Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Girkin's taking of responsibility

I've just re-read the VKontakte post by Igor Girking [1]. It is summarized in the article as "Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatist militia, [wrote a post in VKontakte where he was] claiming responsibility for shooting down a Ukrainian An-26 military transporter near Torez.". I've read this post a few times before, but it suddenly dawned on me that he is not actually claiming responsibility for anything in that post. The wording he chose is does not specify who exactly shot down the plane, and sounds more like a general news announcement. Translated literally: "In the region of Torez, just now we/they shot down an An-26"; the pronoun is implied from the verb, so it can be interpreted as "they shot down an airplane" just as readily as "we shot down an airplane". I don't know what to do about it, could someone please verify my translation? Thanks, Heptor (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Congrats, you've just conducted some original research! Unforunately, Wikipedia explicitly prohibits original research with the core content policy "Wikipedia:No original research. We say whatever reliable secondary sources say. Secondary sources say they took responsibility. Stickee (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What a pity that you forgot to translate the next sentence from Strelkov: We warned before - not to fly in "our sky"--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The next sentence has the same structure, it says "we/they warned [...]" Heptor (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Even if the second sentence said explicitly "we warned", it would not necessarily invalidate the possibility of a third party in the first sentence. If we are to use non-English language sources (which are never prohibited) we need accurate translations. If we can't rely on GoogleTranslate, I'm not sure how we ensure a guaranteed neutral translation. Is there no "officially agreed" translation of Strelkov, e.g. from Reuters? Or is Stickee saying that all translation is WP:OR? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Translations by us are WP:OR. We go by what reliable sources say. The CS Monitor says "Igor Girkin, a Ukrainian separatist leader also known as Strelkov, claimed responsibility on a popular Russian social-networking site for the downing of what he thought was a Ukrainian military transport plane" and used the translation "In the vicinity of Torez, we just downed a plane, an AN-26. It is lying somewhere in the Progress Mine. We have issued warnings not to fly in our airspace.". WaPost [2] gives the same translation, as does the New Yorker [3], Newsweek [4], the ABC [5], Slate [6] and more. Stickee (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

That looks pretty clear to me, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. but more generally, how do we use nnb-English language sources at all if we don't have an independent translation also published by a WP:RS? There are hundreds of thousands of uses all over Wikipedia.

Respectfully, Stickee, please have another look the OR policy. It literally states that faithfully translating sourced material into English [...] is not considered original research. Heptor (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Аs a native speaker of the Russian language, I confirm the correctness of such a translation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

At any rate, currently the only source provided in the lede is the link to the original post in Russian, so that's what I looked at at when I started this discussion. Links to WaPo should be added I guess. This is very weird. I'm re-reading the text again and again, can't understand how it could be interpreted as saying something about who shot the plane. "В районе Тореза только что сбили самолет Ан-26[...]" [7]Heptor (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Аs a native speaker of the Russian language, I argue that the translation is incorrect and it puts additional meanings in the message. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible these news organizations had some kind of context or knowledge that we don't have, something that would cause them to read it as "we"? It isn't original research for editors to provide a translation of a foreign source, but when the translation by wikipedia editors conflicts with the translation by secondary sources, I think policy requires us to follow the secondary sources. Still, this is troubling if you're correct. I wonder how such a mistake could happen... the only way I can imagine is if one newspaper translated incorrectly and all the others copied from them, but it seems crazy to think all these different newspapers would just take the translation from the Christian Science Monitor (who appear to have been the first to report on this) without even bothering to check the original. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Are there any Russian language sources that provide an unambiguous statement? I have no knowledge of Russian and so I don't know if this kind of grammatical ambiguity ca be avoided. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering that Girkin's people weren't out sightseeing, but in fact were at the crash site looking for surviving enemy airmen to capture, it's obvious that it was "we" that downed the aircraft, not "they". This is just wiki-lawyering on behalf of the rebels, against sourcing. Geogene (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You're saying as if "rebels" are one single entity and assume perfect communication. Some rebels would have visited crash site in either case, even without knowing who shot down the plane or which plane it is, so it proves nothing. Also, correcting a translation is not "wiki-lawyering". It wasn't Igor Girkin's account (even message itself says that it's a message from militia, and here it's confirmed agane by Strelkov's spokesperson [8]), and a posted statement can't be possibly interpreted as "claiming responsibility" anyway. [[Ellestar (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)]]

You may well be right. Perhaps the original Russian sources deliberately reported it in this way? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked around for Russian-language sources as Martinevans123 suggested. There is for example an article in life.ru, which states that the rebels reported that an An-26 was shot down.[9] It never mentions anything about who shot it down. The Russian-language version of this article states Girkin's post verbatim, it also never mentions anything about rebels claiming to have down an An-26. I also found a blog by a certain Lev Hodoi, who argues that the VKontakte post has been mistranslated. Quote from the blog: "Not a word about who shot it down. Not a word. Nothing!" ("Ни слова о том, кто его сбил. Ни слова. Вообще!). [10] I couldn't find any Russian-language sources that interpret this post otherwise, despite an extensive search so far.

Red Rock Canyon, this mistranslation is not very obvious despite its significance: I had to read it several times before I noticed that something was amiss. It's troubling indeed. Geogene, you seem to be willing to ignore a possible error in the article just because it fits your political views. Please make an effort to check your bias. Heptor (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Usually Russian sources just quote Girkin, his words do not require additional explanations. But some write directly:

17 июля 2014 года Стрелков на своей странице в Twitter похвастался тем, что в районе Тореза Донецкой области его бойцы сбили Ан-26. "Предупреждали же - не летать в "нашем небе", - написал Стрелков. "Птичка упала за террикон, жилой сектор не зацепила. Мирные люди не пострадали", - отметил он. Сообщение в соцсети появилось около 16:50 по киевскому времени, а приблизительно в 16:20 с экранов радаров исчез Boeing 777.

Translate:

July 17, 2014 Strelkov on his page on Twitter boasted that near Torez of the Donetsk region, his men shot down An-26. "We warned before - not to fly in "our sky," wrote Strelkov. "The bird fell over the waste tank, the residential sector did not catch. Peaceful people were not harmed" he said. The message in the social network appeared around 16:50 by Kyiv time, and approximately at 16:20 the Boeing 777 disappeared from the radar screens.

In fact, everything is pretty clear with this case.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nicoljaus. I'm surprised that this Daily Telegraph source is not mentioned in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well - “We warned them - don’t fly in our sky.” - the translation is just the same. But I do not know how serious this case is - only 18 victims out of 298.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"Serious" or not, I think such a case is quite unusual. But that was three years ago. I'm not sure what has happened since, if anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It's very strange. If Girkin wanted to take credit for shooting down a Ukrainian jet on behalf of the rebels, he could have been more explicit about it, something like "Our forces shot down an An-26". No reason for him to be subtle about it. But instead he left out the only pronoun until the very end of the post, and even then didn't mention the DPR explicitly. I don't think this vagueness accidental. If anything, it could be indicative of the Buk being operated by the Russians, and not by the rebels under Girkin's command. So I don't quite understand why I get labeled as a Russian spy over this, I am genuinely concerned that a poor translation may have caught on. Heptor (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Newsru.com is a site that belongs to Vladimir Gusinsky, enemy of Kremlin. That's why he has a biased translation. Original post doesn't state that "his men shot down An-26", only that someone shot down An-26. [[Ellestar (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)]]

Why does anyone even think that this message was written by Strelkov personally? I checked, and this account exists until now, but now it is called "Summaries from the militia of Novorossia." And it description: "Daily reports on the combat situation from military correspondents, militia and eyewitnesses of events promptly and in one place." Then, at that time, the account was called "Summaries from Igor Ivanovich Strelkov" with the subtitle "Information from Igor Ivanovich, his comrades and militia." The messages on this wall have subtitles indicating the sources: "The message from Igor Ivanovich Strelkov," or "The message from the militiaman Prokhorov," or "The message from the militia headquarters," or simply "The message from the militia" - that is, from an unnamed supporter of the rebels. This infamous message just has the subtitle "Message from the militia." That is, it's just an eyewitness's report from the crash site, sent in the first minutes after the tragedy. A message with an emotional commentary based on the assumption that it can only be a Ukrainian transport aircraft and the second assumption that the regime troops do not shoot down their planes. The first assumption is obviously erroneous, the truth of the second one is a subject for discussion. 2.132.80.11 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "strelkov_info" VK account is not a Strelkov's account. [11]

This crash is still under criminal investigation

Since the criminal investigation is still ongoing, shouldn't "under criminal investigation" be in the summary section as well? I' bringing this up because I've actually re-added this several times, but it was removed. Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The field is a summary of what happened in the incident, not the aftermath. Stickee (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree that this fact is an unusual and very notable one. But the template advice for this infobox field is simply "Brief factual summary of the occurrence." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of some of the discretionary sanctions

It's been four (soon it will be five) years since the shootdown occurred. I know that this crash is still under criminal investigations, and the subject of the article is controversial, but I think we should start lifting at least some (but not all of) of the discretionary sanctions. We should just lift the sanctions that were in place before the part where it's discovered that the aircraft was shot down by a missile transported from Russia. The sanctions about the criminal investigation can stay. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No admin has imposed any specific discretionary sanctions on this article. This article is automatically under the scope of WP:ARBEE sanctions, and we can't change that. Stickee (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Criminal prosecution - clarification needed

In the Criminal prosecution section is the text:

In a statement made on 5 July 2017 … it was announced that the JIT countries will prosecute any suspects identified in the downing of flight MH17 in the Netherlands and under Dutch law.[250] A future treaty between the Netherlands and Ukraine would make it possible for the Netherlands to prosecute in the cases of all 298 victims, regardless of their nationality. This treaty was signed on 7 July 2017.[251] On 21 March 2018, the Dutch government sent legislation to the parliament, allowing the suspects involved to be prosecuted in the Netherlands under Dutch law. As of May 2018, no charges have been filed.[252][253]

I'm a bit unclear what this means and suspect something has been poorly updated or translated. 'Future treaty ... would', (ie hypothetical) somewhat contradicts 'This treaty was signed on 7 July 2017' (ie done deal, prosecution in Netherlands now possible). I'm unable to use ref 251 to resolve this partly because of not speaking Dutch and because the cite appears to go to the generic ministry web-page, rather than specific info.Pincrete (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The treaty was indeed signed on 7 July 2017 and went into force on 28 August 2018. It can be read here in both English and Dutch. I've replaced the dead URL. Jeroen N (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Russian Ministry of Defense claim - serial numbers of the rocket

Hello Nicoljaus, what did you do not undferstand "what does Yatsenyuk and so on"? Yatsenyuk claim is included in the lead, so why not the arguments of the other side? Firstly you said that "JIT didn't claim that the parts shown belong to that same rocket". In the next edit I have explained you that JIT didn't claim many things (including many others things, that are also part of the lead). So I hope that I have already explained it quite clearly and I ask you to stop deleting sourced text. Thanks. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. JIT did not say that the parts shown at the conference belong to the same rocket. In this regard, the press conference of the Russian Ministry of Defense does not make sense. While earlier requests for serial numbers were ignored. All this is considered in the article, but it is redundant for the Lead.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that JIT do not consider these parts shown at the conference to be part of the same rocket? Do you have source? Because I do not see it anywhere in the article. Then the press conference wouldn't really make no sense. I can see just that the information will be carefully studied. Or you are saying that JIT only did not confirmed the parts shown belonging to that same rocket? In that case, my answer is still valid, that JIT didn't claim many things (including many others things, that are also part of the lead). Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

JIT states only the following: "During this presentation the JIT showed a venturi and a casing that were found in Eastern Ukraine and asked for information about the numbers on these parts." Russian Ministry of Defense fights with there own straw man.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You did not answer my previous posts. I did not ask what JIT is questioning, since it is being investigated. So if you still do not have any reason to not include this into lead, my previous posts are still valid. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, all I can do is ask you to read what is written to you. Or contact other editors who will take your side and point me to my mistake.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not have to contact anyone, you do not own this page. I could say the same: read what is written to you. I am asking you again, if you (still) have any reason why this should not be included in the lead. Thanks for answer. Is it that the lead can contain only conclusions of JIT and not the arguments of both sides? I can see that you have modiffied text a bit, but still (as Yatsenyuk claim), JIT did confirmed that it was coordinated from Russia? So basically I have still only two questions (and third, if the second answer is yes).Jirka.h23 (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Russian propaganda [12] does not deserve equal treatment with the JIT's conclusions, and the edit in question looked like WP:UNDUE weight on a fringe perspective. Geogene (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, no Russian or Ukrainian propaganda doesn't deserve it. However this is standard well sourced text, not contested by investigators. WP:UNDUE weight could be a good argument. Anyway, I'm still waiting for Nicoljaus answers. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Charges

JIT state warrants will be sought against three Russians and one Ukrainian. 'Three Russians, Igor Girkin, Sergey Dubinskiy and Oleg Pulatov, were named, along with Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko.' https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/19/europe/malaysia-airlines-flight-17-suspects-intl/index.html Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A bit bizarrely, 93-year-old Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed has denounced the Dutch charges as 'ridiculous'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48702115 ' "From the very beginning it became a political issue on how to accuse Russia of wrongdoing," Mr Mahathir said.' 'Arriving at the EU summit in Brussels, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte criticised the Malaysian leader's remarks and said the foreign ministry in The Hague was in touch with its counterparts in Kuala Lumpur. "I can imagine the relatives will be naturally very disappointed by it and it also causes confusion," he told reporters.'

The explanation for Mahathir's strange remarks is not far to seek.

'The 93-year-old Malaysian leader went on to demand proof of Russian guilt, insisting "so far, there is no proof, only hearsay". When asked if his reaction had anything to do with sales of Malaysian palm oil, he said no.'

That wasn't true, obviously.

'Palm oil is key to Malaysia's economy, for jobs and exports.'

'But earlier this year the European Commission recommended the phasing out of palm oil for use in biofuels for transport by 2030, deciding that palm oil production caused excessive deforestation.'

'Malaysia has since announced it is keen to trade its palm oil in return for military equipment such as fighter jets to replace its ageing Russian-made fleet.'

'Malaysian reports have recently quoted Russian officials as offering to increase palm oil purchases in return for a military deal.'

So, basically, Mahathir wants to trade palm oil to the Russians in exchange for military jets, while the EU won't buy palm oil. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

What's an international arrest warrant?

The article now tells me that international arrest warrants were issued in respect of each of the accused. It's well referenced to a BBC article that said the same thing, but what's it mean? Who can arrest these people? Where? Right now, that wording is very vague. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Interpol notice says "The most well-known notice is the Red Notice which is the "closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today". 86.189.225.34 (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Neither the article nor the source mention Interpol. Have you seen a source that does? Maybe it could help the article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

What about this one that mentions "Interpol warrants"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The only global 'international arrest warrant' is an Interpol Red Notice, which is not technically a warrant but a request to all police forces to make a provisional arrest of the subject pending extradition or other proceedings. https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/Red-Notices Although it may be a formality in the case of a country like Russia or France, which won't extradite its own citizens, it has the significant effect of restricting the subject's movements: they cannot travel to any country where the Red Notice might be enforced. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the last two posters. I think I now understand what's probably happening here, but it's certainly not 100% clear. I'd like the article to be a bit clearer, but I'm not sure what we can write. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-load the Lead

What about delete or greatly reduce the last paragraph of the Lead? It seems to me that phrases like "This post was removed later the same day" are no longer relevant.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is that no longer relevant? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, сurrently, there is a formal investigation, covered in many reliable sources. This paragraph can be summarized in one sentence, I think. Who said what and what day - not for the lead.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nicoljaus that the final paragraph of the lead is far too much. I don't believe that content belongs in the lead at all. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

If it's simply a question of volume rather than "relevance", I would have no objections to some trimming. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's an issue of both volume and level of detail. Far too much of both for the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it’s time summarize up all the finger-pointing? If I may suggest something along the lines of this

No one took the responsibility for the shootdown, and the parties involved in the Donbas War generally blamed each other. An international investigation and foreign intelligence reports generally concluded that the aircraft was most likely shot down by accident by the militia of the Donetsk People Republic, by a Buk SAM that was provided to them by the Russian Federation

Well? Heptor (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sentence one is vague to the point of being valueless IMO. It is like saying everyone blamed everyone else, (the important thought could be made by saying militia and Russia denied involvement at end of para).

I don't think you can say 'by accident' in isolation from the nature of the 'accident' (no one pressed the button accidentally, the missile didn't veer off and hit the wrong target) - but some version of 'mistakenly' might be possible - though I don't necessarily think that it is vital in the lead to say WHY they allegedly shot it down, nor who/how anyone has concluded that it was probably the result of a mistake. If we aren't going into details about how they came to make this 'mistake', and why we think they did, why not - 'Orgs X + Y concluded that these militia shot doen the aircraft using this type of missile supplied by Russia. Militia and Russia deny causing the shoot down'.

"An international investigation" is also vague - why not name.

Finally, and most easily fixable, too many 'by's, (by accident, by militia, by a Buk, by the Russian Federation). "By accident" I've already said is inapt and the third+fourth could easily become "using a Buk supplied by the Russian Federation".

I'm not 100% convinced that the final para needs substantial pruning, but if people think it's too detailed, so be it ...... Pincrete (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe my initial proposal goes a bit too far in summarizing by keeping out the details such as which organizations did investigations and such.

There are other articles about aircraft shootdown that can be considered for precedent. From the List of airliner shootdown incidents, I think the two most relevant incidents would be Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 and 2001 Peru shootdown. The first one is described as an accident. The second one isn't, but the state of mind of the responsible party is communicated as as "advised to [...] shoot the civilian plane down, believing that they were carrying drugs out of the country" (my emphasis). So perhaps a good solution for this article is something like "the aircraft was most likely misidentified as a military transporter by the militia of the Donetsk People's Republic, who then shot it down with a Buk SAM that they received from the Russian Federation only a day earlier". Heptor (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Not mentioning arrest warrants in the lead

It's weird that the lead doesn't mention the arrest warrants, which was a major news story, yet it does mention the Malaysian prime minister's unconventional view of Russian culpability, which I hadn't heard anything about until it appeared in this article. The warrants should be mentioned in the lead, and the prime minister's statement should be removed. Geogene (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Those arrest warrants seems to have disappeared rather rapidly from the news. And perhaps unsurprisingly, nothing has come of them. The Malaysian PM's view has also not maintained a high profile, but it's certainly notable. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Less notable than the arrest warrants, and not notable enough for the lead. Geogene (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

There was nothing surprising about the arrest warrants. With the absence of ongoing coverage, perhaps neither item belongs. Although the Malaysian PM's view is perhaps the more unexpected piece of news, so maybe has more reason to be there. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Malaysian PM words

@Heptor: I pressed the wrong key here, sorry. I want to say that the words about "no evidence" on the link given does not say the Prime Minister, but Russia: "Russia has insisted that there is no concrete evidence to back up allegations" [13].--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

source site for "Strelkov" first post on 13:41 UTC (wall-57424472_7247)

hi

i don't know if you already have read this:

arnoldg.xyz "Civilians were not hurt"

(July 16, 2017 - from Mr. Arnold Greidanus, in past on whathappenedtoflightmh17.com)

a lot of info about "Strelkov" VKontakte post.

it seems first "Strelkov" post was at 13:41 UTC (not 14:16 UTC, which was a second version of the post)

--151.38.115.118 (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

14:16 UTC "Strelkov" VKontakte post was "wall-57424472_7256"
--151.36.40.223 (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Eighty children

Hi, user:Ahunt, you reverted my addition of the world “children,” referring in plain language to “passengers under the age of eighteen.” I spotted this problem with the article when I searched the page to confirm the figure while conducting personal research, and was surprised that “child*” is not findable on the page.

