Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 2

Edit request - Hungarian reaction
Please, add Hungarian goverment's statement:


 * The Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it is important that an independent international body investigate the shooting and name those responsible for "this cowardly and inhumane act". Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán described the crash as "unusual, rare and shocking", and added that "a significant influx of refugees from eastern areas of Ukraine has been registered in Transcarpathia. These movements affect the Hungarian community living there as well as Hungary itself".


 * Not sure it is really relevant to the incident. MilborneOne (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. If someone else judges it irrelevant, they can just remove it again and discuss anyway. Dustin  ( talk ) 16:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hungary is a neighbour country. It is relevant. --94.21.194.167 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I am sure you would comment in this way and you should not be restricted due to the semi-protection when you have constructive intent, I will add, and if anyone disagrees, they may re-remove it and discuss it with you. Is that fair? Dustin  ( talk ) 17:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, at least for now. If someone chooses to remove it again, discuss it with that user. Thank you. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree most of these reactions are not relevant to the incident and should not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that for the IP at least, it is more fair for you to discuss why not to include and then remove it than the other way around. My reasoning is that the IP cannot edit the actual article. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am only saying that it is not relevant and should not be included, I have neither added or removed it from the article. When an addition has been challenged it needs consensus to be included, the status quo is not to include it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

. Dustin  ( talk ) 23:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with the editors above. No reason not to keep it, properly described.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree too. Please place it back. My very best wishes (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I added it yesterday, then after it was removed (saying it wasn't independently verified), I added it again, using the wording "Intercepted phone call, not independently verified, between rebels discussing...". I add it a third time, with a hidden note referencing this section. AHeneen (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Passenger Count
I just totaled up the passenger count, and it adds to 303, NOT 298. Just curious to know if some of these are being counted twice due to "dual citizenship." Or is the count off (for a reason)? 173.188.166.203 (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know which news source/s you are using. WP:CALC is not applicable here as official statistics are being reported and used. 298 remains in place until further investigations and checks against confirmed boardings, etc. are addressed by reliable secondary sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP editor was referring to this article, as I did earlier up above in another section, the numbers have been fluctuating ever since the article was created. Right now as of this moment (check time stamp) the numbers in the nationality infobox tally up to 299, while the total says 298. Isaidnoway (talk)  07:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Response
In this edit the reaction of Romania was removed, together with that of Latvia. As Romania borders Ukraine, surely the inclusion of a reponse is quite relevant and appropriate. Is there a consensus as to what constitutes an "involved" country in this incident? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, and IMHO the whole section is becoming a boring list of highly predictable comments from all the usual suspects. A waste of electrons. HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you include comments only if they weren't boring, e.g. threatened military retaliation? But I was asking a different question. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say that Ukraine (territory where it happened), Malaysia (home of the plane / destination) are definitely involved.


 * Than I would say that the Netherlands (more than half of the casualties and departure of the flight) is involved.


 * From there on it becomes less clear. I would say that any country with passengers on board could be involved


 * The US might be involved because of Boeing constructing the plane.


 * Russia might be an involved country because the plane went down near to the Russian border, BUK are Soviet weapons systems, and DNP are pro-Russian separatists.


 * From there on it would probably be countries in the close region and neighbors of Ukraine. But that is already pushing it in my view. Arnoutf (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The quotes are out of place. See WP:QUOTE. --John (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? What quotes? What place? Arnoutf (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The quotes in the reaction section. If they are needed, they should be summarised, not quoted. --John (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that single words like "shocked" (Germany) should not be quoted. But full lines from a statement (literally translated) such as Dutch PMs "I am deeply shocked by the dramatic news regarding the crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur over Ukrainian grounds". could be quoted in my view. That does not change the suggestion that summaries might be better suited indeed, but I think these are two (slightly) different things. Arnoutf (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What, in your opinion, do the anodyne conventional quotes add to the article? Of course everybody is going to condemn the shoot-down. --John (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC).


