crashed where it did, and everyone on board died. The standards for inclusion of a lot of the content of this article is far too low. HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not worried about it. That's because if you could prove to me that the sources were wrong, through your own original research, I might change my mind on what happened, but it wouldn't lead me to change my mind on what should be in the article until it got picked up by enough reliable sources. I know that sounds like a stupid way of doing things, and sometimes it really is, but this core policy has allowed WP to be successful enough that we are willing to debate the content of its articles. It's imperfect but it usually works. One imperfection, speaking hypothetically, is that WP has no resistance at all to a propaganda campaign from sources otherwise considered reliable. I'm not saying or implying that that's what it is, but you seem to have noticed that this weakness does exist. Even though the sources could be wrong, I accept that as a limitation of the system. Geogene (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You must have misread my post. I have no intention of trying to prove that the sources are wrong, or right, nor do any original research. That's because, unlike them, I don't claim to know what happened.. We do need, at times, to think about what sources the sources are using. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You opened with a rhetorical question, which I interpreted very broadly, probably more so than you intended. I used that as a pretense to write a reply that isn't really intended to be a rebuttal of what you said, so much as it is a statement of a central issue in the recent content debates here, as I see it, followed by an appeal to pragmatism. I see your argument here as an appeal to Skepticism, which there's never really an answer to other than to say that it's healthy in moderation but experience shows not to be practical in excess. Where the line is drawn is usually set by opinion. Geogene (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sadly, opinion on this matter was already massively distorted before it even happened by the worldwide propaganda war covering matters where it happened. HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have seen 'shot down' in RS very often, but I have also seen wording like ' the plane went down ' in RS - that could be a form of words that is incontrovertible, and doesnt 'claim to know what happened'. Sayerslle (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And here it's best that when we do say 'shot down' in the article we attribute that as somebody's statement rather than saying it in WP's voice. Geogene (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah as Geogene said, the article reflects what the sources say, as is standard here at wiki. If you believe the sources are wrong it doesn't really matter, the article follows what the RS's are presenting. Stickee (talk)  00:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

All the sources are so sure about it being shot down because of the circumstances surrounding the incident. Lets all be real, NOBODY on this planet can be sure the plane was shot down (except the perpetrators, if there are any). NONE of the sources know it either, but (as I said) the way they write their articles is due to the circumstances surrounding it. Let's be smart people, the ONLY way we all can be sure about the shoot down is if PHYSICAL EVIDENCE on the shoot down is found (I take back what I said about claiming responsibility). Let's not create articles just by rephrasing sentences from sources (I'm NOT saying everyone does this). Nobody knows for sure if the plane was shot down, not us and not even the people who wrote the news articles.

My request, change the way this article is written. Say it was "likely shot down" instead of "shot down". Rihaz (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be a good start towards improving accuracy. We must try harder to not just repeat unsupported and politically motivated claims. My country's Prime Minister declared, virtually within seconds of this crash happening, that pro-Russian separatists had shot it down. Now, there was no way he could have known that at the time, but his statement was widely reported, and added to this article, BECAUSE he's a Prime Minister. This guy was really sagging in the opinion polls before this incident, and guess what? Now his poll standing has gone up! All because he made loud anti-Russian noises. His statement was nothing more than part of the propaganda war, and we added it to the article, and helped his political standing. Wikipedia should never be part of that game. We CAN ignore media content that doesn't fit our needs, and should. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "All the sources are so sure about it being shot down because of the circumstances surrounding the incident.": Yep, and we say what the sources say. That's how Wikipedia works, and how it has always worked. Don't like it? Then go change the policy. Stickee (talk)  02:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To be precise, some of the sources say this, while other sources say something else. Why couldn't there been a bomb on the plane? Can you disprove this theory? No you cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.122.79 (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * if 'a bomb on the plane' is significantly discussed in RS then that would get reflected I guess in the article - as  I understand it wp editors have to to try and reflect what reliable sources are reporting. the Russian putin propaganda has been  pretty creative in theories - 'repeatedly [and variously] claimed that: the airplane was not shot down at all, but fell out of the sky by itself; a bomb exploded aboard the airplane; the airplane was hit by a Ukrainian missile fired from the ground; a Ukrainian air force fighter pursued and then attacked the plane; the [United States] shot down the plane in order to damage Russia’s reputation; no living people were aboard the plane as it flew on autopilot from Amsterdam, where it had been pre-loaded with ‘rotting corpses.’ ” Sayerslle (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Mainstream Western media say it was shot down, without qualification. See for example CNN, "Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: Five unanswered questions":  "1. Who shot down the plane?"  It could be they are premature in drawing this conclusion, and they may be wrong, but it is not our role to second-guess reliable sources.  Unless we can show that whether or not the plane was shot down is disputed in reliable sources, neutrality says we should say it was shot down.  TFD (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
So I've noticed that a lot of arguments on this page boil down to one dubious claim: "Western sources are reliable, while Russian media is not so it shouldn't be included". Well what is a reliable source in this particular event? There are two sides to the story, the Western media is on one side and the Russian media is on the other side. So to be fair, we shouldn't trust either of them. Perhaps the only reliable source is the Malaysian media. Anyway, why should Western media be considered more reliable than Russian media in this case? Why is one side of the story dominating the article, while the other side is almost non-existent? 121.45.99.125 (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Watch out. You will be jumped on by many who had been convinced of the evilness of Putin and the pro-Russian separatists by the western media long before this incident occurred. I would prefer to see nobody's speculation on the cause. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If they have been convinced then fair enough. However, I would like to see some evidence for their conviction. Also I would like to see evidence why Western media is trusted so much. Remember the claims about weapons of mass destruction? Later it was found that there were no such weapons, but Western media was simply reporting US government claims without any evidence. 121.45.99.125 (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Aside from the observation that the "Russian" viewpoints are generally only held inside of Russia, and that the population of Russia is tiny compared to "the West", the Russian media hasn't been known for fact-checking of late. Or for its independence. But, if you've seen the exhaustive arguments we've had, you already know that. Geogene (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The "small population" argument is ridiculous. Its like saying that if 10 people bully one person then the claims by the person being bullied are not reliable, because it is just one person. Ridiculous. Again, please provide evidence of why you believe that "Russian media hasn't been known for fact-checking of late". Also provide evidence of why you believe "Western media", especially after the "weapons of mass destruction" lies. 121.45.99.125 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in arguing with you about something that you obviously feel very strongly about, and which has absolutely no connection to the subject at hand. You asked a question, and I answered it. Geogene (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But your answer doesn't make sense. Your reason for not putting some information into the article is simply "the population of Russia is tiny compared to the West". This is not reasonable. If over 140 million of people believe in a theory then surely that is enough to put that theory in? 121.45.69.217 (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

To repeat again: Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Whether a source is reliable or not has nothing to do with whether it's "Western" or "Russian". There are oodles and oodles and oodles of "Western" sources which are not reliable. It rarely comes up (at least in this context) simply because there's no group of dedicated IP, anon, sock puppet, and/or single purpose accounts which try and try and try to put these kinds of sources into the article. Probably because the agenda/POV-pushing/disruptive editing/WP:NOTHERE is pretty obvious in those cases to everyone involved so it's not even worth trying. Likewise there are some Russian sources (and the "some" is a result of the Russian government control of the media in Russia - it'd actually be great if there were many more independent Russian sources to use in these articles, but since the Russian government has shut down, or taken over, most of these, there aren't) which are reliable.
 * 2) These kind of "this is how I feel about the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and if you don't let me put my feelings into the article then that's unfair!!!" discussion don't belong on Wikipedia talk pages, much less should they have an influence on the articles themselves. *IF* there is something here, then put up the sources you would like to use, put up the text you would like to add, elaborate the changes you would like to see made. This kind of "some Wikipedia editors won't let me push my POV in peace!" complaint is both spurious and tiring. This is not the comment section to RT News or youtube videos.
 * 3) Just read WP:RS.