My dictionary says that a child includes someone “below the legal age of majority,” that is, under eighteen everywhere, and under twenty-one in some places, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 1, says “a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.” And I’ll point out that the two cited sources, and every other news article referring to the children on MH17 that I’ve read, call them “children.” None calls them anything resembling “passengers under eighteen.” Why divert from he universal practice?

Cited are:

• Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: 20 families gone in one shot. This article does not provide the cited figure of eighty, but it refers to children of all ages as “children.”

  “Many of those who died were children, of which at least 20 were below the age of 12.”

• MH17 train in Kharkiv as Tony Abbott says MH17 aftermath is evidence tampering on industrial scale“:

  “‘It is an unambiguous response from the international community to an utterly deplorable act — the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 killing all 298 passengers and crew onboard, including 80 children.’” [quoting Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop]

 —Michael Z. 2019-12-04 17:06 z

The press quotes are politicans' attempts to sensationalize and politicize the death toll by labelling everyone under 18 as "children". In most western countries these days 13-18s are called "teens" and not "children". The existing sentence, "eighty passengers were under the age of 18" is perfectly explanatory as it is. The addition of the word "children" adds nothing to the understanding of the subject. - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ahunt. The wording of “under the age of 18"” is accurate and contains no ambiguities. --Nicoljaus (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Under 18 is precise and unambiguous. 'Child' means different things, in different societies, in different contexts. A 17 year old wouldn't normally be called 'a child' in most Western societies these days - except of course "these are my children", which has no upper limit. Pincrete (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Extremely Misleading

Not just POV, the article needs a whole rewrite, especially after the new documentary [https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-mh17-documentary-proves-beyond-doubt-cover-up-took-place/5684604 MH-17 Call for Justice], appeared.

Sentences like "fired from a field in a rebel-controlled area, and the launcher returned to Russia after it was used to shoot down MH17", citing the BBC... are pathetic. Ypovoleas (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So it was all Ukraine's fault, after all yes? They shot it down and then tried to blame Russia? Sounds like a real conspiracy. Well, according to globalresearch.ca, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see. So it was all Donetsk's fault, after all yes? They shot it down and then tried to blame Ukraine? Sounds like a real conspiracy. Well, according to BBC, anyway. Ypovoleas (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No need to make any changes to the article as this is already mentioned in the "Conspiracy theories" section. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No it's NOT mentioned. Moreover, if the Malaysian's government view is a conspiracy theory, then Western media's view is also a conspiracy theory, it's just POV. Ypovoleas (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The source you quote looks highly biased. Have you asked about that one at WP:RSN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs)

The documentary is not the Malaysian Govt view - it is two individuals (neither with any relevant expertise) reporting (and embelleshing) the views of some Malaysian individuals connected to the govt versus whole teams of experienced, officially appointed scientists. Tough call! If the Malaysian Govt does decide to dissent from any official findings, I'm sure both that they won't want to make the announcement through two completely inexperiencd individuals - and we'll want to include their dissent, until then, this 'documentary' is comically worthless.Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you are talking about things without looking at them first (documentary, or anything else), proves that your conformism breaks world records, hence this conversation is useless. Ypovoleas (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

We go on what WP:RS have said, not our own assessment, but actually I watched the first half - a weaker piece of nonsense it would be difficult to find IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

For sake of completion the documentary should be mentioned, along with third-party analysis of it under "conspiracy theories". As can be seen, if if isn't mentioned then there will be complaints. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, ok. This thread belongs at that article, not here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to be unclear. I meant that it should be mentioned at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Conspiracy theories, as it has some relevance to this article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree in principle with including any alternative theories (such as this documentary). However, 1) it is very unclear WHAT exactly the documentary claims - certainly without engaging in WP:OR. The parts I watched were very vague, but in so far as they were coherent, mainly concerned with asking questions such "as how come the West/US came to conclusions so early?" and casting (fairly weak and unspecific) doubts on that process. 2) AFAI can see, there is no "third-party analysis" of the documentary anywhere. The very few sites mentioning/linking to it are all at least as partisan and fringe as "globalresearch", and none offers any clear analysis - or indeed clear endorsement or exposition of the doc.Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay well if it didn't get reviewed in any WP:RS then I would say it is not notable enough to be included. The media may have just ignored it due to its lack of reliability. Do you know if it aired anywhere at all, TV? theatres? Basically anyone can post anything on the internet somewhere (YouTube, Vimeo, Stormfront, etc) - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, it hasn't been shown anywhere except online - but my knowledge is limited to a couple of quick DuckDuckGo searches - the other places where it was being promoted made "globalresearch" look neutral and reliable! Pincrete (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

If that is the case it is WP:SPS and can be ignored. Anyone can post anything on YouTube. - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to note that I agree with the OP. The article presently goes out of its way to point a finger towards Russian Federation. The role of Ukraine and of Malaysian Airlines in sending a passenger jet into a zone of active air combat is underplayed; Donetsk People's Republic is consistently described as "pro-Russian rebels", again attempting to shift attention towards Russian Federation. It's very unfortunate that this awful disaster had become so politicized, but here we are. Heptor (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not "the article" that points towards the Russian Federation. It's the whole body of evidence collected over years by DSB and JIT commissions that points towards Russian Federation. Cloud200 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It also points towards the Donetsk People's Republic shooting the plane by accident, and to Ukrainian authorities being negligent in sending the plane into the area. I mean, here is one example of how the sky over Donetsk looked like at the time. Would you send a civilian aircraft into that area? Heptor (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The Video is clearly misleading, MH17 was one of many international airliners flying over Ukraine at the time somebody took a pot shot at it thinking it was military. They were considered (and with hindsight wrongly) to be safe at that height from the fighting miles below. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The jet you see in the video is perfectly capable of flying much higher, and it is very much capable of firing anti-radiation missiles at SAM crews who over-think their decisions. To consider this airspace safe was negligence. Heptor (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

As much as the official Russian POV input is appreciated, we are far past WP:DEADHORSE here. The official investigation reports are complete and accurately reported. - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your summary of the official investigation reports, and I also realize that the majority of active editors of this article currently support it. Heptor (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You're suggesting that the official investigation reports are incomplete? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the article has a tendentious focus on Russian Federation. The DSB report discusses Ukraine's management of the airspace in Section 6.6 Analysis: Ukrainian airspace management. Citing from the report, "When implementing the above measures, the Ukrainian authorities took insufficient notice of the possibility of a civil aeroplane at cruising altitude being fired upon. This was also the case [after shoot-downs of two military] at altitudes beyond the effective range of MANPADS." (and what's the Ukrainian position? They didn't realize that Russia had SAMs?).

Although the position of the Russian Government is mentioned in the article (last sentence in paragraph 4, "Ukraine [is] responsible for the crash, [since they] should have redirected the civilian traffic away from the area of conflict"), this should be elaborated further and emphasized. The position of Igor Girkin, the commander of the rebel forces in the area and one of the people accused for the crash, should also be clearly presented. For example, in this interview he also points towards whoever sent passenger jets into a war zone for no good reason. The statement Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir, who said the JIT was making Russia a "scapegoat" and that he did not believe the Russians whom the JIT had charged were involved, is also for some reason buried deep into the article.