 * I agree they add little. But they are problematic for another reason than general words quoted. For that reason I was confused. BTW interesting response by Dutch government to send the minister of foreign affairs to Ukraine in person. The man is fluent in Russian and has worked at the Moscow embassy for several years; so probably the best person to be at the spot this moment. Arnoutf (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we add in the response section that Ukrainian and Russian citizens spontaneously brought flowers to Dutch and Malaysian embassies in Kiev and Moscow. Arnoutf (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Also Dutch teams in the 2014 Tour de France wore a black ribbon today, as did Dutch teams in many other events. Festivities around many sports events were seriously toned down e.g. Nijmegen Marches. While this all may be trivia it also shows the deep sorrow that civilians have, which in my view says much besides the obvious governmental retorics. But I am hardly neutral here (Dutch citizen) so I would appreciate your comments before adding. Arnoutf (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the reaction in Kiev and at the sporting events is relevant. AHeneen (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it's completely predictable, and trivial. What would be notable is if they didn't do it. Waste of electrons. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So, can the reaction of Romania, removed in this edit, be restored? Sweden and Latvia am less sure about. India has already been restored. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the entire section removed unless someone can convincingly explain precisely what vital information we are delivering to the reader here. Every entry is of the form


 * "{FLAGICON} (NAME) the (TITLE) of (NATION) expresses (HIS/HER)(SYMPATHETIC EMOTION) for the victims and (HIS/HER)(ANGRY EMOTION) at those responsible."


 * with little variation. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what would count as "vital" in this context. Encyclopedias tend to have lots of facts in them. A lot of those facts tend to look the same sometimes. Would you say that the inclusion of those statements made by the governments of Netherlands, Malaysia, Ukraine and Russia, for example, is wholly unjustified? The fact that USA made a comment is not noteworthy? Or are you saying it should all be summed up in a single paragraph, with the countries who officially commented just listed in a sentence? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems like we go over this discussion time after time after time on just about every article from the president of the United States being elected, to high profile plane crashes such as this. Can we just end this already and put some kind of policy or guideline in place regarding reaction sections in articles? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is enough material to split off an article with. If the section ever gets too large, then we can do what is necessary. Dustin  ( talk ) 04:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I placed the tag there as a suggestion by others here on the talkpage on a split, I would wait and see what happens here though yes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My official response is the same it always is. Only those who say something unusual should get their own line. Everyone else expressing sympathy and calling for justice and calm can be summed up with "Many leaders said..." InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, need to add my opinion as this article seems a bit bizarrely laid out in the response section, albeit I suspect this article will be heavily trafficed with edit wars. The international section as of the time I've seen it is bizarre - the countries involved are Malaysia, Ukraine and Russia, and a random person. What criteria are being used to decide which countries are in this section? Surely since most of the passengers were Dutch, and the plane took off from Holland, the Dutch opinion should be there? Also there is the strong suspicion that Russia is involved, can you prove it to the point that it is put in the countries involved section, or is this becoming POV? Last part (and I'm not an expert on Ukranian politics apart from random aprts I see on this news), why quote this Igor Girkin person - is he reliable? Or do you accept that the Donbass people's republic is a legitimate political entitity and so quote the leader of it instead? Some of the news suggests these people are Ukranian, but speak Russian, rather than Russian in Ukraine. These are all important points if you want to strive for impartiality and truth. On the other countries section there was a bit where India and China comment, and now not there - explanation to this? Again who judges who gets to get quoted on wikipedia? Especially when some of the reporting suggests that they are important in bearing pressure on Russia. Could it be further separated with countries with passengers on board, then other countries and international bodies (as the UN really isn't a country). - Master Of Ninja (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Account from pro-Russian separatists
The separatists in question appear to have given their side of the story, extremely bizarrely (!) suggesting that the plane was already full of dead bodies before being shot down. (Source: ). Regardless of my personal opinion of the claims, we should probably add it somewhere to the page. 140.180.253.174 (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "adding that he was told they were drained of blood and reeked of decomposition." Sounds like the vampires are at it again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If we do include that, we will have to make some indication of what parts may be in question. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the claims are utterly ludicrous, but as the separatists in question are the main accused/suspected perpetrators of the shoot-down, their reaction, however ridiculous, is very important and relevant to the article and its readers. 140.180.253.174 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to integrate Girkin's claims into the article, although I am not sure I put them in the right place. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest hyper-linking his name (Igor Girkin), describing his title more specifically ('Commander of the Donbass People's Militia'), and mention that the militia in question was accused of shooting down the plane (which I gather prompted his reply.) 140.180.253.174 (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE, in particular WP:ONEWAY is how to do this. Widefox ; talk 21:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous and fringe are not the same thing. If the Russian media is widely reporting this nonsense, it should be included. Geogene (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fringe is ridiculous until proved right? anyhow, yes include if sourced, just without much weight. Widefox ; talk 02:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Aside from its being patent WP:NONSENSE as the missing have been identified by various governments (there being a large number of high-profile researchers on board who were going to attend an international conference on HIV in Australia), it is WP:FRINGE, full stop. Should something down the line be identified officially after an actual investigation has taken place, it may be of significance. At this point it is unsubstantiated, WP:UNDUE conspiracy theory. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It has already been included, although I made sure it used "said" to indicate that there is no actual verification. It is relevant, so I have included it. Dustin  ( talk ) 04:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Having had some experience as a taxidermist (of non-humans, that is), I can tell you that it is not the body itself that starts to decompose and smell, it is the food it has eaten and has started to digest. That starts to decompose and smell within a couple of hours, meat so much worse than vegetables. Much to my surprise, all of this is not commonly known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.118.138 (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Dual citizens
Is it appropriate to separate dual citizens? The passengers by nationality table currently has one dual Dutch-Belgian citizen & the US state dept spokeswoman tweeted about a dual US-Dutch citizen. Are these people usually separated? Should they be included in the totals for each of their citizenship with a footnote (eg. "Includes persons with multiple citizenship"), although that would make the table not add up to the total at the bottom? AHeneen (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It gets more complicated than that. One citizen was born in Zimbabwe and lived in South Africa, but was travelling on a British passport. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are also dual citizens who travel back to their native country on their native passport and return to the adopted country on that adopted passport, but for all trips to other countries they use the adopted passport to travel visa free. So the Dutch person might have been listed as a US citizen had the flight been heading west with then using that passport, best to list only by passport they booked, checked in, travelled with. However when a country states its citizens were onboard even if they were not travelling on that passport it gets confusing.175.110.222.144 (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also this Australia says 38 nationals as well as 8 permanent reidents so technically dual citizens yet to recieve their pssports http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-18/mh17-australian-victims/5607188.175.110.222.144 (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014
Vavilevskii (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, add the following infromation:

On 18 July Russian Defense Ministry spokesman reported to journalists that "Russian radar facilities during 17 July detected work of 9S18 "Kupol" (radar station of detection and targeting for 9K37-1 SAM "Buk-M1" squadron), stationed near ukrainian-controlled village Styla (30 km south of Donetsk)", and stressed, that MH17 was shot down in the affected area of the ukrainian SAM "Buk-M1" batteries, stationed at Avdiyivka (8 km north of Donetsk) and Gruzsko-Zaryanskoe (25 km east of Donetsk), while Russian air defense systems were not deployed in the border area that day and the air force did not commit sorties, adding that "This information is fully confirmed by means of objective control"

It also remains unclear, even if the separatists were able to fix the captured 9K37-1 SAM "Buk-M1" and then not having 9S18 "Kupol" SDT system, which is separate facility of the squadron, could "Buk-M1" shoot at a target at an altitude of 10 km, using own onboard radar system 9C35, which is covering only ±60° in azimuth and 0-7° in elevation, as simple geometric calculations says that at this elevation angle "Buk-M1" had to be located at 80 km far from the aircraft, and the maximum missiles range is only 30 km (covers maximum altitude of ~3-3.5 km, and this number is indicated as the lowerest range distance of "Buk-M1").

Vavilevskii (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not the content is added, where do you want it to be added? I mean, what section? Dustin  ( talk ) 00:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Timeline" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vavilevskii (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅: If someone removes it, they will discuss it with you. Thanks. Dustin  ( talk ) 01:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot to say, that "done" only applies to the first part. The second part I am little less easy about, so I might pass that off to another editor. Dustin  ( talk ) 01:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 2nd part of request ❌ My concern is that this is a matter of expertise and is covered by WP:RECENTISM and WP:OR. At this point, until the area has been properly secured and the technical details investigated, you would need to bring very solid WP:RS to the table. Not yet within the scope of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources just mentioned that the radar of the launcher weaker than radar system "Kupol" and its range - less. But the exact technical data about altitude - contained nowhere. Probably because in Russia this type of old radars was never been used. Anyway, the missile is equipped with striking elements in the form of shrapnel, and more than 10 kg of explosives, so that traces of them in a variety must be found in cladding soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vavilevskii (talk • contribs) 02:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In which case, none of this information belongs in the article until analysis of the downed plane has gone through official examination and can be attributed to official positions. Anything at this point would be pure WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides, Ukraine says that a Buk launcher was brought in from Russia the day before, and it wasn't necessarily an old (1984 model) M1. Need more data. 173.228.54.18 (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Deadliest attack?
What exactly is meant by the term "deadliest attack" involving a single aircraft in aviation history? If you're referring to the deliberate destruction of a commercial airliner, that distinction would fall to Air India Flight 182, which was blown up by a terrorist bomb, killing 329. It is the deadliest shoot-down of a commercial airliner in history (i.e brought down by a military or armed forces unit). - E. Brown
 * What you say is certainly correct. Since you know in what pace of the article it is could you pls replace attack by shootdown?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17
Any way to integrate what is being reported here into the Wikipedia article? Inthefastlane (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Did they edit the en.Wikipedia or the ru.Wikipedia or what? Abductive  (reasoning) 21:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ru . WP:NOT. If anywhere, List of Wikipedia controversies but not here. A see also from here may be ok. Widefox ; talk 21:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC) Not sure it belongs in this article (may be some other one). But if you are going to include it, may be choose a better source? That one says all changes are permanently logged, with the username and IP address being stored. Any experience wikipedian will know this isn't true. The username or IP address is stored in the page history which is fairly