Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 8

Press conference of representatives of the Defense Ministry of Russia for the collapse of Boeing-777
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSpeo5RcQQo free copy (a translation) http://russian.rt.com/article/41844 An official copy (a translation)

According to representatives of the United States, they have pictures from space, confirming that the launch in the direction of a Malaysian aircraft made ​​militias. But these pictures no one has seen

Original article: http://russian.rt.com/article/41844 # ixzz387B6CaK2

Russia will transfer operational control data for disaster Boeing international experts

Original article: http://russian.rt.com/article/41844 # ixzz387BDV7uB

Comment from Cadwallader [partially redacted by other user per NOTFORUM]
Acceptable sources for this story are subject to the [Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy|Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources].


 * "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."


 * "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."

Cadwallader (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I deleted an unsourced paragraph that claimed that "propaganda" was being produced by "both sides", that Ukraine was being fought over by Russia and the USA, and that opinions as to what happened were being made prematurely. All of that is POV. We can add some Russian views, but those views only appear to have traction inside the Russian Federation, and they should be presented as such (ie, not on equal terms). The Chinese are not commenting, and the rest of the world seems to be saying that Russian-trained separatists shot it down with a Buk missile. If we find out this is wrong later, we'll just change it. Geogene (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would submit this to WP:arbcom if you would like to make an official statement stick, it would help if you could point out what sources you disagree with rather than give a warning in general. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * GeoGene is a brand new editor (March 2014) who just reverted my paragraph without talking about it FIRST. I will revert his/her changes manually. Cadwallader (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Being a bit aggressive, aren't you? Geogene (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy is that you must talk about changes on the talk page before just deleting someone else's edit. So, Geogene is the aggressive one here.Cadwallader (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia generally does not require users to get permission from others before making any specific edit, nor are new users subject to any probationary period. Furthermore and most importantly, the material which you added (and which Geogene properly removed) was manifestly inappropriate unsourced editorializing.  Please don't add it again.  I have also partly redacted your comments here, as the Talk page is not a place for editors to spread homebrew conspiracy theories. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this whole procedure. We do not remove others' comments. Cadwallader only tried to focus on objectivity... Geogene's attitude was not neutral. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not say Geogene needed to "get permission". I said that Wikipedia editorial policy is to TALK, ie, give reasons, in the talk section BEFORE deleting or reverting edits. And I agree with Fakirbakir, you do not have permission or authority to redact other editors comments on the TALK page. Furthermore, Geogene removed the material within minutes before I could add references.  It would have been better to ask me to remove it, or source it - you know the little tags we insert to point out where sources are needed.  As for "homebrew" conspiracy theories - I simply reported on claims made by the Russian Deputy Minister and reported in mainstream media outlets in both the USA and Russia, without commenting on the accuracy or veracity of the claims.  [another redaction, NOTFORUM] Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)  This page SHOULD be objectively reporting both sides of the story as printed in their respective news organs without taking sides.  If we can't agree to move this page to [Neutral Point of View|NPOV] I will file a complaint through the arbitration procedure. NPOV is one of the most important tenets of Wikipedia editorship. Cadwallader (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This comment is a textbook case of assuming bad faith.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the opening section of the article - it reports Ukraine's assertion that Russians shot down the aircraft, while failing to report Russia's assertions that a Ukrainian BUK battery stationed near Donetsk shot down the aircraft. The article is heavily biased in favor of assertions by Ukraine/USA, while not telling the other side of the controversy. So, I am not assuming bad faith, I am weighing biased non-NPOV editorial content. Cadwallader (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Putin didn't do it. It might be much simpler if he had. But isn't it BOLD, revert, discuss cycle?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care if Putin personally rode the missile on the way up to intercept the plane. The point is to publish and NPOV article about an international incident.  This crap currently looks like it was written by the US State Department - a neutral source if ever there was one.Cadwallader (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe sources which support the US State Department's view are just easier to find? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not US State Department - more like: a conclusions accepted world-wide with exception of Russian and pro-Russian media. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A NPOV way to introduce this subject would be like this:
 * Both Russia and Ukraine have blamed the other for firing a BUK missile that is believed to have destroyed the aircraft. No objective investigation with access to the crash scene has yet concluded which party shot down the flight.Cadwallader (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be unsourced editorializing. No. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because there are two opinions on something doesn't mean each should be given equal prominence or weight. The evidence available to date points to this incident occurring as a result of actions taken by the rebels (possibly aided by Russia).  This article should be bold enough to point that out.  To give equal weight to unfounded allegations that this was caused by something else is inappropriate, at least until more information emerges. -- anonymous user
 * There is no evidence, because there has been no collection of it on the ground, no examination of the plane black boxes, no non-neutral investigation commity having put together results. A compilation of statements from ukrainian and american officials is not "available evidence". As per today the article is a pile of crap. Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're saying that the article is prone to contain a lot of speculation, claim and counter-claim before the crash site is properly examined and the black box data analysed. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As for today this article is the best and most objective knowledge we can gather. Unless you want Wikipedia to become nothing more than another Kremlin propaganda tube - accept it. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The ONLY known facts as for today are: a passengers plane shot down in a civil war area in Ukraine. Everything else compiled in this article is gossip. It gathers no objective knowledge about nothing. Until FACTS are established the article is better renamed something like "Propaganda devices and strategies about the shot down MH17 plane". Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have an idea why not put all of the propaganda into one article and call it Russian media portrayl versus Russian media portrayal. The article here should really focus on the crash and not the media pointing fingers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Cadwallader & Centrify: I see that the issue here is "unsourced editorializing". What if there were sources that somehow presented Russia's account of the incident? I'm unqualified and insufficiently informed to make a personal decision on whether Russia or Ukraine (or nobody, as a few claim) were at fault for the downing of the flight (although I have a tendency to hold a raised eyebrow towards Russia, to be completely frank). Despite my quasi-anti-Russian opinion in this instance, there is a plurality of viewpoints and I am pretty sure that respecting them by adding a section called "Russian view of the incident" wouldn't be the end of the world. All the best! Meşteşugarul (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS, "Claim", "Alleged"
As recommended in the MOS, I've been rewording points in the article where "claim", "alleged", and "supposedly" are used so that the article doesn't disparage the assertions of various parties. Instead I've tried attribute the purported facts to whoever is speaking. I doubt this will cause problems, but since I've been doing this for a few days now I wanted to mention it again here. Geogene (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with user:MarsRover on not using "forensic conclusions" but disagree with the editor's re-addition of the word "claim", for the reasons given above. Geogene (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to include RT then the use of the word "claim" is completely accurate. The text is vague claims with a lot of innuendo. All sourced to Kremlin officials. To call it anything else is actually inflating it more than even RT is stating. If you want to get rid of the word "claim" just delete the whole paragraph. --MarsRover (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In this instance it doesn't matter if we're using RT or citing Putin himself. The Russians have made some statements, we're passing along what they said without disclaimers. The things that the Russians have said have generally been ridiculous but that is aside from the point that we aren't supposed to editorialize them as such. In this case RT is probably a reliable source as it is reporting on the Kremlin's viewpoint, something a Kremlin mouthpiece would be particularly good for. Geogene (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem I saw in this regard that when writing about what RT said about what Russian officials said, the first sentence clearly attributed "According to so and so...". But subsequent sentences in a paragraph omitted the attribution and slipped into Wikipedia voice, relating various... claims, made by Russian government or media as fact. That's clearly inappropriate. In that case I agree with MarsRover, you do need some "claims" in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The same is also true for any reporting that is based on the statements of any government, including media just reporting on the White House's viewpoint or claims (see Iraq and weapons of mass destruction). It is important to tell who said what, not present any disputed claims as facts. 19:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's important to retain the attribution of facts. My concern is that it's probably better to do that with "said", "stated", or "wrote" than "claimed" or "alleged", words often used to manipulate a message. We can't actually come out and say that the Russians or US intelligence (pick one) are telling lies, unless we have reliable sources that say the same thing. So logically we shouldn't go out of our way to imply it either. Geogene (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To the extent that it's grammatically and stylistically possible I agree with you. But we don't want a paragraph with a lot of "and then he said that blah blah blah. And then they said that moo moo moo. And then they said that boink boink boink.". "Claim" is an (imperfect) synonym for "said" so dropping it in once in awhile is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The MOS says that "claim" should not be used when it isn't warranted. For much of this material, however, it clearly is warranted.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The MOS isn't an absolute prohibition by any stretch. But when you say we can use it when it's warranted, that implies that it can be used as a disclaimer; people will read that to mean that they should use expressions of doubt on whatever "side" they disagree with. Which is fine I guess, but seems less than ideal. I'll give it a rest rather than risk an edit war accusation. Geogene (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple references
Does Wikipedia have any policies relating to multiple references for the same fact? This article appears to have this quite often with good sources and I do feel they may be unnecessary excess for the article, but am loathe to remove reliable or notable sources. CSJJ104 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In general one reference per fact should be enough. In practice it is sometimes more subtle; so you need to be sure before pruning down. E.g. my own edits on combined Dutch Malaysian responses required two references as there was no single reference that list the half-mast protocols of both countries in a single source. So in that case we would need both references.