 * Ok since you've asked. I want to update the article to describe ALL possible causes. I have listed them earlier many times, but I will do it once again: 1) plane shot down by pro-Russian rebels using ground-air missile, 2) plane shot down by Ukrainian military using ground-air missile, 3) plane shot down by Ukrainian military using air-air missile from Su-25 that was tracking the Boeing, 4) plane had a bomb which exploded. I have sources for all of these theories. See the Russian version of this article - it lists all the theories and we should do the same here. 121.45.69.217 (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not think that mainstream media have made call on who is responsible. See for example, CNN, "Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: Five unanswered questions": "Here are five questions we don't yet have the answers to.  1. Who shot down the plane?"  TFD (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * But it's not just mainstream media claims. Virtually within minutes of the crash, long before anything could have been known with any certainty at all, my country's Prime Minister declared that "the aircraft was downed by a missile which seems to have been launched by Russian-backed rebels". The media reported it. We have reported it. This politician was desperately in need of voter support. His rabid but obviously uninformed outpourings have worked. His standing in opinion polls has gone up. His claim is still in the article. It's bullshit. This guy is playing the propaganda game. And blaming a far away enemy is always good for voter support. His comment shouldn't be there. Nor should any of the other speculation from anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Putting in a list of possible ways it went down? Is this a work of fiction we are trying to create. Nothing should be said of what caused the flight to go down until there is reliable/verifiable information to put in. AlanS (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if you think he's trying to score political points. The vast majority of RS's are reporting it was downed from rebel territory, so the article gives them due weight. @TFD: Read the second sentence after your quote. Stickee (talk)  12:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a different between something being likely and being a fact. We should never claim greater certainty for events than mainstream media do.  Similarly we should never provide lesser certainty.  That is the essence of neutrality.  TFD (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is all rather Orwellian is it not? Anyway, mainstream media doesn't mean US-NATO country MSM only. Russia and Malaysia also have their own mainstream media!
 * Marek is right that the RS page would be the place to start a discussion on renaming "reliable" to "established" sources. Maybe I'll try to do that sometime. The relevance here is that I think a lot of disputes and misunderstandings arise because the normal person will think "reliable" means "reliable" -- until they figure out that on Wikipedia it doesn't mean that at all. It means just "liable" as in, could be telling lies. :-) JPLeonard (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the neutrality section above, it is wrong to say that an established source is no longer an established one when it published material that some Wikipedia editors consider fringe, conspiracy, against national security interests, or whatever. And in the next piece the journal is magically reliable again. Wikipedia has taken on this definition of reliable to mean established news source. It needs to stick to that if it is to be deemed at all reliable in the ordinary sense of the term. If it lets editors start changing the standard when they don't like the material, that's a modern form of mob censorship, of Orwellian totalitarianism. Which, frankly, is where Wikipedia is today, as any objective observer can judge for themselves, and many have giving up contributing because of the mob rule here, which is of course what they want. Wikipedia is a pillar of the establishment, but some editors see their job as policing established news sources so that Wikipedia is purely politically correct, suppressing any lapses by "reliable" established journals diverging from totalitarian conformity. JPLeonard (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, Orwell's certainty relevant here, but not in the way you think. Read him again (or, actually read him).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read him. Explain how you think he is relevant here.
 * To my mind, Wikipedia as a pillar of Orwellian orthodoxy is founded on a tautology, circular reasoning, which is to say, on a vacuum -- if a source that is reliable may cease to be one when editors don't like it, say, when it cites a conspiracy theory. This is ridiculous, when you consider that any crime not committed by a lone actor is a conspiracy, so almost all crimes of any note have to be conspiracies. So in any big case, like 9/11 or MH17, what you have are competing conspiracy theories, but with only the one that offends US orthodoxy being labeled as such. It's "fringe" when the evidence points to it being a US conspiracy, otherwise it's mainstream and established and reliable. So that's your tautology. It's reliable when you like it. I think this adequately demonstrates the bankruptcy of the US Mainstream Media world view, as regards any claim to validity, objectivity, logic -- or reliability in the dictionary sense of the word -- when it comes time to challenge the war party and the power elite in general. It's a sociological problem of dependency on the powers that be. JPLeonard (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I really don't have time to get into political debates nor is an encyclopedia's article talk page a place for that. Sorry.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, this thread has moved on from making anything close to actionable suggestions to improve the article. Arnoutf (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I have one. Acknowledge that no matter how "reliable" any sources have historically been, nobody really knows with any certainty yet what really happened to the plane, and leave out everybody's speculation. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, we have a preponderance of reliable sources reporting evidence and a strong international consensus that the plane was shot down by Russia-backed separatists. I'm sorry that's not the conclusion you would like and that the information is inconvenient to your personal politics, but that's just not a good enough reason to remove verifiable and sourced information from trusted and notable media outlets. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Will you fuck off with your pointless politician allegations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Allegations of bad faith editing on my part are just plain stupid here. There is absolutely nothing verifiable about what caused this crash. Until there is, we should include nothing. Discuss what I say, not what you think about me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Kudzu1, we do not. See for example CNN, "Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: Five unanswered questions": "1. Who shot down the plane?"  TFD (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep bringing that article up, but notice that's almost a month old. Those five "unanswered questions" have mostly been answered in the meantime.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously, there's nothing definitive, especially as no one has publicly claimed responsibility for shooting down the airliner per se -- but we have plenty of accounts of government officials, intelligence agencies, and journalists in the area pointing the finger of blame at the separatists, as well as reported evidence linking the separatists to the shootdown, and the only folks blaming Ukraine seem to be Russian officials, Russian propaganda outfits, and pro-Russia fringe commentators. Those claims don't deserve to be presented with equal weight per WP:DUE and WP:RS. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Plenty of accounts by government officials mean NOTHING until they show us the evidence. Russia has presented its evidence so why can't those unnamed US officials present theirs? Quite simply it is because they don't have it. Journalists are just going to repeat what unnamed officials say, so we can't use them for evidence. Remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction saga? Please present one shred of actual evidence that the separatists shot it down. Why is that evidence by Russian officials should have a lower weight?!? I repeat, their evidence is substantial with satellite images and radar shots. See the full coverage of the Russian conference here:  121.45.78.183 (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Nobody actually knows what happened. So they don't deserve to be presented at all. Nor do any other claims. (Signed: Your local neighbourhood pinko, commie, liberal socialist) HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, this is false equivocation. The argument seems to be that because we cannot know with 100% certainty what happened we cannot state what probably happened (say, with 90% probability). Even though reliable sources do. That's not WP:NPOV and it's topsy turvy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that nobody knows for sure what happened, we cannot know with 90% probability what happened. Counting somebody's choice of media outlets as some sorts of votes is a misuse of the idea of probability. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that we are not "counting somebody's choice of media outlets". We are relying on reliable sources. In turn, these reliable sources rely on available evidence. Like the fact that initially the separatists took credit for shooting down the plane then quickly back tracked when it became apparent that it was a civilian airplane. Or the presence of the BUK missile system in rebel controlled territory at the time of the shoot down. Or the fact that captured conversations - which have been voice verified - by the rebel leaders acknowledge they shot down the plane. Etc. All that other stuff is pretty much in the "we can never be sure it wasn't aliens" territory. Sorry, saying that aliens didn't do it is not "misuse of the idea of probability", it's actually the very essence of probability, and common sense to boot. One more time: reliable sources. Ones with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (which does NOT require 100% accuracy).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but a lot of what you wrote is just plain wrong. Let me explain. Separatists never took credit for shooting down the plane. All they said is that they shot down A plane, which could be any number of planes that were shot down at that time. There is no evidence that the rebels had the BUK system. The videos showing ti transferred from Russia, have been shown to be fake and manufactured on territory controlled by Ukraine military. The audio conversations have been analyzed extensively and shown to be fake. The audio has been created a day before the event and it has been created from previous conversations of the rebels. See this: . So a lot of your so called "reliable sources" are actually plain wrong. 121.45.78.183 (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Few of those officials etc. are "pointing the finger of blame at the separatists."  Generally their comments are more nuanced ("the most likely explanation is") or like Obama they attack Russia for not controlling the rebels while not explicitly stating that the separatists were behind it.  Responsible analysts, while they may describe the most likely theory, do not claim to have proof and therefore we cannot say what happened.  TFD (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We need to separate two things.


 * First: What caused the crash. Although no definitive answer is given by the investigation team the vast majority consensus among all sources is that this has been a surface to air missile. I think we can be fairly straightforward on this and need not spend a lot of time discussing other, unlikely scenarios.