permanent. But it's a case of 'either'. If editing from a username, the IP address is stored but not permanently and only viewable by a select group of editors under the WMF's strict privacy policy. While the wording in the article isn't totally clear, it could easily be interpreted to mean both the username (when one exists) and IP address are permanently logged. This doesn't matter that much to the story (although it does mean if the Russian state broadcasting company had simply used an account there's a fair chance no one could be sure or probably even realise it was them). However it does suggest whoever wrote it may be a little sloppy and while I don't see any other obvious errors, we should always be cautious. Nil Einne (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Abductive: from what the telegraph article has reported, they edited on ru.wikipedia
 * @ Widefox: any reason why you think this isn't news?
 * @ Nil Einne: the source is from one of the United Kingdom's newspaper of record, what better source do you need? Inthefastlane (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This should be added / noted shortly in the article or linked to a different article as it is indeed noteworthy/ newswothy and could be seen as an indication of any indirect or indirect involvement in the shotdown 46.7.56.247 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)M.
 * I strongly oppose the presentation of this if you intend to use it to indicate Russian involvement in the shootdown per WP:OR. Geogene (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Inthefastlane - did you read WP:NOT? The topic is clearly editing of wikipedia which is in the scope of that list, and is a WP:TRIVIA / NEWS item in the scope of this article, irrespective of which sources cover it. Widefox ; talk 22:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, like this non-news, you mean? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of just citing editing guidelines, can you be more specific in terms of why you think this topic would be outside the scope of that list? Inthefastlane (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I found a second source: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/18/russia-edits-mh17-wikipedia-article. Ars Technica reposted the article on its site where I first found it. I am linking to the Wired UK link because that is the original version. Jesse Viviano (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is inside the SCOPE of that list article. I'll say it again - I encourage anyone to put it in that list, and linking from here. As for putting it in here, with the context of "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. " it is (currently) trivia, and (currently) tangential (Out of scope) to this topic - how is anyone who's uninvolved in this tragedy, but editing WP the same topic? The topic seems better placed in the WP editing list. (it's not even en WP, but ru) . Martinevans123, agree that article could be seen as quite news like, but it has enough material for a separate article, with summary style from the main one per WP:SPINOFF. That method could be used here (for covering the different article scopes), but I'm not sure a standalone article is warranted (yet). Widefox ; talk 01:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like other editors and news organizations have deemed what the Russian government is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the Wikipedia page.Inthefastlane (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This event deserves a mention on en.wiki. -Mardus (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Me too TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This information is really safe?
"13 July 2014: Sergey Kurginyan declared that Buk launchers taken over from Ukrainian army were going to be fixed soon by specialists from Russia"

The only reference is a video on Youtube. I googled, and did not find something that confirmed in any "popular" site, only forums and 4chan. Keplerbr (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I added it because this is video of Kurginyan saying that in plain Russian, in direct way, on a lecture filmed and published by his own political research institutee. So I don't think any secondary sources are necessary to confirm that - any Russian speaking person can understand that and confirm it's what he says. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Investigation
According to the BBC News site the UK AAIB is sending a team of six accident investigators that are due to arrive in Kiev on Saturday;  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.91 (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's later today, 19 July, as I understand it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