 * It is getting more tricky with editors who have little understanding of the why of referencing. Some editors seriously believe that more references makes a point more true (so 1+1=2[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] is more true than 1+1=2[1]).


 * And then we have the difficult problem that in political issues subtle differences in how sources word a comment can turn out to be all important so some duplication may be warranted.


 * To be honest I do not think this article is a major problem in this respect at this moment, I would wait out the storm and then we can always start pruning down truly redundant references. Arnoutf (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Controversial statements or statements which will likely be challenged require strong sourcing - not just sourcing. This is especially true of BLP statements, articles in controversial topic areas such as this, and articles that are controversial by themselves such as this.--v/r - TP 19:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple references are perfectly fine, so long as they are different reports on the same topic and not duplicate references — a case which occasionally arises when a few hundred newspapers pull the same story off the same newswire service and publish it verbatim. That both Sky News and Fox News are reporting that Associated Press says an aeroplane was shot down over eastern Ukraine counts as one source, not two, if they're running the same report from the same source. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:74F (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Although to note that a lot of references also set the bullshit alarm going, most facts dont need more than one reliable reference except as TParis states when it is controversial it might mean two or three but any more is a sign of hunting out references to make a point. That said any over referencing can be sorted out later. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am a fan of referencing as much as possible, which often leads to over referencing. Multiple references are good when it is a key or controversial fact, when the reference may disappear from the internet in a few years. Sometimes a single reference may be use for one fact, but also back up another fact, in this case I see no problem with saying e.g. total casualties 298[1][2][3][4][5] with 193 from the Netherlands[1][2], 43 from Malaysia[3], 27 from Australia [4] etc. If multiple references are used for the same fact, then they should be from different sources. Martin 4 5 1  19:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple references are a disaster.  As MilborneOne notes above, they 'set the bullshit alarm going'.  They slow down reference checking.   It takes a lot longer to confirm a source does *not* support a claim that to confirm it does.   When I see five references for a questionable claim, I know I am going to have to spend a long time to confirm the claim is unsupported.  A good way to impede fact-checking is to add lots of irrelevant references. - Crosbie 05:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"According to the WSJ"
For the benefit of, in regard to this edit, no, citing a primary source is never better. Also, your italics are incorrect. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When all a source is doing is saying FlightAware said and then printing what they said, that is not a secondary source.
 * WP:PRIMARY says A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Both websites are using ADS-B, and both are telling when their data is not based on that due to lack of ADS-B coverage.
 * CorrectKissinTime (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK: "when all a source is doing..." is pure nonsense, and shows that you possibly don't understand the concept of editorial oversight. "Both websites are using..."--maybe. But are the reporting/interpreting/displaying correctly? Do they have editorial oversight? Take it to WP:RSN, where you'll find that citing the WSJ will be accepted (even if the WSJ reports what one of those sites said), but that reporting the sites themselves is questionable. Admins, I think someone should have a word with this editor about this revert, which is incorrect for reasons given above--and then click "undo". Since they have all of 140 edits on Wikipedia it is perfectly understandable that they don't have a very firm grasp of policy and guidelines, but this is a bit disruptive: we should not cite primary sources unless they are filtered through reliable outlets. (And see also Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_1, for instance--and I think there may be a post in a more recent archive about the possible unreliability of such data sites.) Drmies (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Admins, I think someone should have a word with this editor about this edit. Unless it is wanted that a paragraph containing correct information gets changed into a paragraph with obviously incorrect information - wrongly placing heavy blame on the airline. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed the WP:OR based on the WP:PRIMARY. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  06:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the New York Times ... it's different.  Note this is one underlying graphic from the NYT maps page   which also has the statement: "Last known location" was "4:21 p.m. local time". It does seem a bit strange that the system leaves it to the readers to figure out the inconsistencies in this section for themselves.  But that's the way it works. Montenegroman (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe when you have primary sources of a nature like this, they fit better in the external links section, rather than a WP editor trying to report on the data themselves in the article space. If the data and info is that significant, notable and relevant, then there shouldn't be any problem finding secondary sources discussing it.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  09:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is zerohedge.com considered a reliable source ? Obvously not meaming the comments section :o) Montenegroman (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as no one has said it's not: would it be ok to add something like "The position was recorded at 13:20UTC as N48.0887 E38.6359 at 30,000ft, 490kts " Montenegroman (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion opened at Wikipedia OR Noticeboard: -- Isaidnoway  (talk)  23:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am new to this page, but my understanding is that a news article in the WSJ claims that in 16 previous flights, Flight 17 did not fly over the restricted airspace.  One editor says the reporter erred in relying on "FlightAware" whose results are estimates and should have used "Flightradar24" which is more accurate and shows the flight going over restricted airspace.   Policy is clear though - writers of secondary sources may interpret primary sources, we cannot.  Looking at the results of FlightRadar24 and determining whether the plane flew over restricted space is synthesis, which we cannot do.  I do not have the technical knowledge to determine who is correct, nor is that required of editors.  If the reporter is wrong then we need other reliable secondary sources that draw a different conclusion.  At that point we could include both views or reject the WSJ interpretation, depending on what we find.  If one thinks that all reliable sources are getting it wrong, then the best approach is to write to them and persuade them to change their reporting.  TFD (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian - Malaysian dual citizenship impossible
In the table People on board by nationality another editor persists in adding a note against Australia and Malaysia that there was a dual Malaysian-Australian citizen on flight MH17. Now under Malaysian nationality law, Malaysia does not allow dual citizenship. I have advised the editor of this fact and attempted to remove the false information, but he continues to assert information which is clearly incorrect. I don't want to engage in an edit war, so I would sooner seek the opinion of other interested editors. I just want to remove the reference to dual AU-MY citizenship as it is clearly incorrect. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have to discuss based on sources, not based on your "clearly incorrect" claims. The information and source situation for the Australian citizens and residents is currently a mess.
 * Based on the information in Ms. Teoh was not an Australian citizen, so why are you discussing her? Mrs. Dewa is a more likely candidate for dual Malaysian/Australian citizenship.
 * Malaysian nationality law might not allow dual citizenship. This does not exclude the possibility of someone not telling the Malaysian government that he also has another citizenship.
 * CorrectKissinTime (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes as I remarked before (check the archives), the Malaysian constitution says you can lose your citizenship if you gain another. And the Malaysian government has a policy of cancelling the citizenship of anyone found with dual citizenship after a certain age (and proactively looking for such cases including agreements with some countries to tell them if a Malaysian gains their citizenship). However the process is not automatic (unlike with some other countries where having another citizenship means you've automatically lost your citizenship for that country) so it's technically possible for someone to have dual citizenship. Whether any Malaysian involved really had dual citizenship I can't say. As I also remarked before, we do have to take care not to confuse citizenship and residency particularly given that some countries disallow dual citizenship so in the absence of clear sourcing that someone is a dual citizen we should keep it out. (The term "national" should probably be avoided as it can be ambigious whether the person is a citizen or not.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The dual nationality is useless, some people wanting to dress up the list with more nationalities perhaps from their countries for absolutely no reason, the official list of nationalities on board is all thats needed, who came from where other than that is irrelevant. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, the passport on the flight manifest, that's what they are and that's the passport they tendered at the check in and passed through immigration with. Otherwise we get into unnecessary debate and muddy otherwise clear waters. E x nihil  (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Why fabricated intercepted phone calls was used?
Militia phone call intercepts is fake. “Experts have proved that they are a montage of several separate cuttings done much before the airliner was shot down...” - UN 21/07/2014 russian ambassador ,  My opinion is... If it is true that "intercepted phone calls" was fabrikated beforehand, we are faced with giant provocation...194.186.5.202 (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, he said it. And yes, the claim that the audio was recorded before July 17 is another debunked conspiracy theory being spread across the internet. This was even discussed somewhere above here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is though what role we should give to such fabricated tapes. Even when the recordings are genuine, and have not been uploaded prior to the facts, the point remain that one can assemble such a tape such that the information is misleading. I don't think this kind of "evidence" should be placed on the page so prominently. It should be mentioned perhaps in the section: causes, as the evidence the Ukrain govt. presents to frame the rebels for having comitted this crime, just as a footnote which references the audi stream. Robheus (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All we know is that the Russian gov't claims it is fake - no such confirmation from Western (aka democratic and "free") intelligence sources.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The system of government in the West may be democratic, and the press relatively free--but don't make the same mistake this editor keeps making, of confusing the matter by pointing at "intelligence" sources, which in the West are neither democratic nor free. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Though, they don't charge us money for listening to it (unfortunately; they'd make a killing, both literally and figuratively!). More on the point, that's not to say that we should not believe one "intelligence" source over the other, since both could be (and are probably) deliberately misleading. And, even if they aren't, their information could plainly be incorrect. Same with the media: RT, funded by the Kremlin, could be just as right – or wrong – as the "democratic and free" press corps (*cough*CNN*cough*) of the West. Best to report both sides. Ansh666 16:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While of course mentioning the well-sourced prevailing view that the Russian "side" is complete BS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comrade Wolf knows whom to eat. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * a Russian militia-man 'innocently' admits the Russian side did it, obviously didn't get comrade Putin's  script ( why Comrade Wolf?,) -  Sayerslle (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a forum? Juan Riley (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is anything the Russians say is dubbed propaganda in the West. There definitely must be one very good reason. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Black boxes arrive in Britain
According to the BBC News site the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorders have arrived in Britain for analysis by the AAIB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.91 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 23 July 2014
 * Has been incorporated, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Some photos of debris (attribution)
Link:   -  Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  11:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems to be the flickr account of Dutch journalist nl:Jeroen Akkermans - unlikely to be copyright free so probably not usable. Arnoutf (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the particular license these Flickr images have (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) makes them unsuitable for Wikimedia Commons, and generally unusable for Wikipedia, unless a Fair Use Rationale can be found. I think we can wait a while longer for PD images to arise out of the investigations before going to that length. Geogene (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Investigation
According to the Dutch Safety Board press release on the ongoing investigation, countries involved in the current investigation include members from Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia. This is relevant information which I don't see in the investigation section of the article, as the Russian and German involvement in particular isn't mentioned. It should also be noted that the Dutch Safety Board are conducting separate investigations into the decision making process leading to the flight route selection, as noted in the press release above. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it also mentions ICAO and says "The international team currently consists of 24 investigators. A total of four Dutch Safety Board investigators are currently operating in Ukraine." And tnat the analsyis of the flight recorders may take several weeks, and will include as assesment of any possible tampering. Agree these details should be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Noting the above, I propose that the paragraph under investigation starting with "An international investigation team ..." be changed to the following:
 * An international investigation team will examine why the plane crashed. By request of Ukrainian government, the Netherlands will co-ordinate the investigation on site. The international team currently consists of 24 investigators with members from the countries involved (Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia).