 * Second: Who shot the missile. Here the sources are much less in agreement. Most politicians are now waiting official investigation reports. For this information we need to be extremely cautious. This extends to the motivation of the party shooting the missile (mistaken identity, false flag attacks etc.). We really need to be cautious here and not overinterpret, or overly weigh the more black-and-white sources out there. Arnoutf (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that massive caution is needed on the second point. However, I just had a look at the first five sources our article claims supports the view that it was shot down. They are a shambles. It's quite wrong to say that there is a vast majority consensus among those sources that this has been a surface to air missile. Maybe you have been looking at different sources from those we have in the article now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was not referring to sources already in the article but in the world at large - and there the SAM theory is really vast majority consensus. In principle we need only 1 source for each argument, so f we have an argument supported by 99 sources, one should suffice, if we have an additional 1 argument we want to include sourced by a single source, the balance shift from vast majority (99%) to about equal (1 each). Arnoutf (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should just remove all the speculation and commentary and make a simple statement like the BBC use Western governments suspect that the jet, with 298 people on board, was hit by a Russian surface-to-air missile fired by pro-Russian separatists. The rebels and Russia blamed the Ukrainian military for the crash. the rest can just be deleted until we have some information from the investigation. MilborneOne (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you are misusing these words: "speculation", "commentary". This is some kind of back door original research where you (and a few other editors) are trying to second guess reliable sources. Because what the sources report does not agree with some particular point of view you label the reporting as "speculation" or "commentary". Because, apparently, if something cannot be known with 100% certainty then we must bend over backwards to accommodate views whose certainty is something like .00005%. No. That's not how WP:NPOV works. Leave it alone, as long as the article reflects reliable sources - which it more or less does currently - then that's the way it should be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Where are you pulling these numbers from? There are two sides here - West and Russia. West is certain that pro-Russian rebels did it, while Russia is certain that Ukraine military or US did as a false flag. So really the number are more like 45% for pro-Russian rebels, 45% for Ukrainian military. I left 10% for an off chance that something else caused it, like a terrorist bomb on the plane. Therefore, we should report both theories with equal weight. Enough said. 121.45.78.183 (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, your way of laying thigs out reinds me of an old joke. What is a chance to see a dinosaur when you cross a street? The answer is 50%: 50% to see a dinosaur, and another 50% is not to see a dinosaur.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We can always recalculate according to what we want to prove. By lumping all involved and Western countries into one and equate that one-to-one to position of a single other country you use very imaginative math. My suggestion - since the UN recognizes 193 countries, the Russian point of view should receive about 1/193rd of the attention, as would the position of each other country. Cheers. Arnoutf (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So if 10 bullies bully one person do you assign 1/11 to the story of the person being bullied? If 20 guys gang-rape one lady do you assign 1/21 attention to the lady? No, these won't hold up in court. Similarly they won't hold up here. By the way, India and China support Russia in this crisis, so if we go by population then Russian side will get at least 36%. 121.45.78.183 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So if one adult judo champion attacks 10 harmless children, the children are the bullies? That seems somewhat like a fallacy in my view. Also thank you for making my point, by creative statistics (like using population numbers) you can support almost any point of view in a seemingly objective way. Arnoutf (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a serious misrepresentation of what most of those opposing your point of view are saying. They are not saying to include views whose certainty is something like .00005%. They are saying leave it all out until we have certainty. That's certainly my position. Nobody can disagree with the article's POV then, because it won't be presenting one, and that's as it should be. No harm can come from that position. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Presenting nothing would create the impression there is no information on the matter. 2. WP:NOTABLE says that if something is notable, it's to be included in the article. Stickee (talk)  11:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, there IS no information on the matter. There is a lot of speculation, largely driven by the propaganda war that was already underway before this incident happened. We will never agree that what has been speculated upon by all sorts of people with political barrows to push is notable in any way at all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's quite easy to determine whether something is notable. Per the GNG, if something has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it's notable. The cause of the crash has received significant coverage by many reliable sources, thus notable. Doesn't matter if you think what's being said is wrong; if RS's cover it, it is notable. Stickee (talk)  11:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just repeating the phrase "propaganda war" over and over again doesn't mean we should disregard Wikipedia guidelines and exclude notable, reliable, verifiable sources from this article. I hope you know that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you accept that a propaganda war was already underway over the geographic area involved? Do you think it made no difference at all to reporting on this matter? Do you really think that nobody here has been impacted by that propaganda war? Even you? (Did you think the pro-Russian separatists were bad guys before this plane crashed?) We need to look beyond the propaganda war. In war, the first casualty is truth. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps time to note that this not a forum...or that some folk are flogging a dead horse (of a different color). Juan Riley (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite sick of this "it is not a forum" argument. It is a forum to discuss the contents of the article and this is what we are doing whether you like it or not. 121.45.78.183 (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then flog away. Juan Riley (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What a good faith post. Yes, unfortunately, the primary tool of a propaganda war is the media. The media takes sides in politics. I live in a country where Rupert Murdoch has massive influence. I don't trust any of his outlets, apart from using them for football scores. They're good for that. Anyone who thinks the media doesn't take sides in these disputes must have come down in the last shower. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * to say there is no information seems a bit nihilistic imo. anyhow if RS  have  information, or 'information' if you prefer, then wp  is meant to reflect that. to say, there can be no reliable sources for any information beyond the statement 'a plane fell out the sky' is quite extreme. perhaps 'there is NO information!' - could be added as a square in this funny russianpropaganda, Bingo card I saw on twitter. Sayerslle (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The truth is there is no certainty about why the plane crashed. Simple. That multiple sources from one side of a political shitfight say similar things proves very little. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * are the citizens in torez who told the guardian journalist there was much talk of the buk going through their town the day of the planes desrtruction - are they all on the one side of the poitical shitfight too. Sayerslle (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No idea, but that story proves nothing about what happened to the plane. Beware of WP:OR. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * it was printed by the guardian in the context of the story abuot the destruction of the Malaysia airlines plane. that isn't OR. ffs. anyhw I've had enough of this - beware of credulous nihilism. Sayerslle (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed let's take the nihilism to the absurd. Do we actually have a reliable source supporting the existence of any airplanes at all; or human beings for that matter; or the Ukraine; or the world? If not it seems that all of this is speculation. Arnoutf (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:REHASH. I feel like we continue re-stating our arguments without progress being made. It might help if a WP precedent were found for what HiLo is proposing. This isn't the first contentious article to appear here, I'm sure this must have been argued before. Geogene (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Geogene (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Plane Redirection
It is known that the plane was redirected. We should discuss this fact as well as the possible theories for the redirection. 121.45.99.125 (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe discuss the fact, if it truly is a fact, but please, no more theories! The article is already full of unsubstantiated nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The available flight tracks do not show any redirection, the plane flew exatly the same route as previos MH17 flights. Russia claimed that the plane near donetsk deviated somewhat from the usual track to the north, and there was some rumour that this was due to avoiding a thunderstorm. But I think the radar pictures later in the same video contradict this assessment. I am aware of no other notable sources which claim any deviation from the usual route. --PM3 (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving 38 bodies to Donetsk to destroy evidence
The article contains the following: On 19 July, Andriy Lysenko, the spokesman of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, said that the insurgents removed 38 bodies from the crash site to extract parts of the missile used to shoot down the aircraft, and destroy the evidence. We've attributed it to the Ukrainian official, which is good. Still, this strikes me as too much. Does RS coverage justify the amount of weight it's given? I'd like to remove. Geogene (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard any follow up on these early claims, so I think it is outdated at best, and probably an unsubstantiated claim (by one of the parties in the dispute). I support removal. Arnoutf (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am also not aware of any confirmation on this. The same applies to According to the Ukrainian government, the separatists were destroying all evidence of the crime "with the help of Russia" in the section "Investigation". --PM3 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed both of those statements w/ sources. If this particular allegation were widely considered credible, there would be broad, and continuing coverage. Geogene (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality
What happened to the neutrality section and others? Where did they go? Have a look at the Russian version of this article - it is neutral and presents a variety of theories. The English version is trailing behind in this aspect. 14.2.7.123 (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It was archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III due to no comments or activity in 2 days. Stickee (talk)  13:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Try the search box for the Archives near the top of this page.
 * Here's a question about neutrality and reliable sources. How can the Western mass media be deemed reliable sources on this issue, when they are part of the corporate military-industrial-media complex that has a dog in this fight?
 * They can't be, any more than the US State Dep't or any state controlled media could be. They certainly shouldn't be prioritized over Russian, Malaysian or even "fringe" alternative sources. Malaysian sources probably have the best claim to neutrality. Since most sources have an axe to grind, we can't just say, for instance, the NY Times is a priori reliable. We should not exclude other types of sources, and not depend overly on US and NATO country sources, or the article will be partisan rather than neutral. JPLeonard (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a question about neutrality and reliable sources. How can the Western mass media be deemed reliable sources on this issue, when they are part of the corporate military-industrial-media complex that has a dog in this fight?  - or the veterinary-industrial complex? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, activity has died down a lot so I don't think we need 48 hours. So I've reduced archiving interval to 8 days. Nil Einne (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of varied sources is indeed in line with what the Wikipedia policy says here: Neutral_point_of_view. Basically majority and significant minority views from "reliable" sources should be included. Reliable news sources are basically "established" news organizations. Malaysia's Straits Time or Russia's Pravda and RT/Russia Today are of course well-established national news organizations.