There are 2 canadians from the flight Malaysia airlines 17
There is an Romanian-canadian on the Malaysia Airlines flifht 17. http://www.rri.ro/en_gb/july_18_2014_update-20092  http://www.mediafax.ro/social/pe-lista-pasagerilor-din-avionul-prabusit-in-ucraina-se-afla-un-roman-cu-dubla-cetatenie-student-in-anul-ii-la-umf-cluj-12941493    the second site is in romanian but translate with google translate in english.
 * He was the only Canadian on the flight.175.110.222.144 (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

People on board by nationality/total number
I found myself to be eager to immediately alter the numbers on the "People on board by nationality" (the latest news over here, in the Netherlands, is that is 192 losses). However, I reckon it a guiding point for everyone over here, to take the numbers given by Malaysian Airlines. That also includes the nationality of those on board. I'd say we stick with what Malaysian Airlines realeses, concerning this. Unless multiple other sources say otherwise, may we agree on this?

Agreed. Also, is the American-Dutch counted in both the Netherlands and US count? If so, shouldn't the Malaysian-Hong Kong citizen be included in a Hong Kong section? If not, then again the numbers don't add up. Assuming the lower number for the disputed countries, the numbers add up to 302 not 298. Anthonyliu (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 21:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How to classify people with dual nationality? 1.9.122.144 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think they are classified by whatever their current home country is.--Empire of War (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I reckon one should follow the numbers and information given by Malaysia Airlines. But that's how I feel about it. 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 22:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In this case, how to confirm which is their home country if they have dual citizenship? For example, one has US citizenship and any other country citizenship? 1.9.122.144 (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This could get tricky. Might have to go as far as making a separate row in the table for dual-citizens. United States Man (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone with dual nationality can live in a third country. In any case, trying to claim that one nationality of a dual nationality person dominates over the other just because s/he recently lived in one of those two countries would be WP:OR. Boud (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The reasonable thing to do is count the USAmerican-Dutch and Malaysian-PRChina(HK) citizens twice, and add a note to explain why the total of per-country numbers adds to more than the total number of people. Boud (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Again: I reckon that information given by Malaysian Airlines should be followed, as they are the carrier. Further details might be included in the article, IMHO. 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 22:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree here as well. United States Man (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the info from Malaysian Airlines should be used. Regarding dual citizenship, I had started a section about this subject above moved below...see . AHeneen (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * List not making sense with dual nationality column.175.110.222.144 (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Reorganise Reactions Section
Currently the Reactions section is split into 'Countries Involved', containing reactions from Malaysia, Netherlands, Russia, Ukraine, the Rebels and the EU, and 'International', containing reactions from Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, New Zealand, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, UK, the US and the UN. I don't see why it even needs to be split into two sections, and in addition to this, the titles of the sub-sections are misleading because many of the countries in the 'International' section are actually involved in the disaster. I think there should be just one list of reactions, containing only countries from which relevant and notable reactions have been given. I'm not sure exactly how to define what should be included and what shouldn't, but countries which were home to victims would be a starting point and any other countries/organisations with a significant involvement in the events (such as Ukraine, Russia, UN...) could be added to it. But reactions from countries like India, Hungary, South Africa, and Tanzania aren't particularly notable and, unless it is revealed that they were home to victims, they should probably be removed because the section is becoming too long and unencyclopedic. OakleighPark 03:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a long discussion ongoing above on the reactions section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This nonsensical section which has been renamed Responses, needs to be removed, the comments in there serve no purpose to the article, does anyone give a rats ass about who said what in relation to this incident other than provioding concrete evidence and information. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that a general statement that heads of states are horrified/shocked is not very useful. However, especially response from/in countries heavily involved gives background information on the impact. This is also why the split was made. If you alphabetize the list Dutch (over 190 casualties (2/3 of all) port of departure) and Malay reponse (airliner and plane) would be stuck somewhere between Indoensian (12 casualties) and New Zealand (1 casualty) response. The section titles are somewhat imperfect though. Arnoutf (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If the responses section is even to be kept, it should simply document a summary of the responses from countries directly affected. I see no need to split the section in two; either a response is notable enough to be in the article or it is not. The current split seems somewhat arbitrary and is also misleading because it implies that the countries listed in the 'International' section were not 'involved' in the disaster or its aftermath in any way. I realise that the purpose of the current split is to make the more 'important' (for want of a better word) responses easier to access and to make them stand out more from the others. However, the 'Responses' section isn't the place to do this as it's sole purpose should be to document any notable and relevant responses; not to categorise which ones are more or less important. Any responses which are deemed to require further explanation could be given additional coverage in an 'Aftermath' section. OakleighPark 10:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)