I believe the above not only simplifies that paragraph, but makes it clearer the countries involved in the investigation. Given the accusations of bias, I feel it is particularly important to note that both Ukrainian and Russian investigators are involved. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure of the meaning of the word "involved" as used in the proposed paragraph.Juan Riley (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Typo in my part - missed the opening parenthesis. Fixed that above. Hope the wording is clear now. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian Gov't WP Edits
Currently this has its own subsection. Do we really think that Wikipedia is that important in an event like this? Geogene (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been covered in multiple reliable sources in relation to the event, so it's at least worth a mention. Ansh666 16:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, per WP:NOTNEWS. But many editors think it should be included, as it's often brought up here. I disagree with giving it a full subsection of its own. Geogene (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A one-line mention is all this requires.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fairly certain WP:NOTNEWS doesn't expressly forbid this kind of stuff, only advises editorial judgment. Besides, it has a fairly small paragraph at the very end of the article, not a "subsection". Shouldn't violate WP:UNDUE. Ansh666 17:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that you'd just changed it back from subsection to paragraph, as it had been the last time I checked. Good call. Ansh666 17:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * At a minimum it warrants a mention. It a country/organisation directly involved with a controversial event has edited article about the incident, then the reader needs no know, if only to be aware that there maybe bias in the article. Martin 4 5 1  18:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned at the bottom, there's no need to highlight it any more. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As the disinformation campaign by Russia continues unabated, it is certainly worth more than a single throwaway line. If there are further incidents and thus further coverage, it may be worth a standalone article at some point. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a fairly strong consensus that it should be mentioned in the article. I think even if we agreed to remove it, it would have a way of reappearing. Having said that, if it were up to me, I'd vastly trim the mention or maybe delete it altogether. The reasons are that (1) WP really isn't that important in the scale of this event (2) anyone can edit WP--those edits might be Putin himself or a humble (and bored) intern that has "taken the initiative" (3) some could see it as an invitation to assume bad faith on behalf of their other editors here. Let's not give it more weight than it merits. And I agree that the Russian disinformation campaign media coverage in its totality may be worthy of its own article in the near future. Geogene (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I advise against the word "disinformation". This is just another POV on the events, and personally, as a reader, I may even seem a bit frustrated of the lack of neutrality on the subject. Even if WP references a source written by an individual with such POV, it doesn't mean it should state things like "compared to media coverage of the rest of the world" (I removed it), "Russian government claims, via RT" or "tries to hide the sources". As mentioned, these edits might have been made by anyone from Russia, as Russian government doesn't have "specific" IP addresses. The only noteworthy fact remains that the article in Russian WP was protected to the point where administrators (not some IP, but registered individuals with admin rights) have removed chunks of information stating Western sources. Of course, only my opinion Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would advise against including this material in this article at all. It is not germane to the incident/accident/crash/whatever. I suspect its appeal to some editors here is a matter of self-titillation. In another article on other matters (media coverage...censorship..propaganda in the modern world) perhaps. Here it is a bad idea and seems an attempt to make WP part of the story.Juan Riley (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: WP is NOT media anyway.Juan Riley (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Gawker source should almost definitely be ignored as frankly it presents stuff in a highly misleading way and/or the research behind it is atrocious. Yes this is OR, but it can't be helped when such terrible sources are presented. There's no evidence from the IP WHOIS data that 78.108.205.64 belongs to the Russian government. While it can't be ruled out, it appears to just be a generic IP belonging to a telco (tel.ru) so there's no particularly reason to believe it belongs to the Russian government compared to some random Russian (and it's easy to imagine they may way to "correct" the wikipedia article). However Gawker presents a highly misleading map implying it belongs to the Kremlin. But actually all the geolocation data says it's in Moscow (which may or may not be correct). As Moscow Kremlin is the centre of Moscow, some geolocation providers may show the Kremlin i.e. the centre of Moscow as the geolocation point, but this doesn't change the fact all it's really saying is that it's in Moscow. In other words, a very large number of IPs in Moscow and probably many outside of Moscow will geolocate to the same place but are not used by the Kremlin or anyone in the Russian government. I don't know if there's anything less misleading in the Gawker article, but frankly a source which is so misleading shouldn't be trusted for anything related. Actually this is a wider point. Any source which is unable to understand WHOIS details or who thinks an IP geolocating to the centre of Moscow (or whatever) means it belongs to the Kremlin is unlikely to be an RS. And from some of the Twitter stuff in the Gawker article it sounds like this could be a common mistake, so we should be careful with our sourcing for any allegations of the Russian government editing wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems minor. And the statement "Russian government agencies had modified or deleted information" is misleading.  People working for these agencies made changes.  Ironically the information they replaced would not meet NPOV standards on English Wikipedia.  It said the airplane was hit "by terrorists of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic with Buk system missiles, which the terrorists received from the Russian Federation."  TFD (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I still say we include one this: Russian WP admins removing bits of useful information from the Russian WP article, including non-Russian (mostly English) sources most likely put up by bilingual users. If reference is required, we'll just put up edit comparisons between previous and actual versions of the article. Because this is actually both non-insulting to Russia and one case in point of how information is being treated there by different people. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't do that. Wikipedia can't be a reference for itself, and in this case it would also violate WP:PRIMARY. IF a secondary reliable source writes about it, then we can consider it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2014
Hi

Re the Investigation section..