On the other hand, the statement of Arseniy Yatsenyuk about "professional soldiers who came from Russia with Ukrainian passports" should be clearly labeled as his opinion, not stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Heptor (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in retrospect the Ukrainian aviation authorities may have been shortsighted, and their failings should be mentioned. Those of neighbouring states might also be considered. They didn't really pull the trigger on that rocket launcher, did they? Are national civil aviation organisations responsible for the actions of incompetent military commanders? Yes, WP:DEADHORSE sounds about right. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to downplay the failings of the Ukraininan aviation authorities buy saying that they were merely shortsighted in retrospect. They made truly horrible decisions, grossly neglecting the safety of lives under their responsibility. There was absolutely no good reason for sending civilian traffic into the area of conflict, except to save a modest amount of time and fuel and to collect the overflight fees. On the other hand, whoever pulled the trigger on the Buk launcher was likely a low-rakning officer making a split-second decision under the pressure of combat. That being said, at least we finally agree on something. Heptor (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Finally? Agreement took us about 2 hours and 26 minutes. And "likely a low-ranking officer" you say, so please present your source(s)? Meanwhile, Girkin still gets my personal vote for the "most stupid murdering bastard of 2014." Perhaps the Buk M-1 has a semi-autonomous mode that might somehow slightly let him off the hook? I'm guessing that Operating Instructions for that particular unit were written in Russian. But I don't have a copy to hand. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, Buk is typically operated by a crew of four people [14]. It's not far-fetched to assume that one of them is in charge, but calling him a "military commander" on Wikipedia would be pretty generous. We had some dealings in Archive 25 I think, hence finally. Heptor (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. Ah yes, "We warned before - not to fly in "our sky"... etc. But again, until someone has four non-notable names to share with us, I guess responsibility lies somewhere slightly further up the chain of command? Not sure we'd ever blame the M1 driver. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, he should have filed a NOTAM with ICAO instead of rambling it on YouTube. Heptor (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Pardon for interruption, but can everyone discussing here just go and read both DSB and JIT report? The role of Ukrainian air control is discussed in detail in the DSB report. Air space of Ukraine was closed to a specific level corresponding to the information available about specific anti-air weapons operated by the Russian forces in Donbass and nobody was really expecting a Buk there. Russian airspace in the adjacent square was also open in the same manner as Ukrainian and civilian flights were being allowed to fly from Russia into Ukraine... until the midnight preceding the day when MH17 was shot down - this is when Russia unexpectedly closed their airspace in the adjacent square without any explanation. Cloud200 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

What an extremely unfortunate coincidence. Or was it extremely fortunate. I can't quite decide. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

A prudent measure by the ATC, probably based on publicly available information. If anything it should have been done earlier. Heptor (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Was "the information" publicly available or not? I guess we'll never know. But why is that probable? You're suggesting the article should say this? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

But Martinevans, of course it was publicly available! Several shoot-downs of Ukrainian military jets are mentioned in the DSB report. The Ukrainian Air Force was bombing the Donetsk People's Republic left and right. All of this was public knowledge at the time of the events. Any sensible ATC would close their airspace under such circumstances. The fact that an adjacent ATC decided to close the airspace is quite telling. Heptor (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

All we have is "The reason given was "armed conflict in Ukraine"." You're suggesting that news footage is added to the article? So why don't we mention the other adjacent airspace areas that failed to close their airspace? The article does mention individual "other airlines". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Russia did not close their airspace following June and July shotdowns of military planes. Russia certainly could have notify other countries that it's sending a Buk launcher to Donbass along with a team instructed to shoot suspected planes at altitudes well beyond the MANPADS range. Unfortunately they didn't do it, rather they just silently closed the adjacent square with rather obscure explanation the night before shooting Boeing. Cloud200 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: You mean the second-to-last paragraph in the Background section? Yes, I think it could stand to have a bit more context. The section already mentions the shoot-downs of the Il-76 and the An-26, but it could also mention that the Ukrainian Air Force continued to attack the rebel positions from the air. Since the explanation was "armed conflict in Ukraine", it's not unreasonable to summarize the state of the armed conflict at the time instead of inviting the reader to speculate about something nefarious. Heptor (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cloud200: You seem to be convinced that the Rostov ATC were acting based on non-public information about the troop movements? Heptor (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Heptor: If it wasn't obvious, that was irony. Seriously, I doubt ATC was given any information about the Buk by the GRU who curates the conflict in Donbass, most likely they just got an order to issue NOTAM without any explanations and complied. As it comes to various proposals raised above to include various statements and versions, especially from Russian side, this is waste of time since they have presented ~20 completely contradictory versions and changed them frequently over the last 5 years. This is precisely why most of them were moved to the Conspiracy theories article, as they don't serve any other purpose than distraction from the DSB and JIT inquiry. For example, if we quote Girkin blaming Ukrainian ATC, for completeness we should also quote him joking about shooting down MH17 using a "ballistic slingshot" but also alluding that the Buk came from Russia on at least two occassions. But again, it doesn't bring anything new to the story that has been solved and documented long ago. Cloud200 (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I did not check this page for a long time, but one important detail is probably missing. From what I read, it appears that (a) the equipment of Buk missile system allows to easily distinguish the big passenger plane from a military plane, and (b) it can be operated only by highly trained military operators. Which brings the question why the perpetrators (and we know who they were) hit the passenger plane on purpose. However, I do not have these sources handy. My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I'm pretty sure you misunderstood something. The SAM in question was developed in the 70's by the Soviet. It's very dubious that it has advanced AI systems to precisely classify the radar signatures, or that it is equipped with an intuitive user interface. Be that as it may, the article presently fails to provide a context for the Rostov ATC's decision to close its airspace, which invites speculation about nefarious involvement by GRU and whatnot, as Cloud200 unfortunately engaged in in the post above. Heptor (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The article presently fails to provide a credible explanation for the Rostov ATC's decision to close its airspace, at that exact time, because a credible and consistent official explanation has never been given? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, the explanation was "armed conflict in Ukraine". It's unhelpfully terse, but it's reasonable for us to spend a couple of sentences to describe the state of the armed conflict in Donetsk, especially in the airspace. Heptor (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

So let's do the Russian authorities' job for them? As they failed to given a credible explanation to the official investigators. What was the key piece of information in the public domain that triggered the closure the very night before the attack? And as for those BUK operators... the poor things, struggling with a Soviet relic of the 70s, having to suffer a non-intuitive user interface! I'm sure one's heart goes out to those poor, traumatised soldiers (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course based on public sources! Between the shootdown of Il-76 on June 14th, shootdown of An-26 on July 14th, continued bombing of rebel positions on July 1st[15] and July 15th[16], there is nothing strange about Rostov ATC closing their airspace on July 14th. They didn't have to know for sure that there was a SAM battery operating in the area, it's enough to have a reasonable suspicion, because, even in Russia, it's safety first. It's far more sinister that the Ukrainian ATC kept theirs open, even though the war was on their territory and not in Rostov. By no means subtracting from the terrible tragedy that befell those onboard MH17 and their families, yes, as you write, it's quite likely that soldiers who operated the SAM battery were mentally traumatized as a result. You seem to think that mental trauma is the least they deserve, I guess you will find a lot of support for this position among the currently active editors. Heptor (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, they received perhaps the same amount of stress Igor Girkin as he was disemboveling Volodymyr Ivanovych Rybak after the capture of Horlivka. Actually, after the MH17 crash commanders of the "Buk" team were saying something like "why the f... they were flying on our sky" which doesn't indicate a very deep "trauma". Sorry, but what you do above is nothing else than cynical victim blaming. It was Russian Federation armed forces that entered the territory of Ukraine and then shot down MH17, not the other way around. Cloud200 (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't relieve the Ukrainian ATC from their responsibility, or make them the victims. They should have closed the airspace. Heptor (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the soldiers and their commanders deserve no sympathy whatsoever. I think they were murdering bastards. I'm very sorry if that betrays a little bias in my viewpoint. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Heptor: The transport of "Buk" from Russian Federation into Snizhne was coordinated by Oleg Vladimirovich Ivannikov, an officer of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Ministry of Defence (GRU). Please can everyone involved in the discussion on improving this article can first go and at least briefly scan the DSB and JIT reports? Otherwise it's just waste of time for everyone as we will be endlessly repeating the same dubious questions which is a waste of time for everyone. Cloud200 (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

And I absolutely support Martinevans123 regarding NOTAM above - Russian closure of the airspace 12 hours before the crash was completely out of the blue and highly suspicious. We however have no other data on that apart from what was said in the DSB report. I agree that the section about UAF offensive preceding the import of Buk from Russia might be expanded because it does provide some background on why' GRU agreed to such a desperate measure. There was a whole of desperate cries from Girkin and other operatives on the ground in Donbass about the need for anti-air weapons back in June, and some of them are already linked in the article. Cloud200 (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cloud200: I referenced the contents of the the DSB report previously in this discussion. Still don't get what's so strange about the airspace closure. There were military jets, rockets and bombs in the air, no good place to send civilian traffic. Heptor (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Heptor: And I have already explained above: UA airspace for for the last 2 months was already closed up to 8 km which was appropriate for safe transit with the military aircrafts used by UAF and anti-aircraft weapons known to be used by Russians. If Russian ATC learned about new weapons entering the conflict zone from Russia, they should have shared that information with everyone else - instead they issued a rather cryptic NOTAM for their' territory which was not justified by any armed conflict in Rostov area and they did so just before the MH17 was downed. Cloud200 (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Its not our job to measure risk and this talk is for article improvement not speculation or a discussion forum. So probably time to close this. MilborneOne (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. WP:NOTFORUM. Cloud200 (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably. This got quite far off topic. I refer to mine and Ypovoleas's original posts about how this article is misleading and politically motivated. Heptor (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting specific changes

Summarizing the discussion above, following suggestions to improve the article were made:

• The way the Ukrainian authorities handled the airspace closure had been criticized among others in Section 6.6 of the DSB report[17]. As expressed by Martinevans, their failings should be mentioned. Those of neighbouring states might also be considered.
• In the Section Background, additional context should be provided to Rostov ATC's decision on July 14th, to close their airspace to all civilian traffic. All such context should be based on open sources available at the time. Such sources would include continued bombing of the rebel positions by the Ukraininan Airforce (UAF)[18][19]. The fact that the UAF An-26 that was shot on July 14 at an altitude of 6,500 meters, far above the reach of MANPADS, should be mentioned explicitly.
  • The context is already there - all downed UAF planes are already mentioned, as is NOTAM. Making any additional links between these planes and the the NOTAM would be WP:OR. The only rationale for the NOTAM should be what Rostov has given ("conflict in the Ukraine") per DSB report - and it's already there. I'm reinforcing that because we don not know what was the decisive process behind the NOTAM and we must not interpret the actions of either side or invent plausible explanations for them, it's not the job of Wikipedia. Cloud200 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