 * Here Identifying_reliable_sources it says that
 * "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
 * The term, "reliable sources," is very misleading. How can they be reliable if they are not neutral, unbiased or objective? If Jimmy Wales doesn't care if a POV is true, but only if it's held by the establishment? This term ought to be changed to "established sources," since that is the definition.
 * Bottom line, we need to present all significant points of view.
 * The viewpoint (published by the well-established Straits Times) that MH17 may have been shot down by a Ukrainian jet fighter is certainly significant. Thus, for editors with an anti-Russian, pro-NATO POV to suppress this immensely important contrary viewpoint in the article would deserve a Neutrality in Dispute tag on it. JPLeonard (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to argue about the WP:RS policy, because it doesn't let you push the POV you want on this article. Try the talk page over there first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Marek - JPLeonard has a point, even if his wording doesn't please some. This incident occurred well into a massive propaganda war. The western media had for some time been reporting statements that were part of this war. So too, no doubt, had the Russian media. The Straits Times IS an excellent source, and possibly further removed from the propaganda war than many. Please don't dismiss it out of hand. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about the Straits Times. We are talking about this article, which appears in  the New Straits Times, and no it is not RS in this case, as doesn't involve original investigative reporting of its own but instead says "analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile," misinterpreting U.S. sources to do so.  It also relies on GlobalResearch, which fails Wikipedia standards for RS.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, a reliable source is an established source, not one that can always be relied on. It doesn't become disestablished by publishing material from less established sources. For instance it's been argued that Robert Parry is only an individual reporter so not as established as AP which prints some of his articles. But all established journals print material by individuals. When AP does print his work, it doesn't lose its hundred year tradition as an established news channel. This is why it's important to understand RS has NOTHING to do with reliability. JPLeonard (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Aye, GlobalResearch & Parry are conspiracy theorists. HiLo - It doesn't matter if you think the RS's are wrong; pretty much all of the RS's are saying one thing, so the article gives those due weight. Stickee (talk)  00:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo is exceedingly obstinate about what's allowed into the article, yet is prepared to green light junk like this particular source JPLeonard wants in! SMH.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not misrepresent what I have said. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You said you thought the source JPLeonard referred to was "excellent" and criticized the rest of us for taking issue with JPLeonard. Either that or you made a completely irrelevant comment about Singapore's Straits Times.  I don't recall you calling the Associated Press "excellent" back when you were yet again offside a clear consensus about including material from AP.  What your POV "represents" is a bias against reliable sources rooted in the misconception that "the Russian media" and "the western media" are comparable in terms of reliability.  It's ultimately disruptive to adamantly refuse to follow accepted policy concerning what is RS and what is not.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the content has to be in the article. The reality is still that nobody knows what actually happened. To insist that anybody's speculation be in the article is actually POV pushing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, first, if "speculation" is widely reported in reliable sources then that's a good reason for it to go in there. Second, and more importantly, you're misusing the word "speculation" here. Yes, nobody knows for 100% sure exactly what happens. That does not make certain conclusions - in particular, the one about the culpability of the pro-Russian separatists - just "speculation". "Most likely conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence" is a better way to put it.