The first video files, ostensibly based on radio intercepts between rebels and Russian military, that were uploaded to the youtube-account of the Ukrainian Security Services were in fact created over 18 hours before the MH17 crash.

Summary here.. 

The test is easily replicable by anyone with some IT-know-how, so why don't you check this for yourself.

Even the video embedded on the blogpost whihc is the source of footnote 135 has a "premature" timestamp.

I am sure you understand the implication of the SSU knowing about the disaster several hours before it occurred and creating videos pointing finger at the Russian Federation and the rebels.

Kind regards,

Blueshift1 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Source is not RS. Geogene (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What exact change, to the article, are you proposing? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

At the least I would expect this information to be attached/sourced to wherever the "radio intercept" is mentioned. Moderators unsure about the validity of this forensic finding are invited to replicate the check. Just download the file from SSU's YT account as MP4 and open in any softare that allows for investigating the files embedded metadata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueshift1 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Already mentioned above. Already debunked above. The time stamp is earlier simply because that's how youtube timestamps its videos. The video was created after the crash. Please stop posting already discussed conspiracy nonsense and propaganda on the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Waiting for [User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] to reply. Blueshift1 — Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * this is reminiscent of when assad-ists said Ghouta reports were uploaded before the sarin attack - something like that - all ludicrous -  its never RS   what  the editor is linking to - likely conspiracist claptrap . Sayerslle (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a conspiracy theory motivated by somebody's server clock being wrong. Geogene (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Somebody say no to request..why...and move on. Not a forum? Juan Riley (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Interpreting the request was necessary to show why it doesn't fit in the article. Geogene (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OR RS and be done with.Juan Riley (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Original Research Juan Riley (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian sources' circular referencing on Khodakovsky's comments
The rebel commander Khodakovsky told Reuters they have Buk missiles, which was appropriately added to the article. According to RIA, RT says Khodakovsky denies commenting about the Buk missile to Reuters. |en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8 But RT says their own report is per RIA |en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8.

There are RSes reporting on the denial, but in terms of Russian sources. Lifenews.ru has a story with a video where a voice that's supposedly Khodakovsky apparently denies stuff. I don't speak Russian so I can't evaluate the video, but maybe someone who does can figure out what's going on with these refs. I'm not sure if Russian media is being deliberately confusing. 9kat (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As Reuters is a neutral RS, very little weight should be given to Russian news outlets stating that Reuters is somehow "lying" - just a brief mention. For the most part, the press is not independent and free in the Russian Federation, since it is objectively moving more and more into a Putin-controlled/dominated state.  Unfortunately, Russian news outlets must be looked at very carefully.HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That he retracted the remarks after realizing or being advised that they were unhelpful to the cause is more probable than Reuters manufacturing false quotes here.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that Khodakovsky is denying the comments. I have added to the article. starship  .paint   ~ regal  04:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is some article that makes clear what Khodakovsky has been saying or not saying in that interview. Reuters did not interpret his words correctly, as the part in which he was talking about the possesion of BUK in the hands of militia's was purely a conjecture (hypothetical). He has the tape so there is an objective proof of what he said or did not, no reason to speculate on that. (western media are all too obsessed with this, I suppose, they want to hear what they think is true, and don't listen carefully to what he actually said). Robheus (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@robheus - luhansk, robheus, - it not just words - its pictures too - remember RT was reporting Russian lies about the car ad location? -or are you saying Russian version is right? - - even when putin says he admires Goebbels as clever man, and Goebbels whole business was lying propaganda, - ah well - tweet yesterday said 'Strelkov bans ... journalists filming or photographing any 'military objects' ...' - so Russian GRU agents getting very touchy  Sayerslle (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What Khodakovsky initially said was consistent with what the separatists claimed themselves on numerous ocassions before the MH17 shoot down. They started claiming they had no "Buks" not even after they shoot MH17 (because initially they announced it was An-26), but only after they found out it was a civilian plane. This is why their refutals are not very convincing, but of course they should be noted in the article. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * he 'knew that a BUK was coming from Luhansk' - - 'In a July 22 interview with Reuters, pro-Russian separatist commander Aleksandr Khodakovsky admitted the separatists had the type of antiaircraft missiles believed to have been used to shoot down a Malaysian airliner over eastern Ukraine. In a video version of the interview, - the commander told Reuters he "knew a Buk was coming from Luhansk," referring to the missile defense system suspected of bringing down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 on July 17. Khodakovsky later denied having told Reuters that militia forces possessed Buk missiles when the Malaysia airliner crashed in the region. (Reuters) '  Sayerslle (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * from interpreter.com ' Reuters then released the recording of the interview with Khodakovsky in Russian, which was published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In it, Khodakovsky can be heard to say in Russian “Ya znal shto Buk shol iz Luganska” which would be more accurately translated as “I knew that a Buk was coming” in the past imperfect, not past perfect, “I knew that a Buk came,” as originally translated by Reuters.

He then said “v etot moment mne skazali shto iz Luganska shol pod flagom LNR v storonu Snizhne” “at that moment I was told it was coming from Lugansk under the flag of the LPR toward Snizhne”. He adds a line not included in the Reuters quoted excerpt or the RFE/RL translation transcript, “gde-to nakhoditsya kren ego ne izvestno” “located somewhere who the hell knows.” Then “ob etom Buk ya znal, ya slyshal,” “I knew about that Buk, I heard about it.” He then reiterates his point that Ukraine had the information in advance, so should have closed the airspace — which was the context for his reference to the news from Lugansk. ' Sayerslle (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Myth debunking from Slate
Please cross-check the article with this:
 * Enserink, Martin. "Myths and Misreporting About Malaysia Airlines Flight 17." Slate. July 22, 2014.

This talks about the Dutch cyclist WhisperToMe (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work
I've had a quick look through this article, which must have been receiving a lot of visits.