    Well, some context is definitely already there. For example, it is mentioned that "The militia [...] claimed [...] that a Buk missile launcher had been used to bring down [the An-26 on 14 July]." Valeriy Heletey, Ukraine’s minister of defense, said something quite similar, "[the plane was] well beyond the reach of [ MANPADS ], and speculated that it had been downed by another, more powerful missile".[20] The fact that the An-26 was flying above the range of MANPADS is also mentioned in the DSB report (p 183). No reason not to include that. Heptor (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

    If it's in DSB report, it's WP:RS and in scope. You might however wonder why Russian ATC issued NOTAM only in the night preceding MH17, so three days after An-26 rather than immediately? Also, while Russian forces in Donbass initially boasted about having "Buks" (famous Kurginyan video), after MH17 they immediately denied having any before or after. This is a very messy area where Russian authorities have changed their position more frequently than you can count, and if you try to build a plausible story based on their statements you'll find yourself trapped in contradictory lies very quickly. Cloud200 (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

    My best guess is that the DPR rebels had lied about not having SAMs after the MH17 shootdown. I remember they were panicking, had all sorts of weird theories, and had no idea how handle things. As to why the Russian ATC at Rostov closed their airspace only three days after -- since I am invited to speculate I'd venture they didn't feel the immediate danger since the shootdown wasn't in their FIR. So they used a few days on thinking and meetings, and maybe something else happened in the news that tipped the scale and triggered the decision. I don't know, just doesn't look vert strange to me... Heptor (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Other suggestions were made, but will not be re-stated here due to the WP:DEADHORSE. Please provide a quick feedback about why those changes shouldn't or perhaps should, be made. Heptor (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If we're closing this, I'd just like to clarify my view that the article is not misleading or politically motivated. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Any thought about the edit suggestions above? Heptor (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave that to others. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Well, but the page tells already a lot about the guilt by the Ukrainian authorities. No, to the contrary, I think this page should be made shorter by focusing on the actual perpetrators and based on the information we know right now. Cut materials about the conspiracy theories and third parties. And expand materials about the actual perpetrators, including their motivations as far as this can be reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  The article at present does not tell a lot about the guilt by the Ukrainian authorities. It should. Heptor (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  You seem to have an agenda to fulfil. Many others think that the Ukrainian authorities have nothing to be "guilty" about. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  And many others think that the Ukrainian authorities do have a lot to be guilty about. My agenda, so to speak, is to have both views presented in the article. Heptor (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  No, your history of edits here shows a clear bias and WP:AXE. - Ahunt (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  No it doesn't. Heptor (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  I mean, clearly I'm in the minority, but no reason to throw insults. Heptor (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see that as an insult. I think it's a fair appraisal. Perhaps it's exacerbated by your persistence. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  This appraisal is certainly mutual. This discussion shows that you guys are biased and appear to be primarily motivated by a resentment towards the Russian state. There are many good reasons to feel that, but it is not an excuse to make biased articles on Wikipedia. On the contrary -- the article staying the way it is undermines the credibility of other articles containing critical information on Russia, including the ones I listed. It also serves to support Putin's narrative of Russophobic attitudes in the west. Heptor (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"One unnamed person"

Hello, Ahunt. About this edit: [21]. Why do you think this is some unnamed person? The ref cites the words of Pulatov's lawyer: "Olena Kutyina, told Russian TASS news agency that Pulatov would be defended by two Dutch lawyers and one Russian lawyer." --Nicoljaus (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The ref cited doesn't say that. - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this the reference that should have been cited? [22] Burrobert (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You are right, this is the proper ref.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ahunt, I'm sorry, I took the url from the wrong tab.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Just add that ref and all will be well! - Ahunt (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC on material in background

There is a clear consensus against inclusion of this material per WP:SYNTH.

Cunard (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Ukrainian Air Force (UAF) was bombing the rebel positions in the weeks prior to the MH17 shootdown. Is this relevant enough to be included in the background section of this article? Links: proposed version, diff. Heptor (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, as the proposer. Air warfare in the area is relevant to the shootdown and should be described in the article. Heptor (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  PS: Conversely, the section is very comprehensive in describing how the rebels were shooting the UAF planes. Seems lop-sided. Heptor (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• No, looks like WP:SYNTH. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  That adding this would imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources? Heptor (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  How can a source such as this one, published on 15 July 2014, "imply a conclusion" about something that happened on 17 July 2014? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  WP:SYNTH means implying conclusions not explicitly stated in the sources. If you are saying it doesn't imply anything relevant then at least it's not WP:SYNTH. Heptor (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining that one to me. Perhaps it is just pure WP:NPOV then. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  Looks like motivated reasoning to me, but what do I know. Heptor (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  Hmmm yes, perhaps you know about confirmation bias? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• No - you can't use material that doesn't deal with the MH17 shootdown to try to create a case that somehow this is all Ukraine's fault. You probably need to declare your pretty obvious WP:COI here and stop editing this article, before you just get blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• No. Why this is relevant? Sources do not say why this is relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  In the version I proposed, the bombings are mentioned just prior to the SAM deployments, e.g. "The rebel headquarters in Luhansk were bombed .. on 3 June 2014, ... On 14 June, a Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 military airlifter was shot down". Clearly the bombings and the SAM deployments are casually connected, and both are relevant in a comprehensive treatment of the topic. Heptor (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• No. I have been watching this whole thing pan out. I can't help thinking Heptor is trying way to hard to stretch the available references to his particular (rather unsupportable) point of view. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  That the rebels had SAMs because of the UAF bombs? Heptor (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The "rebels" had SAMs not because UAF bombed them, but because Russian government gave them SAMs, along with other equipment and salary. Look, you are trying to make a classic WP:SYN here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand how it is possible not to make a casual connection between the UAF bombing raids and the rebel SAM deployments. Many sources that are used in the article mention them together. The connection is so obvious that there is no need to state it explicitly, both in the sources and in the article Heptor (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Probably yes, but not in this form. The attacks of the Ukrainian air force on rebel territory are relevant to the shootdown of MH17 (as well as several Ukrainian air force AN-26 and SU-25 aircraft). However, suggested sourcing is from at the time press reporting on the attack, and not from later sources covering MH17. I would suggest this book, page 104 which mentions the bombing of Shinze by the Ukranians a couple of days prior and maybe: [23], [24]. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  The sources presented by Vici Vidi are well-selected. A book by a professor at Bowling Green State University, two relevant articles in a journal that specializes in Russian policy. I agree that his suggestion is an improvement. Heptor (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• No, like Andrewgprout I have been watching this whole thing pan out. Like him, I can't help thinking Heptor is trying way too hard to stretch the available references to his particular point of view. - which appears to be that Ukraine was somehow to blame for not "clearing its skies" of planes - it should have known what would happen. Apart from not being an emphasis that RS have given to this incident - it is morally bizarre to blame Ukraine or the airline for the incident. The only thing anyone is interested in is who shot down the plane and who supplied the weaponry - everything else might be 'extenuating circumstances' were the matter to ever go to trial. It might well be that some of this background belongs on the 'war' article, but it is borderline obscene to try to use it here.Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  I do disagree with the above assessment that the Ukrainian side is blameless. The ATC should have closed the airspace when there were SAMs operating in the area. Heptor (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  Contributory negligence? Like when a women gets raped, but is deemed partly to blame for wearing a dress that was too easy to take off? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  More like a kindergarden teacher sending kids to play in the traffic, maybe?.. Heptor (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  The kids are used to safely crossing the road, using the zebra crossing, when the traffic's all doing 20 mph. Somebody forgot to tell the teacher there would be a driver-less out-of-control juggernaut, hurtling down the road at 80 mph? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  But they knew. The SAMs were all over the news. Even before SAMs were reported in Donbas, they knew that Russians had SAMs in Rostov. Was it convenient for the UAF to have civilians in the air with them? Heptor (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  Please explain what you mean by "convenient for the UAF to have civilians in the air with them". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  The SAM crews had to be more careful with the civilians in the air, obviously. Heptor (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  The Ukrainians were deliberately using them as unwitting human shields? The rebel SAM crews - the ones who shot down the airliner? You can provide WP:RS source(s) which say this? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say deliberately, and at any rate this is speculative. We cannot know what they were thinking at UkSATSE. We do know that they kept the airspace open long after they knew that SAMs were operating in the area. Based on this, I do disagree with yours and Pincrete's assessment that they are blameless in the disaster. Heptor (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  PS: if you are unconvinced about the extreme danger posed to the civilian aviation by SAMs, please consider checking our list of airliner shootdown incidents, including Iran Air Flight 655, Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 Heptor (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure, the Ukrainian government shares some responsibility, and it was described in sources. However, this page already includes a large paragraph about it (starting from "Ukraine imposed restrictions to air traffic in the airspace of Donetsk Oblast..."). No need to expand. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, and I think that this responsibility is severely understated in the article. Even the section mentioned above is severely watered down. The article seems to follow an over-simplified and tabloidized narrative that Russians are the bad guys and Ukrainians are the blameless victims. The reality is more nuanced, and so should be the article. The UAF use of the airspace to attack the rebels is relevant and should be mentioned in the article, even though it doesn't fit in the narrative. Please also consider the argument by Oliver Boyd-Barrett of Bowling Green State University, that MH17 had been used as atrocity propaganda[25]. Heptor (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• No WP:FRINGE. Anyone convinced that Professor Boyd-Barrett is a reliable source may wish to examine this interview where he proclaims that Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is fake news. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  This RfC is not about using Professor Boyd-Barrett as a reliable source. Heptor (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  By all means open one. I wouldn't touch Boyd-Barrett with a bargepole. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  If he's not a reliable source, why would we use his books or articles? --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  That's just not the topic of the RfC. His research appears to be fringe, as described by RaiderAspect. I'm not sure if he should be mentioned in the article, but if he is, care should be taken not to present the his view alongside the established consensus as though his views are opposing but still equal. If included, his views need to be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. However, Martinevans123's draconian hesitance to approach him doesn't seem to have support in the policy. May I direct the attention of the editors back to this RfC? Heptor (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  I wholly agree that "... care should be taken not to present the his view alongside the established consensus as though his views are opposing but still equal." Although I'm not convinced his view should be presented at all. I certainly never claimed by view was supported by policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  @RaiderAspect: The sources for the Ukrainian bombings are articles in CNN[26], Radio Free Europe[27], BBC[28], USA Today[29], Institute of Modern Russia[30], The Interpreter Magazine[31]. Everyone agrees that this happened. I tried to get this into the article, but got reverted. The justifications I got was that it is either not relevant or that it is "creat[ing] a case that somehow this is all Ukraine's fault". I argue that these bombings are key to understanding the situation, in particular to why the rebel forces were deploying SAMs in the area. Heptor (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Many of these sources do NOT verify "Ukranian bombing", they simply verify someone bombing eg, BBC says The rebels blamed the attack on Ukraine's air force - a claim denied by Ukrainian sources. The BBC also says Russia ... denies arming and facilitating the pro-Russian rebels., so the Russians weren't even supplying arms, let alone troops to operate the missile launcher, nor leaders, nor sophisticated missiles if we are to believe Russia! I wonder why editors here (and the West in general) might be a little sceptical about Russian claims! Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Some of those sources obviously don't put much faith in the Ukrainian denial. Citing the CNN article, "But a CNN investigation in Luhansk has found clear evidence that whatever detonations hit the building and the adjoining park came from the air. [...] It's thought to be the first time that civilians have been killed or injured in an attack by the Ukrainian air force since [...]". If you don't believe the Russian/rebel claims here, what exactly do you believe? That it was some kind of false flag operation by Russia, while, at the same time, the Ukrainian Airforce were flying in the area to conduct training exercises? Or is there some other explanations offered by Ukrainian side that I am not aware of? Heptor (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not claim that the sources supported the Ukr govt claims, merely that they did not verify Rus/rebel claims. The whole background is to some extent muddled by the fog of conflict - but one side was in its own country and another was trying to destabilise its neighbour. One side shot down a civilian plane, the other didn't! Accidentally probably, but so what? Pincrete (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The fog of war certainly goes both ways. In the case of the bombing of the Luhansk state administration building, the Ukr side claimed that the explosion came from inside the building. The above-cited RFERL article is titled "Despite Denials, All Evidence For Deadly Explosion Points To Kyiv". The sources pretty much dismiss the Ukrainian claim. So what? So the Ukrainian govt sent a civilian airplane into a war zone. I don't get how you can feel so cavalier about this. Heptor (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• No, as SYNTH: the purpose of the addition is to suggest a connection not made by the sources. --JBL (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  What connection, explicitly? Heptor (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Explicitly, between the UAF bombing and the destruction of MAL-17. --JBL (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  In the sense that the SAM deployments were because of the UAF bombings? The connection between the SAM and the destruction of MH17 is rather well established in the literature, isn't it? Heptor (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  So the logical chain of causation goes something like this: "There's some inevitable outcome that means "deployment of a SAM → shooting down an airliner". And because of this, previous UAF bombings must have been in some way "to blame"."? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  No, "deployment of a SAM → shooting down an airliner" wasn't inevitable. The Ukrainians were responsible for the air traffic control, and they shouldn't have sent MH17 into the war zone. That's pretty much what the rebels were saying all along, and it's mostly absent from the article. Heptor (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Who did what was officially investigated and reported. I made a few changes in the lead to make it more clear. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Now you are trying to [WP:synth]] that the rebels shot mh17 on purpose or something. Heptor (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