 * I'm now gonna go off and "speculate" about man having landed on the moon at one point, rather than it having been staged in a studio in Texas. After all, we can't know for 100% sure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Declaring "the culpability of the pro-Russian separatists" is as non-neutral as you can get. As I said. We're in a propaganda war. Have been from long before this plane crashed. Your statement is perfect evidence of the success of those on one side of that war. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is not a single grain of evidence for what you are saying. The evidence you have has been shown to be fake and staged to suit one side of this propaganda war. 121.45.122.79 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's completely neutral to blame the rebels if enough reliable sources say that they're culpable. Neutrality here means that the biases in the article match the biases in the sources. It has nothing to do with purging all biases from the article, which would actually be non-neutral. Geogene (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's completely non-neutral to blame anybody without concrete evidence, and we don't have any. A whole bunch of agreeing media outlets simply constitutes trial by media. That's not good enough for a quality encyclopaedia. We have no deadline. We don't have to blame anyone. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is concrete evidence. You're equivocating on the word "concrete", as in "if if we don't know with 100% certainty then it's not 'concrete'". That's a lame excuse. Which is why Wikipedia follows reliable sources not somebody's idiosyncratic definition of "TRUTH" (or "concrete"). Come on, skepticism has its place but it degenerates into unfunny farce when you sit there trying to deny the obvious. Better save your critical thinking for instances where it actually matters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Currently the only evidence Western media has is a bunch of posts on social networks, statements from unnamed officials and the so-called audio recordings of rebels. The audio recordings have been shown to be fake. The posts on socials networks have been largely misinterpreted - all they say is that A plane has been shot down. It could be any other plane that has been shot down recently. Statements by unnamed officials are worthless without any hard evidence. Meanwhile, Russia held an official video conference and showed all their evidence, which included satellite images and radar images. Now the ball is in the Western hands, but so far they've had no reply. Numerous reports from media DO NOT constitute evidence. Just because you say something over and over doesn't mean that you are correct.121.45.69.217 (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO in articles such as this, this is not a quality encyclopaedia but a place for people to grind axes under cover of 'policy' and 'guidelines'! To be neutral IMO the lead should simply state that there is an investigation and briefly state claim and counterclaim. The body of the article can explore these in depth. This is not happening, and as the likes of HiLo48 and me are unlikely to obtain a majority here is unlikely to happen. For the record I think the most likely explanation is that the rebels shot down to plane by mistake with a weapon provided by Russia, but there are other possibilities and they should all be presented impartially. Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%. It is ok to state what the most likely theory is, but it is crucial to state all the possible theories. 121.45.69.217 (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No. It is not crucial to explain to people that there are theories out there which claim that the earth is flat. WP:NPOV is the *opposite* of that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * When you fly off the handle like that, here and above at 09:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC), your credibility flies out the window with you. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the majority in the western mass media are the ones holding the evidence-free "earth is flat" POV, namely separatists shot MH17 with a Buk they never had. But in Russia the great majority say the Ukrainians did it. So the earth is only flat on one side. :-) JPLeonard (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm checking the opening point here about the Russian page on MH17 being more neutral. Actually the tone there is also strongly influenced by western mass media, for instance, the intro only gives prominence to the Buk theory held by the US and Ukraine blaming the rebels and Russia! But the article also has a long section called "versions" which airs other views.JPLeonard (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Google chrome gives an adequate translation of the Russian page. Here is a list of the versions of the incident included there:
 * Version of the involvement of the rebels
 * SAM "Buk"
 * Version of the involvement of Russian military
 * Version of the involvement of the Ukrainian military
 * Information in the media about the rebels downed AN-26
 * Information released by the Russian security agencies ("Russian officials have put forward different versions of what happened, consisting in the fact that the Malaysian airliner was shot down by a Ukrainian missile class "surface-to-air" or " air-to-air. ")
 * Information released by the United States intelligence agencies
 * What neutrality means on Wikipedia is giving due weight to the different versions from significant sources. The Russian page is much better than the English page on this, altho it also gives too much place to the US view and scarcely enough at all to the air to air version.
 * The reason for this is that Kartopolov of the Russian Defense Ministry didn't hammer home his points aggressively like Kerry or other US speechwriters would. He put his evidence out there and asked the US to put theirs out, which they declined to do.
 * And the reason for that may be that his evidence points to a false flag by the US and Ukraine, and it would not be diplomatic to say that in so many words. The Russian authorities are leaving that conclusion to be drawn by public opinion.
 * His points are, the airliner was approached by a Ukrainian jet fighter, and the Ukrainian ground forces moved a Buk system into the area of the crash and out again. There was also heightened radar activity by Ukraine just before the attack.
 * This all translates to an air attack with the movement of the Buk systems as a set up to blame the rebels - a false flag. But he didn't want to come out and say it. Most governments seem to be reticent about making such accusations. JPLeonard (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You are trying to frame this as a three party dispute: Ukraine, Russia, US (as pars pro toto for the rest of the world). However, the US plays a very minor role. The real relevant parties are Ukraine, Malaysia, Netherlands, Australia, Indonesia, UK and other countries with casualties. Only thereafter are Russia and US of relevance. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This is pretty much the continuation of the cold war played out on Ukrainian soil. USA and Russia have a very major role in this. 121.45.77.4 (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The article uses "pro-Russian separatists" and "Russian-backed separatists" interchangeably, however the two are not interchangeable - the latter is disputed and not neutral; this usage should be dropped, or alternatively a construction like "the US-backed government" should be used when referring to the government in Kiev, in order to accurately reflect both sides of that dispute from a neutral point of view.