It's top-rate work. Well done to the editors responsible. Tony  (talk)  05:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks, help out if you can think of anything to do, I've been editing the plane crash and other disaster pages for many years and the influence of level-headed editors is always handy 72.35.149.153 (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony, I take some credit for that. I (and a few others) have been patiently fighting the tide of POV crap more or less from the start. I am also quite pleased with how it is looking just now. See if there is anything you can do about the tiny flags discussion above; do you agree it would look better and be less open to fluff and cruft additions as prose? --John (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Official position of US state dept. - rebels downed MH17 by accident; no direct involvement of Russia -- (request to add this to the article)
Yesterday a number of media around the world reported the official position of the US regarding the MH17 tragedy, which states more or less that the downing of MH17 is to be blamed on seperatists who shot flight MH17 by accident, but that no proof of a link to direct involvement of Russia could be established. I made the same comment yesterday in the talk page, with the request to add this to the article but it was removed. For instance in dutch state media (NOS) [http://nos.nl/tekst/678157-vsgeen-duidelijkheid-rol-rusland.html? this article] appeared. RT covers this with this media report. The Telegraph came out with this report. Huffington post published this article. Many other journals and media also reported it. My request is to add this statement of the US, as this is an official statement, to the article (section: causes, or wherever applicable). ((shouldn't official statements by states be referenced prefferently over "anonymous sources" ??) Robheus (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't skip the "but US also believes the Russian Government who provides military backup and training for the pro-Russian separatists is indirectly responsible for the tragedy" part. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the statement of the US means what it says: they don't have hard evidence for a direct link to russia. It's not hard to interpret that correctly. And they have yet to proof the seperatists had a BUK (denied by the seperatists and russia) and used it against MH17. Russian inteligence shows the Ukrain military had their BUK launchers moved into or near the conflict/crash zone, and removed them after the crash. The point is, as Ukrain claims to have had knowledge on beforehand about the existence of the BUK in hands of seperatists militia (even when such a proof can be established satisfactory at all) it makes Ukrain authorities co-responsible for this tragedy, since they shouldn't have directed the plane over that territory. Robheus (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * They were not directed, MH17 filed a flight plan for that route (along with 40 other planes that day) and were granted it, albeit for FL330 when they requested FL350, which is not significant. And Russia was accepting them out of that space into theirs a few moments later.  With hindsight Ukraine should have closed the airspace and MH should not have requested it but blaming them would make Malaysia Air also co-responsible.  But this is Wikipedia, not a newspaper, and we do not have to get bogged down in this conjecture, we just report what is being said.  E x nihil  (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right about that, the airspace above that area should have been closed of course, but that is besides the topic here. Nevertheless, flight MH17 were directed to go directly over the war zone, Malaysian airlines confirmed that. Robheus (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Robheus, your apologist campaign is wearing a bit thin. The United States has for days been building a case for Russia's complicity in this entire affair; not (yet) for direct involvement but at the very least for creating the separatist movement, arming them, and sending their own agents to over see it.  See U.S. stacks up evidence against Russia-backed separatists in plane catastrophe for starters. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is just an official statement by the US, no need to discuss it here, just that it should be added to the article with the source (instead of quiting "anonymous sources" etc.) Not that difficult I suppose? Robheus (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional image
Can we use the latest image of Boeing 777 involved in this incident as an additional image?The picture was taken by one of the passengers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.65.226 (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * like one of these? http://antiviral.gawker.com/here-are-all-the-fake-mh17-pictures-circulating-online-1607348825 Montenegroman (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * On a formal note - copyright should be sorted out otherwise we cannot use it; which in the case of pictures of a passenger may be tricky and in any case not something to bother relatives with at the moment in my opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Where is this image? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Combining citations
From these three citations..

 la dernière position GPS transmise par le transpondeur du vol MH17 (48.0403, 38.7728).

 Die letzten automatisch übertragenen Signale des ADS-B-Flugüberwachungssystems wurden um 13:21:28 Uhr UTC von der Position �48° 2� 25� N, 38° 46� 22� O (Höhe 33.000 Fuß, Kurs 118°) empfangen.

 das letzte Radarsignal des Flugzeuges von der geographischen Position 48,0403° N; 38,7728° EKoordinaten: 48° 2� 25� N, 38° 46� 22� O

Would it be acceptable to write: "The last transponder transmission was recorded as being at N48.0403, E38.7728 at 33,000ft heading at 118degrees." followed by all 3 citations

Or would it have to be 3 separate statements each with it's own eg: Last GPS position from from the flight transponder 48.0403, 38.7728. Last automatically transmitted signals from the ADS-B air traffic control system ... N48.0403, E38.7728 33,000ft  118 degrees. Last radar signal ..... 48.0403, 38.7728.

Montenegroman (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Vietnamese victims?
There are Vietnamese victims in the list indicating that they are dual citizens. This is wrong as Vietnam does not allow dual citizenship at the moment. And if you read the article, what it means is that the Dutch citizens were formerly Vietnamese who immigrated to Netherlands. The reporter or writer of the news could have misunderstood it as them holding both citizenships when its clear they have given up their Vietnamese citizenship. Keiiri (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * According to, Vietnam does not recognise dual nationality. That is different to "allow" dual nationality. An individual may hold dual citizenship, but the Vietnamese government only recognises them as Vietnamese. At least, that is my take on the source. WWGB (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dual nationality column needs to go, there are such citizens on just about every flight thats crashed and has an article on wiki, why is this one being singled out to add this unecessary information? there are article where even dual nationality footnotes were removed and the person simply listed in the country whose passport they were travelling on. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Units for altitude
Most of the units for altitude were in ft, a few in m. I have converged all to ft because
 * All aviation altitudes are universally in feet in all countries regardless of metrication or otherwise.
 * Units used were inconsistent, most but not all being in ft.
 * We don't actually know the absolute altitude, all we know is that it was at FL33, which is relative and means 33,000ft relative to local atmospheric pressure rather than height above ground or MSL.
 * should be relative to standard atmosphere. Local atmospheric pressure QFE/QNH would give height above ground or MSL respectively. Montenegroman (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The original information was provided in ft and seems to have been converted except where quoted in newspapers in metric countries where the assumption is that it was converted by te source for those not familiar with ft. E x nihil (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ukraine (along with some of the ex-Soviet countries and China) uses metric measurements for its aviation altitudes. Aircraft normally have to do a slight climb or descent to adjust for this. I know that Russia changed its airspace so that the flight altitudes follow international norm in 2011, but I don't believe Ukraine has followed. As a result FL330 is really 10,050m over Ukrainian airspace and not 33,000 ft.--DigitalRevolution (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Flight levels are set using standard atmospheric pressure(strictly: an International standard sea-level pressure datum of 1013.25 hPa (29.92 inHg)) and bear only a rough relationship to the height above the ground or above sea level. Their main purpose is to achieve separation between aircraft. Montenegroman (talk) 14:5, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See Flight level. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I believe the original guidance issued by Ukraine for flying over Eastern Ukraine was to stay above 10,000m (metric), of which FL330 is the first flight level above that altitude.--DigitalRevolution (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not suggesting you're wrong - but it seems a strange instruction. 10,000m above what ?? would be the question most pilots would ask. Montenegroman (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, no pilot would ever ask this. As mentioned above, Flight Levels are simply tied to the standard barometric pressure of 1013.25 mb. The terrain beneath is irrelevant. It's also too simplistic to say that all traffic was routed "above" 10,050 meters. The whole idea with Flight Levels, and especially RVSM Flight Levels, is that an aircraft is allocated one and it sticks to it, neither climbing nor descending until requested to do so by ATC. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 10,000m is not a Flight Level - either in Russia or The Ukraine - it's an altitude. But above what?  As you've pointed, out a pilot cannot decide on the altitude above the ground or above sea level (actual or standard) His/her actual altitude (above whatever) is dependent on the outside air pressure where he happens to be at the time.  Montenegroman (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Above transition altitude everyone has to assume the pressure is 1013.25 mb. 10,050 is a metric Flight Level. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed. But I think I may have not made my original point clear enough,  ie: "guidance issued by Ukraine for flying over Eastern Ukraine was to stay above 10,000m" seems a strange instruction. Just sayin. Montenegroman (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that does sound a bit odd. Perhaps it's ATC shorthand. Westbound traffic would be expected to be routed on one of the metric flight levels above 10,050. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * They should be in metres. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * my vote would be for Flight Levels - anything else might be speculation. Possibly even the dreaded OR.  Montenegroman (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose flight levels. I understand they're pressure surfaces but the average readership will find it even less comprehensible than I do. Geogene (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So is it the general policy to supply inaccurate information as long as the average readership can understand it? Montenegroman (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. Accuracy is a matter of degrees. The standards of accuracy and accessibility should both be at the same levels as would be expected of an encyclopedia, which is a nontechnical document for a general readership. There are many articles on plane crashes, do they cite elevation in ft, meters, or flight level? Geogene (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem getting my head around Flight levels - but I suppose that's a background/experience thing. If the general readership cannot, then would it not be a good idea for an encyclopedia to educate them?  If many articles on plane crashes  get it wrong - is Wikipedia under some obligation to do the same?  If we set our sights on being like everybody else the most we expect is mediocrity.Montenegroman (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you know the chipset of your mobile phone, or the genetic profile of food you eat? Expertise is always limited and we cannot expect people to invest heavily in understanding the technical details in every lemma they are interested in. I would opt for using 33,000 ft which is (IMHO) a fair approximation, and a footnote with the technical correct FL330 information. Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is spooky - I do actually - are you clairvoyant? Montenegroman (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That might be wise, given that it was probably given clearance to transit Ukraine on FL330. That translates to a value of 10,058m - only 8 metres higher than the metric equivalent of Flight Level 100,050. No commercial aircraft can fly to within that level of accuracy. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Current version - use of imperial units (feet) consistently followed by a translation into Systeme International (metres) units is fine with me. Imperial is in my knowledge most common in the air-industry, while all confusion should be solved by SI units reported immediately after (at least I need the SI units to make any sense out of the stones, pints etc. in imperial). Arnoutf (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not as simple as just converting feet into metres - all commercial aircraft use Flight Levels, either standard or metric. Some countries have invented their own, but not Ukraine. It appears Ukraine uses metric, although a firm WP:RS to support that assumption would be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to add to Martin's comments: A Flight Level has ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to any physical object - ground, sea-level or whatever. Montenegroman (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that is too extreme. If the claim "no reference" were true then Flight Level 300 would not be higher than Flight level 200 (I guess this is the case however); if it is the case than at least larger numbers in flight level correspond to higher flight altitude compared to ground level (at the same place and time). But in any case, either explain in one sentence or try to come up with a non expert friendly way of telling the story. Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The only "reference" that Flight Levels have is to Pressure altitude. But this is itself referenced to Mean Sea Level. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Arnoutf: you've got it! larger numbers in flight level correspond to higher flight altitude. That's all - nada mas. Montenegroman (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * So if I (as non expert) understand correctly it is indirectly related to sea-level? I really think explaining this in the body text would be overdoing it. My suggestions - either add FL33 in the article and give a footnote where it explains that FL33 corresponds indirectly to sea level and in practice is somewhere around 33000 ft, or mention 33000 ft in the article and the explanation that it formally it was FL33 instead, in a footnote. Arnoutf (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's "FL330" = 33,000ft. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so you see this, Ex nihil. Dustin  ( talk )
 * Note that not only does Ukraine use metric, but their altimetry procedures are slightly different from US and international standards. The FAA provides a good overview of this. Russian and Ukrainian procedure is that the altimeter is calibrated from runway level, if I understand correctly. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if there wasn't some agreed standard for this at WikiProject Aviation. I wonder if User:MilborneOne could advise us. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 3 basic altimeter settings: QFE/QNH and QNEMontenegroman (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) I find it hard to understand why anything other than metric units are even contemplated for this article. Anything quoted in feet would be at best misleading, and probably incorrect.  The issue in my mind is whether an altitude in metres should be cited or the equivalent metric flight level. What is the argument for feet? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that an aircraft that says it is at at FL330 does does accurately specify its altitude in meters of feet. It's just a level relative to other aircraft in the area.Montenegroman (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"According to our information, the aircraft was flying at Flight Level 330 (approximately 10,000 metres/33,000 feet) when it disappeared from the radar. This route had been closed by the Ukrainian authorities from ground to flight level 320 but was open at the level at which the aircraft was flying." : Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * is the According to our information, bit necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegroman (talk • contribs) 19:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it isn't. Was just showing what the article is currently based on. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with the desire to make the lay public aware of the subtleties of altitude. However, I fear it would be distracting here where there is no sourced contention that such subtleties are related to the accident. I suggest m and ft be given without over explanation. (Twere me I would do km and kft....laughing.)Juan Riley (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Correct Flight hours and Cycles for The B777-200 aircraft bearing registration no. 9M-MRD
here by the correct status of flight hours and cycles of the B777-200 aircraft bearing registration no. 9M-MRD. Friday, July 18, 01:30 PM GMT +0800 Media Statement 3 : MH17 Incident (see there 2nd last media statement page) the following statement was given by Malaysia Airlines:

Friday, July 18, 01:30 PM GMT +0800 Media Statement 3 : MH17 Incident

Media Statement 3 : MH17 Incident

The B777-200 aircraft bearing registration no. 9M-MRD that operated MH17 on 17 July, 2014 had a clean maintenance record.

The aircraft’s last maintenance check was on 11 July 2014. The next check was due on 27 Aug 2014. The maintenance was conducted at Malaysia Airlines’ hangar at KLIA.

The aircraft had a clean bill of health.

The aircraft was manufactured in July 1997, and so had 17 years in service.

The aircraft had recorded 75322 hours with a total of 11434 cycles.

All communication system on the aircraft were functioning normally.

The B777-200 uses the Rolls-Royce Trent-800 engine and has a 282 seat capacity.

Ricodol74 ? 21:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good edit. Just remember, we use a comma, not a dot, to separate numbers. So, 75,322 and not 75.322. --John (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah ok didn't knew that as we in the Netherlands use dots. Ricodol74 ? 00:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Number of bodybags on train is said to be 200 not 282
Allthough it is said in the article under head "Recovery of casualties" that 282 bodies have been found, it's said trully that this is the number the pro russian seperatists thought to have found. In fact the dutch have atm only a confermation of 200 bodybags (with an horrific detail that it doesn't necessarily mean that in every bodybag and or coffin brought back home to the Netherlands there is just 1 human remain in it, in some cases there are several bodyparts in them) so in fact it's 200 confirmed atm, and with what the pro russian seperatists say that there are 16 more bodies under a piece of the plainwreck. This to be honest does make more sence, as the horrific fact is also that many victims probably will never be found due to the fact that they vaporised in thin air by the blast and impact of a projectile or will have been vaporised due to the heavy fire on the ground. Ricodol74 ? 00:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There is already a sentence mentioning this under "recovery of casualties" near the end. Personally, I think it's premature to include it. Geogene (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Flags again
After I had spent some time and trouble getting the "reactions" section more into line with WP:PROSE, User:Knowledgekid87 came along and restored the tiny flags, citing this archived discussion. Quite apart from the fact that there was no clear consensus in that discussion that the flags added anything, I referred the user to the excellent essay WP:DRNC; simply reverting a change claiming "no consensus" is bone-headed in the extreme and unWikipedian behaviour. If there is any actual reason to restore the tiny flags, now would be the chance to discuss it. Failing that, I think WP:PROSE and WP:ICONDECORATION (as well as common sense) would indicate that "my" version was the better one. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I never have seen any purpose. Get rid of them. United States Man (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is also another excellent essay, the arguements presented the the former discussion mentioned WP:ICONDECORATION not applying as the flags serve the reader as a visual rather than them seeing a wall of text. Anyways I will have to reply more to this later I have to get back to work here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I liked your version better John, it was definitely an improvement and made that section readable as opposed to a giant wall of text with flag icons.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  16:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The results were not in prose though, much of the info was still kept in list format minus the flags. I would see WP:PROSE as being a compromise but as per the guideline it needs to flow well and not still look like a list of countries. There are two ways of presenting information one in stand alone list format and the other in prose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The result you're showing sure looks like prose to me. They were summarized in short paragraphs and sentences rather than bullet points or flag icons.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  22:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Suppose it doesn't make any difference now. Someone has added some horrible infobox type structures to really make them stand out.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  23:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Gosh, that really is horrible. --John (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are surprising me considering your administrator status. You should know better than to insult others' work. I don't care about the flags, that's not the reason I added the wikitable. Dustin  ( talk ) 23:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * John has a better knowledge of guidelines and policies than most editors here, and a hell of a lot more experience than anyone, except for maybe one. So he calls a spade a spade--how is that wrong? Should he have said that the table was the opposite from pretty? If Wikipedia editors need a pat on the shoulder after every edit we'll be here until Doomsday. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * John is a tough nut to crack, but he means well at heart. As one might see on his user page, I've had a similar spat with him in the past. In fact, many months ago I believe I suggested that he take a look at Ukraine-related articles, so you can thank me for his "rudeness". Regardless, I've learned now that he was right back then when we had our previous spat, and I'm sure he's right now. Ignore his style, focus on his substance. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is getting tedious now, if not disruptive. The issue was discussed; there was NO CONSENSUS for removal. Therefore, the flags stay. Some editors need to accept that they are in the minority, and move on. Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to follow your own advice if you are finding it tedious. Prose is better than lists for material of this type, and prose doesn't need the tiny flags. Let's continue to discuss towards a compromise. --John (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose the straw poll in the way it is being presented. Wikipedia is not a vote. Dustin ( talk ) 23:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether you keep the flags now that I have made the text somewhat organized in a table, but if you remove the flags and the wikitable, you are left with an entirely disorganized mess, and you make it ten times harder to navigate through said mess. Dustin  ( talk ) 23:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another thing to note about this bad straw poll is WP:!VOTE guideline number 8, consensus has obviously not been reached already, and there is no value in having a poll such as this without associated reasoning. For those reasons, this entire poll so far is useless.  Dustin  ( talk ) 00:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pulling out policy is convincing to no one. Nobody else has objected. United States Man (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you actually take action solely based on this straw poll, I will report this. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Plus, this isn't to determine consensus. It is to see where people stand. United States Man (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you actually remove both the flags and the table, then you are left with a terribly disorganized mess that complicates it for the reader and doesn't have each country's statement begin with the name of that country. Removing both would have negative consequences which you still fail to address. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Im not sure Dustin, there are two ways we can present the information, as I said above if we do condense the reactions into a paragraph and place a picture in the section then it is really no different than the rest of the article. I still have not ruled out making a separate article discussing the reactions and media reactions more in detail about the shootdown of the plane. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, another reason I am unhappy about this is that there are people who are insulting my work. That is my time which would then go completely unappreciated, and worse, it gets insulted. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you take it as a personal attack, proposals and things I have done in the past on Wikipedia have been called stupid and dumb as well just keep in mind that the editors who say those things are taking their personal opinion and having it get in the way of editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to seem too sensitive... Dustin  ( talk ) 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The flags serve no purpose other than to add pretty pictures. Prose is the general way of doing things like this. This article should be about the crash. Having a huge pretty section where the usual important people trot out the usual condolences and offers of help does not add to the article. Put the section in prose, keep it small and compact, and concentrate on the rest of the incident. In ten years time people won't remember what Obama said, they will remember the shooting down, the claims and denials of responsibility etc. I also suggest that WP:OWN is read by some people here. Martin 4 5 1  18:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll
The only way this will get anywhere is if we become clear on where people stand, so pick your favorite and sign your name...

Keep flags

 * 1) There's actually a table! Remove it. I'm not fighting over these here flags, but that table needs to go. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, remove the table. Prose would be much better here. Barring an overwhelming consensus to remove flags, they should stay. Mjroots (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Without the table, the last thing aiding in navigation by having some sort of identifier at the beginning of each response is to maintain the flags. I wouldn't mind replacing the flags with "Country name" followed the the response, but I am not sure anyone else would agree with that. Dustin  ( talk ) 23:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Serve as convenient bullets.Juan Riley (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) I happen to like flags. Regardless of what the MOS says (apparently nothing), I don't see any problem with them. Is there some sort of denial of the fact that states have flags, or any controversy over the specific versions of flags shown? Without flags, it would look too plain, and without a table entirely and in paragraph form instead, it would just be repetitive. WikiWinters (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove flags and table, make a paragraph

 * 1) United States Man (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) WWGB (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4)  RGloucester  — ☎ 00:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5)  Isaidnoway  (talk)  00:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Martin 4 5 1  18:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Pretty images and bullet lists are for a 9th-grade essay, not an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
There seems to at least be an agreement that the tables should be trashed. There may a few others who have yet to chime in, but a consensus may be developing. What do others think? United States Man (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be able to get it into your head that a straw poll does not form consensus. Seeing as it has been removed, it is now harder to navigate, and people continue to take action prior to talk page consensus. This "straw poll" goes against the spirit of Wikipedia by allowing people to "vote" without providing legitimate background reasoning. Dustin  ( talk ) 15:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We've all spoken at length about our reasoning above, so I fear your concerns are not warranted. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Does anybody mind if I remove the flags now? The above would seem like a pretty strong consensus to do so, and there was never consensus to put them there in the first place. WP:PROSE recommends writing articles using words, sentences and paragraphs where possible, rather than using bullet-points, infographics and tables. One of the problems with having the tiny flags is that it invites people to come along and add the Albanian one, the Zimbabwean one, the Panamanian one, and we would eventually have 200 or so. Having said that, there is no prejudice on my part against adding genuinely noteworthy reactions here, or to splitting out a new article called International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown or similar. On such an article, a bulleted list using flags might well be appropriate. Here, it isn't. --John (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Looks like an overwhelming consensus. United States Man (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A ratio of 3:7 is not "overwhelming" consensus. Plus, you cannot form a consensus based on the signatures of users. Only those who also provide non-WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning ought to be regarded. Dustin  ( talk ) 23:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is not a voting poll we should listen to more of the reasoning behind the straw poll votes here. Consensus is measured is not measured by numbers here and it would feel very cheap to go ahead and make a decision based on numbers alone with so many other discussions editors have had on Wikipedia involving consensus and input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there has been discussion. See the beginning of this section. It's not like we just started a poll out of nowhere. United States Man (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that many of the editors above never gave anything more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT-reasoning. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I, among others, gave specific reasoning based on Manual of Style guidelines (WP:USEPROSE, MOS:FLAG, MOS:ICONDECORATION), dear fellow. In fact, I fear that you are the one embracing "I don't like it" reasoning at this juncture. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your statement is entirely invalid. I have given reasoning in every place where necessary. I didn't say nobody had given reasoning, just many. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have done, surely, but now you insist on countering anyone that opposes the present state of affairs with the phrase "I don't like it". This does not seem a productive approach. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I will repeat: "I didn't say nobody had given reasoning, just many.". I also meant WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies to those people. WP:IDONTLIKEIT also applies to those who only are for removal because the flags are "ugly" or whatever. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that's true. No one wants to read an "ugly" article. Graphic design is important for the reader, and always has been. Stylistic choices are important, and that's why we have the Manual of Style. Ask any newspaper or print encyclopaedia if they aim to write "ugly" articles, and the answer will surely be "no". RGloucester  — ☎ 01:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Calling it "Ugly" does fall in line with WP:IDONTLIKEIT though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice that the Manual of Style is called the "Manual of Style". "Style" is often a matter of subjective judgement about aesthetic value. In this context, something being "ugly", a matter of "style", is quit relevant. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And per relevant guidelines, this example,
 * Remove Makes article look bad – Eyesore Buster 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
 * is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so "it's ugly" is also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dustin  ( talk ) 01:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but where exactly is this going? All that is happening here is a policy debate. United States Man (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am saying that people should give reasoning better than "it's ugly" which several (but again, not all,) have done. Dustin  ( talk ) 01:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, you should know by now that you'll have that here... United States Man (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call the flags ugly, but I don't see how they are a visual aid or help in navigation. The country is stated very prominently at the beginning of each sentence in that particular section. How do flags help improve the content, which I assume is what the reader's are looking for.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  21:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll leave this until tomorrow but at the moment I see a firm consensus (a WP:CONSENSUS, not just a head-count) that we should remove the flags. I think it was the table (which, thank goodness, is gone) that was called ugly, not the flags. The flags are working against WP:PROSE and WP:ICONDECORATION. In their favour I see nothing at all that counts in terms of our priorities here. --John (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did this. I also removed Germany and Poland's reactions; the aim of a section like this is not to be comprehensive. Is there an appetite for a separate and more comprehensive article to record reactions? --John (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I boldly created a spin-out article with a fuller account of the various countries' and organisations' reactions. With flags. --John (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yay! the flags are safe!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Table of victims
The above discussion was re the removal of flags from the reactions section, wasn't it? I note that the flags have also been removed from the table of victims nationalities. WP:MOSFLAG appears to support their inclusion there, and displaying them in this article would be in accordance with standard practice amongst aircrash articles. Is there any good reason that the flags should not be restored to the table? Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think they were removed as a result of the discussion below about the dual nationality column in that table. Several editor's expressed an interest in removing them.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  07:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Reaction article
Where can I find the discussion that led to the creation of the separate reaction article? Thanks Nathan121212 (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Filed under "Being Bold" and "We're Not a Bureaucracy", most likely. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think User:Knowledgekid87 mentioned that somewhere. Its in the archives... United States Man (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could ask User:John about this diff. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Or just read a couple of sections up on this page. --John (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:John, good job on the article. Nathan121212 (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thanks! I think this is the best solution all round. John (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The reactions were not really notable here so it is unlikely to be notable as a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with MilborneOne. This was an unnecessary split to a stub article and should be reverted. United States Man (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, an event such as this is unprecedented. Any accident which prompts a response, and an emergency debate, by the United Nations will deserve to have a significant amount of space devoted to "reactions". As for the separate article, I think it's better off where it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Useful quotes/cite
Here's a bunch of quotes from "A web of lies", The Economist, 26 July 2014, p. 9, that I thought might be useful for the article.

As a summary of the evidence about what happened:

"A high-court's worth of circumstantial evidence points to the conclusion that pro-Russian separatists fired a surface-to-air missile out of their territory at what they probably thought was a Ukrainian military aircraft."

In terms of Russia's involvement:

"Russia's president is implicated in their crime twice over. First, it looks as if the missile was supplied by Russia, its crew was trained by Russia, and after the strike the launcher was spritied back to Russia. Second, Mr Putin is implicated in a broader sense because this is his war. The linchpins of the self-styled Donetsk People's Republic are not Ukrainian separatists but Russian citizens who are, or were, members of the intelligence services. Their former colleague, Mr Putin, has paid for the war and armed them with tanks, personnel carriers, artillery—and batteries of surface-to-air missiles. The separatists pulled the trigger, but Mr Putin pulled the strings."

About Russian media representations and Wikipedia editing:

"The Russian fiction that a Ukrainian fighter jet had fired the missile ran into the problem that the jet could not fly at the altitude of MH17, so Russian hackers then changed a Wikipedia entry to say that the jets could briefly do so." Bondegezou (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice. Can I remind anyone planning to incorporate them that Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes and that it is better to summarise where possible. Guidance is at WP:QUOTE. --John (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the first extract would be useful support for claims made on responsibility. Might a verbatim quote be used in a footnote? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So, I guess we're all "hackers" now, because editing WP is what "hackers" do, according to Economist. I know, "not forum", but I don't think the media "gets" WP and it's up to us to decide notability. Geogene (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the inventory I'm not sure which of those aging Soviet relics can't manage 33,000 ft, but they must be in a bad way if none of them can. (Su-27 service ceiling is quoted to be 62,523 ft). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that for some reason the jet was claimed to be a Su-25. Even from a conspiracy theorist POV, I'm not sure why, since as you said, there are other jets e.g. Su-27 which can fly high enough. (Even if they weren't used much in the conflict, I'm not sure that claiming it was a jet which was used but can't fly that high is some way better.) I would expect the Russians could know how high their jets could fly, particularly since they only made the claim after a Russian source had already pointed out it couldn't fly that high. I was wondering if they had some explaination for the contradiction, but so far, I haven't see any. It may be the problem begins from the fact the seperatists claimed the jet/s was a Su-25. Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wonder too. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegroman (talk • contribs) 19:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on Dual nationality column
This column it unecessary and confusing, in all other crash article lists passengers with dual nationality are only identified there with the passport they travelled on, the official list does not even acknowledge these dual nationals, its clearly some strange intent to create an "aww lookie there citizens from abc were also aboard" kind of thing. Remove or Keep. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Remove these can be mentioned in prose but really shouldnt have a cloumn dedicated to them. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – There is no harm in maintaining the column, and in removing it, you misleadingly present information which fails to actually include all nationalities. Dustin  ( talk ) 19:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove. And while you are at it, remove the flags, as distracting clutter and in contravention of WP:MOSFLAG - these individuals are in no way 'representing' a nation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Given that the only connection by some countries to the accident is through a dual citizen, it can actually be significant. The US connection through a dual citizen, in particular, could be used politically in their response and so I would say this is fairly significant. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove as trainspottery OR, and remove the daft flags as well. --John (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove and dump the flags as well, per Andy. United States Man (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove, and kibosh the flags: per John and Andy. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove but leave the notes with the "boarding passport countries" to indicate the dual nationality there, instead of a dedicated column in the table. Isaidnoway (talk)  21:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support this idea. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove and note elsewhere dual citizenship as suggested above...also I have no problem with the flags.Juan Riley (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove, flags as well. (I've noted this earlier: the greatest MOS:FLAG violation is in this list, not in that list of reactions.) Drmies (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove. Standard approach in other air crash articles is to just report flight manifest nationality. The current table is littered with irregularities, for example, both Malaysia and Vietnam do not recognise dual citizenship, yet are listed on the table. WWGB (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (2)
What is "dual nationality" anyway? Suppose I have a Canadian and a Russian passport, and when I travel from Canada to Malaysia, I only use my Canadian one (it doesn't require a visa, does it?). So even if I have a Russian passport, I left it at home and at the time of the crash, I would be considered Canadian. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question, I was wondering the same thing myself. I take it to mean that they were born in one country - so they automatically became citizens of that country - and then moved to another country (job, marriage, etc.) where they applied for citizenship. Hence, the reason for two passports. I could be wrong, but that is at least one way to obtain dual citizenship. I suppose there could be more? And yes I think they would identify you as Canadian with a passport from that country, but that still wouldn't mean Russia couldn't claim you as a citizen as well. Isaidnoway (talk)  22:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have dual citizenship myself. The usual way is merely retaining one's birth citizenship whilst moving to another country and gaining that country's citizenship. Some countries also give citizenship jus sanguinis, meaning that if one's ancestors (usually grandparents/great-grandparents) had a citizenship, one can apply for it regardless of residence. When one travels, one can choose to travel with either passport (never both). This means that, for the sake of one's travels, one is considered a citizen of the country that is on the passport. Meaning, that, for example, if one was a dual American/EU citizen, and one was flying from New York to France, one could use the EU passport and skip the long queues for foreign travellers at the French airport. If one used the American passport, one would have to wait in the foreign queue. When one flies back to the United States, one could use the American passport, once again skipping the foreign queues, and using the domestic ones. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * E.g., quite a few US/Irish duals via jus sanguinis.Juan Riley (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it was actually removed, as it really made no sense. The way I see it, some countries consider one procedure to be "dual citizenship", and in others, the consideration itself is different. Like you state to fly from US to EU, but this example gives too little to the understanding, as both countries are considered to be "the West". When I fly from Canada to Russia and vice versa, for example, I always take both passports, as one is considered to replace the "visa" for another one. So I leave Canada as a Canadian citizen, but come to Russia as a Russian. If the plane were to crash in the Atlantic while I would be going from Canada towards Russia, I would be registered as a Canadian citizen. But were it happen while flying in the opposite direction, I would be considered a Russian one. This is just the way I see it. Therefore, all those who had Malaysian passports at the time of the crash should be considered Malaysians, not dual (I was wondering why so little passengers were Malaysian citizens, and I think that is the problem). Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment – As it looks like there is a clear consensus, I went ahead and removed the flags and the Dual-Nationality column. United States Man (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The present table makes no sense. I really don't think it is appropriate to have rows with "zero" passengers in them. It would be better to just put a note next to the nationality they boarded with, saying, for example, that "one citizen holds dual-nationality" or whatever. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know; I sort of left it in a mess. You are welcome to fix it though. United States Man (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks much better now. --John (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The present table now ignores citizens from numerous countries (US, Italy, Israel) who were dual-citizens. It's also inconsistent with other air crashes, in which citizens of all nationalities are usually added in this table, even if the total sums up to more than the total number of passengers - a footnote usually clarifies this. I believe the first point is important because it is significant to how some of these countries may react to the events. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It also makes the table inconsistent with some of the cited references. -- 101.117.59.234 (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, please note that in accidents like Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370, the table lists citizens of all nationalities, including dual citizens. Note in that table how the total adds up to 239 people but the total number of passengers was 227 - this because of the inclusion of dual citizens. This is the usual table format used for all air accident articles. It is important to list dual citizens to show all countries affected by this air disaster. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. The 239 refers to pax and crew. Only one nationality per person is reported, and that is the nationality recorded on the flight manifest. WWGB (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)