How is that? I did not include such assertion. But as matter of fact, we do not really know who gave the order to shoot down the plane, and what was their motivation.My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, you and apparently most other editors seem to operate on an assertion that there was, in fact, an order to shoot down MH17--that is that it was shot down on purpose. I don't understand why, and this is the main reason why I have been so, well, persistent. Most sources tend to suggest that this shootdown was probably an operator error. Consider for example this Reuter blog. If the SAM was operated by the local rebels, it could have been amateurs with no formal training. Heptor (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

According to official investigation, the Buk was operated by military personnel from Russian 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, not by "rebels". It had to be operated by professionals because the Buk is not just a "launcher", but a sophisticated missile system that allows to distinguish the type of the target plane (and as our page tells, to counter cruise missiles, smart bombs, fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles). Why they did it? The prevailing version is that they thought it was an Ukrainian military plane. But no one knows for sure; this is pure speculation. Obviously, the team of the Buk just followed an order by their commanders. But we do not even know the "chain of command". My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: You seem to put a lot of faith in the Buk m1's ability to distinguish whatever flies into its radar. You may want to consider checking for example this interview of Steve Zaloga, an expert on missile systems at the Teal Group, in MIT technology review: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/529156/how-can-a-civilian-plane-accidentally-be-shot-down/. Citing, The missile operators sit inside a very cramped launch vehicle looking at a basic radar screen that shows the various objects the system is tracking. But without the larger network, that information has very little in the way of context. That explains why its operators may not have had enough information to distinguish the civilian airliner from a military threat. [...] Pietrucha says that the Buk variant that is likely to have been operated by the rebels might have been especially unable to distinguish between civilian and military air traffic because [...]. Also, this is not the only time a civilian aircraft was shot down by accident. There was Iran_Air_Flight_655 and Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812. another shootdown literally happened this week. One never knows of course, it could be that someone in the chain of command had a sick urge to become a mass murderer. But save for that, they had no discernible motivation to kill all those people, did they? Is there some other reason to think that it wasn't a technical error? Heptor (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding content about X to a section called "Background" in an article about Y is by its very nature suggesting a connection between X and Y. Unless there is a source that ties the UAF bombing to the destruction of MAL-17 directly, it is synthesis to add content that suggests that the two are connected. Not really sure why you're pretending not to understand something so straightforward. --JBL (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not usually this pedantically restrictive. For example, Iran Air Flight 655 mentions the Iraqi Air Force attack on a U.S. Navy frigate which happened a year prior. In Korean Air Lines Flight 007, the shootdown section details the state of the cold war at the time, including the military hierarchy of the Soviet Union. A more distant example, Sinking of the RMS Titanic mentions the fuel consumption of its engines, and it has (of course) a whole paragraph on the luxurity of its passenger accommodations. Heptor (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I hardly think that the Sinking of the RMS Titanic is comparable with the shooting down of MH17. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If you find on other pages that other editors have violated WP:SYNTH, I hope you will endeavor to correct the problem (in accordance with our conduct policies); but such problems don't have salience for this article. --JBL (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• No. Majority of RSs do not make any connection on this. Attempts to do this in article are, at best, some combination of SYNTH and UNDUE. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. User:Heptor this RfC has now been open for 11 days. I wonder do see any kind of pattern emerging in the responses? How long do you intend for this RfC to be kept open? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  I get your point, by all means. Still think the focus on the supplier of the SAM is weird. Considering that some editors here admitted to hold strong personal opinions on moral responsibility, a thorough discussion was due. Most sources I've seen tend to suggest that it was probably the rebels who fired the shot, likely by mistake. And having an expansive background section isn't a sin. The title of the section implies that it's a general description of the situation, not that everything there is directly related to the outcome. Heptor (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  Heptor, my questions were not rhetorical. Please stop banging that drum for a moment and just answer. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  I did refer to this discussion in the past tense, so.. Heptor (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying. Personally, I'm in no hurry to see this discussion closed. I think about two weeks is a standard time for an RfC like this? But I think we all know the likely outcome by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  It was admittedly quite unproductive. Both in terms of changing the article and in terms of improved understanding between the editors. Coincidentally, it looks like another civilian airliner was just shot down while traveling in a war zone. Heptor (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• No. The insinuation that MH17 flew into somebody's shooting range represents a fringe viewpoint. Geogene (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Antonov shootdown

I don't understand why this block of text about an Antonov shootdown [32] was sandwiched into text about the MH17 shootdown. It seemed likely to confuse people there, so I reverted it. I disagree with the edit summary that it is "crucial" but it might or might not have a place elsewhere in the article. Secondary sourcing would be helpful in determining whether it has WP:WEIGHT. Geogene (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene: It was added because referenced articles had information from "unnamed intelligence sources" and SBU, whose bias in some matters is questionable. The position of this block is very crucial when there are allegations like "Evidence of Separatists' Possession of Buk System Before Downing of MH17" and "On Monday in the Luhansk region, militia also shot down the An-26." in different parts of the reference material. The source is the Dutch Review Committee on the Intelligence and Security Services who in their report cite the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service. In their report the following statements are made: "According to the MIVD, the wreckage and the eyewitnesses supported the fact that the aircraft [An-26] was shot out of the air by a MANPADS from Ukrainian territory.", "The information received from the MIVD does not point to the use of a powerful air defence system.", "On 16 July, the AIVD received a report from a reliable source that stated that there was no information that indicated that the Separatists possessed a medium-range SAM system. This comment was made in view of the circumstances related to the Ukrainian armed forces’ Antonov being shot down on 14 July 2014 in Eastern Ukraine. The AIVD did not have any information that indicated that the Separatists possessed an operational, powerful anti-aircraft system such as a Buk system [...]" I don't see the text as confusing, however, if you could tell me what is confusing to you, then I can make the necessary corrections. Also, finding a second easily accessible and credible source for this information is difficult due to this being a politically incendiary topic. Ehirs (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Geogene here, noy only is it confusing to go off at a tangent about the shooting down of a completely different aircraft, it's almost cetainly WP:OR to seek to imply ANYTHING from a completely different incident.Pincrete (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus

It looks like there is a consensus on this page to remove anything that would suggest that Ukraine could be responsible for this disaster. For the sake of the record, I'd like to state that this recent addition by Arturolorioli should remain in the article, despite the objections and reverts by Ahunt and MilborneOne. Heptor (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like WP:OR and WP:TE. Geogene (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

My concern wasn't that it shouldn't be in the article, just that it should be further down, which Arturolorioli agreed with. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ahunt:. In this case I agree as well. Heptor (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Heptor, thanks for the post. The edit does *not* suggest in any way that Ukraine could be responsible for the disaster. It is a fully not-POV, neutral statement about the availability of the weapon in the area. That's all. The section about the international investigations provides more than ample factual items to address the responsibility issue. Kindest regards --Arturolorioli (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

This makes no difference. But good luck. Heptor (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Why does it matter that both countries have Buks? Geogene (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is true that the Ukr Buks are different. The info is only neutral/non-OR if other sources make the argument that both countries possess Buks in this context - and what the relevance of that info is. Otherwise, it looks an awful lot like an attempt to give credibility to the possibility that Ukr could have been the guilty party - without actually exploring whether that is actually credible/possible. It is WP:OR imo as it is currently used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs)

In the news nomination

--MrClog (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Radar integration

I want to get straight the technical details about Buk's ability to differentiate between aircraft. There seems some level of disagreement in the sources. Buk can be integrated with other air defence systems, which increases its detection capabilities, including the capability to distinguish between civilian and military aircraft. Technology review says that "The [air defence] system has to be tied into the national air traffic control system to use that information [about aircraft transponders] effectively". They do not seem to say that Buk ha no ability to identify civilian planes without it, only that it becomes very difficult. Business Insider says something similar, "unless linked to other weapons or an air traffic control system, [Buk systems] are almost incapable of telling the difference between military and civilian aircraft". This article in Washington Post seem to suggest that a highly trained operator would be able to distinguish between civilian and military most of the times (which they did for a while, until they didn't).. So it seems a bit too assertive to suggest, as is presently stated in the article, that "such systems [...] have no capacity to distinguish between military and civilian airplanes" when operated outside national networks, or, on the opposite end, that they can safely ignore civilian traffic when connected to such systems. I would suggest that the sentence in question should be phrased more defensively. Heptor (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is an article in The Aviationist, which states that "provided the operators are trained enough, they’ll be able to distinguish between a Ukrainian transport plane and a large airliner. If not, they will simply shoot". See also this quora discussion, although not a reliable source. The statement that "Buk has no ability to identify civilian aircraft" is untrue, and should be fixed. Heptor (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I made the change and didn't get reverted, so these posts now appear almost gratuitous. Anyway, if the edit was somehow incorrect, then I hope to hear about it on the talk page. Thanks. Heptor (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: about this. I couldn't find a definite answer to the question that you asked. The rebels had claimed to have captured a BUK sam from the Ukrainian army. If true, it would apparently mean more than one BUK involved in the conflict. There were shootdowns of Ukrainian military aircraft that were consistent with a BUK system: An-26 on July 14th, Su-25 on July 16th, Su-25 on August 29. The Ukr govt say that Russians did it, the rebels say they did it themselves. For now I'm pretty much giving up finding out what actually happened. Heptor (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Quote mining and possible lying by omission

• MH17#Background: <...> On 14 July 2014, a Ukrainian Air Force An-26 transport airplane flying at 6,500 m (21,300 ft) was shot down. The militia reportedly claimed via social media that a Buk missile launcher had been used to bring down the aircraft.
  • Without quote mining: The militia reportedly claimed via social media that one of the captured and repaired a few weeks earlier Buk missile launchers had been used to bring down the aircraft. The seizure by militia of the Buk missile launchers from the military unit A-1402 of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was also reported by the media on June 29.
  • Commentary: I believe that it is very important to clarify whose Buk missile launchers were mentioned in the alleged reports of the militia since this source is used in the article.
• MH17#Cause of the crash: <...> On 19 July 2014, Vitaly Nayda, the chief of the Counter Intelligence Department of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told a news conference... According to Nayda, a Buk launcher used in the shootdown was moved back into Russia the night after the attack.
  • Without quote mining: According to Nayda, three Buk missile launchers were moved back into Russia the night after the attack, including one which was used in the shootdown.
  • Commentary: Attached official video has the time stamp when Nayda was speaking about three missile launchers moved back to Russia the night after the attack.
• MH17#Background: <...> On 16 July, a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-25 close air support aircraft was also shot down.
  • Without quote mining: On 16 July, two Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-25 close air support aircrafts were shot at. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• To be continued.

References

This makes sense to me, if the sources say what you say they say. Heptor (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

They do.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

So did a Buk launcher cross the border at 2 a.m. at night on 18 July (Ukraine said)? Or "early in the morning" it only passed Luhansk in Ukraine (JIT)?

To avoid inaccurate wording please help me understand the following point.

• Vitaly Nayda, the head of counterintelligence for the Ukrainian Security Service: Buk missile launcher with three missiles on it crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border at 2 a.m. local time (deep night) on 18 July. (Video of press conference: video in Ukrainian [33] and English [34]; report in English: [35])
• JIT: in Luhansk (Ukraine) in early morning (bright morning in the video) a video was made of the Volvo truck carrying Buk Telar... "with three missiles on the installation"... From there the transport moved to the Russian border (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BtBEV_rAd0&t=2529)

What did I miss? --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the "2 a.m." part is mentioned by Nayda when talking about the other BUKs ordered to be withdrawn from the Ukrainian territory in the aftermath of the event, and the part of the JIT report you've selected is about the system directly involved in the shoot-down. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: No, Nayda clearly said that two Buk missile launchers (one of them had 4 missiles while another had 3 missiles on the installation) crossed Ukrainian-Russian border at 2 a.m. on 18 July and moved back into Russia. Another Buk launcher according to Nayda crossed the border at 4 a.m. on 18 July (and had 4 missiles on the installation). Moreover Nayda and JIT demonstrates identical imagery of the Buk launcher in Luhansk with 3 missiles on the installation as you can see in those videos with time stamps.

Official report in English:

According to Mr. Nayda, Ukraine’s Security Service has photo materials proving that two “BUK-M1” missile systems crossed the border from Ukraine into Russia at 2:00 AM on 18 July 2014, the day after the act of terrorism took place. One of them had a full set of 4 missiles, the other – 3 missiles.

--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't heavily dug into this story, but I'd say the most likely scenario is that it is just a mistake on the Ukrainian intelligence side - after all, there's a two-year gap between the Nayda's speech and the JIT report. Or, alternatively, there were two BUKs with the load of three missiles: one directly involved in the shot-down and the other with one missile offloaded for some reason (could have been stolen, for example), which crossed the border at different times. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I think the editors of this article should dig a bit into this story in order, as I said, to avoid inaccurate wording 'cause Vitaly Nayda, the chief of counterintelligence for the Ukrainian Security Service, clearly said at a news conference that photo of a Buk launcher with three missiles which JIT used in their report is the "indisputable evidence". Does that mean that JIT was wrong? Where can we find any explanation for this fact? --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am not actively editing this article, I am just suggesting a reason for the inconsistency. I think it is very unlikely that the JIT report, which came out two years after the incident, is wrong and the 2014 Ukrainian intelligence briefing is not, since the amounts of work and fact-checking procedures put in these are incomparable. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

So what about the other two Buk launchers moved back to Russia? Is it again a "mistake" of the Ukrainian Security Service? What did JIT or maybe Bellingcat say about those two Buk launchers with a full set of 4 missiles moved back into Russia on 18 July? We should find appropriate sources I believe but unfortunately after hours of searching I failed to find one. Maybe you can help.--Александр Мотин (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be straying into original research. It isn't our job as Wikipedia editors to investigate what happened to MH17 or track movements of equipment. We're a tertiary source that summaries secondary sources. Stickee (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stickee: It doesn't. Well, tell me then what to do with two different timings and different quantity of the moved Buk launchers and why Ukrainian timings are not mentioned in the article to comply NPOV? --Александр Мотин (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

For all we know, there might actually have been 2 Buks moved that night — the JIT is only concerned with the one used to shoot down the plane. But that's irrelevant - it's all OR anyway. Stickee (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No it is not WP:OR because it is an official statement made at a news conference by Security Service official.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no criticism of a Dutch-led investigation by Malaysian, Dutch etc. authorities and officials?

It seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV at least. What do you think? --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not obligated to give credence to the Russian propaganda.--Aristophile (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This lies in the domain of criminology, not politics, therefore the report's conclusions are not a matter of opinion, but rather a scientific fact. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Which, needless to say, is fruitless. However, if you find some reliable sources criticizing the official MH17 investigation, I wouldn't object mentioning them in the article. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If this criticism is even worth mentioning, the proper context for it should be given. Mahathir Mohamad's worldview is a strange one, and seems to be based on his hatred of Europeans and the United States [36], [37]. Geogene (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, it doesn't matter what just some people think of him. --Александр Мотин (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Obviously it does matter, because secondary sources pointed that out. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe any WP rule can settle this?--Александр Мотин (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE Geogene (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship" So what of this exactly?--Александр Мотин (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, @Александр Мотин: this [38] is now looking like a POV-push. Malaysia was involved in the JIT and this sentiment is not shared by their own prosecutor [39]. Geogene (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Geogene. It is not. It is just WP:NPOV and WP:CRIT requirement.--Александр Мотин (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. You didn't even attempt to address the point. Geogene (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

And there's also this, about the families of MH17 victims asking the Prime Minister to please stop doubt-mongering and making statements that are "contrary to the truth" [40]. Geogene (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

And here's a victim's relative calling Mahathir’s remarks "bizarre and too crazy for words" [41]. And meanwhile, Mahathir is no longer the Prime Minister of Malaysia, and there's speculation that the new government has a more mainstream perspective [42]. Geogene (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

So what? If someone does not like him, what does this have to do with his position and his opinion? --Александр Мотин (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is whether his opinion should be included at all, because it's so strange compared to the mainstream viewpoint. The second issue is that if it is included, the reliably sourced criticism of his views should be included as well. Geogene (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene: 1. Does this publication ("Asia Times examines in two parts why Malaysia’s premier and others doubt a Dutch-led probe’s finding that Russia shot down flight MH17") in two parts by Asia Times look good for you? If not, why not? 2. What WP rule proves your statement about "reliably sourced criticism of his views" while he is just cited in an appropriate section of non WP:BIO article?--Александр Мотин (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

1. No, because part of it is pro-fringe. There's nothing mysterious about what happened to MH17, and pretending otherwise is WP:FALSEBALANCE. 2. WP:NPOV. Geogene (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene: 1. First, where was it stated that Mahathir said "it is mysterous", whatever you mean by that? 2. Why are there sections like "British ISC report", "Civil cases" or "Russian media coverage" but you tell me that "Criticism" subsection violates NPOV despite the availability of RS? --Александр Мотин (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Because NPOV is about balancing views in accordance with their weight. This is a fringe viewpoint. Stickee (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A brief mention (sentence or two) about the Malaysian critics is all that is justified by the level of coverage. Demanding a whole section makes no more sense that demanding an "allegation of sexual misbehaviour" section on the Putin article - simply because Clinton and Trump both have one. Pincrete (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I cannot agree because it's not clear what rule authorized you to determine editing policy in this way although I have already provided all the necessary links to the WP rules and recommendations (WP:NPOV, WP:CRIT). --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to include the official Malaysian reaction on the investigation in the article. However, such phrases as "was outraged" should be avoided, in my opinion. It should be worded much more semantically neutral, e.g. "expressed dissatisfaction" or "According to the prime minister of Malaysia, [...]". -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: I agree to rephrase it in more consensual terms since you have expressed such concerns.--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Please explain why reactions of the head of Malaysia cannot be posted in the relevant section "Reactions"? Why you keep deleting this reaction of the Malaysian Prime Minister? Why are you reacting so strongly to the Malaysian reactions while other reactions are OK for you? --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Two editors have removed that text (inc me once), other editors have expressed the view that the text is disproportionate - this is one individual who has taken a somewhat maverick position - and a fairly bizarre one since few incidents can have had more 'proofs' in the public domain. Certainly proofs against Russia, if not against the named individuals. It is up to you establish agreement as to what text should be inserted. I would personally support a neutrally phrased sentence or two recording his views. Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Misuse of primary sources

Александр Мотин, you are using primary sources (mainly DSB report), to write your own opinion piece, eg "Subsequently, it became known about the possible fabrication of the circumstances of this aviation incident. So the report of the Dutch Safety Board concluded that in response to its additional questions the Ukrainian authorities refuted some of their own initial statements". The relevant page of the DSB report says NONE of this, it's pure WP:OR, no mention of fabrication or of refutation. Also, it is screamingly obvious that English is not your first language. I am barely able to work out what the intended meaning of much of this except is it's obviously accusing someone of fabrication, which DSB does not do on that page. Pincrete (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think your accusations are true. Obviuosly it is written "possible fabrication". Well, a term "fabrication" is used when you speak about "evidence" and when it subsequently revealed as false evidence. That is why it is called as "possible fabricated" according to WP:NPOV. Next, DSB said that when Ukrainian authorities were questioned about that incident they actually "refuted" their initial statements arising from the disclosed evidence. Maybe Nicholas Velasquez would like to contribute to this discussion as I still don't agree with your accusations. --Александр Мотин (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's apparent there is a lack of consensus for the insertion of this section, especially in regardings to POV and WP:BALASP. There is already comment in the article for this, at the end of the section "Findings of the joint investigation team (JIT)". Stickee (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stickee: ...But u didn't say why there should be no criticism in the article. Please explain your position. --Александр Мотин (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Replied above. Stickee (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Александр Мотин, 'fabrication' means 'making'. In the context of evidence, it means 'faking', ie deliberate construction of a false narrative - deliberate lying. The DSB says that Ukr may have been wrong, or initially wrong in some of its assessments, and does not understand the full picture on other Ukr assessments - it does not come within 1000 miles of claiming 'faking' or even possible 'faking'. That is your belief only and is pure WP:SYNTH.

The word 'refute' is not used anywhere in the DSB report, nor does it make much sense, it suggests they proved themselves wrong. Again the DSB does not even imply this. Being wrong or unclear or incomplete in an assessment, does not mean one has 'refuted' anything and - more importantly - you, not DSB are claiming this. I'm sorry to say this, but nothing about your text or answer suggests that your standard of English is good enough to be interpeting the English sources here, nor that you understand the difference between arguing your own beliefs and faithfully summarising sources. I intend to remove the offending text and look at how the DSB rteport is used elsewhere. Pincrete (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I can't agree with you because if we are talking about false evidence as it was, the verb for this is "to falsify" [43] And words "falsification" and "fabrication" have similar meaning being synonymous. [44] I would like to emphasize that in order to comply NPOV, I used a term "possible fabrication" but not just "fabrication" as you said accusing me. And according to MOS:QUOTE "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words." If you want we can use a "possible falsification" term instead. Deal? --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Initially wrong, inadvertently incorrect, incomplete - or numerous other possible reasons for the gaps/discrepancies which DSB notes (it concludes nothing about them) are simply not 'fabrications'. You are trying to say or imply that DSB says something which it clearly does not say. Pincrete (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Please provide your wording then because you keep deleting the whole text fragment and preventing me to add at least relevant and reliable information under an obscure pretext (like here [45]).--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think THIS page of the DSB is important - nor whether this is an apt use of a primary source. I am clear that it doesn't say what you seem to want it to say. Pincrete (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Using primary sources

OK, the next use I found of recently added DSB report material was:

"In the months prior to 17 July, reports also circulated in the media on the presence of weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, in the hands of the armed groups that were fighting the Ukrainian government in the eastern part of Ukraine. On 26 May a spokesperson of the Ukrainian Armed Forces revealed in the media that a surface-to-air missile systems that was being used by armed groups near Donetsk airport had been destroyed from a helicopter by the Ukrainian army. On 6 June 2014 The International New York Times reported that surface-to-air missiles had been seized from military bases. On 11 June the newspaper Argumenty nedeli reported that a Buk-M1 missile launcher had been present in an area under the armed groups' control. In late June armed groups seized the Ukrainian military base A-1402 according to reports in the media. As a result, the armed groups had also been able to acquire a Buk system. The Ukrainian authorities declared in the media that this system was not operational." from "DSB Final Report" pp 187–188

Every word of this (with minor re-ordering and 'pruning'), turns out to be copy-paste, and therefore probable COPYVIO. Re-phrasing would not be especially difficult, but before doing so, it seems apt to ask what the proper limits of use of this primary source are. The immediate reason for asking is that this is a nearly 300 page, very balanced document and it isn't difficult to find text within it that states/suggests that Ukr did/could/should have known what weaponry was/could have been in the hands of rebels (and thus implicitly should have closed its airspace). Close by, one finds text that says that it wasn't possible for anyone to know with any certainty what weapons rebels possessed or were operational. The mere act of selecting which of these aspects to quote and/or highlight is probably WP:OR.

So, what are the limits of the use of the DSB report. I'm disinclined to look at every recent addition for accuracy and COPYVIO if we shouldn't be using the source in this manner at all.Pincrete (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Recently you said that no one can use his own words because DSB report doesn't have them. Please, make up your mind, Pincrete! --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The requirement to paraphrase - use one's own words - (except for brief quotes), does not mean one can write anything one wants, even if it doesn't accurately reflect sources or makes little sense in English. Pincrete (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: So why you delete the whole text fragment with DSB findings instead of telling me what exact word you want to be paraphrased? An example here [46]--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think THIS page of the DSB is important - nor whether this is an apt use of a primary source. I am clear that the text in the PREVIOUS section does not say what you seem to think it says, which is why I removed THAT text. Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Because that page of DSB report gives summarized information about aviation incidents which are described in that text section. And I am perplexed that you seem to be trying to censor information about aviation incidents from DSB report. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't removed THIS text, nor any part of it, so can hardly be said to have censored anything. I question whether the primary source is the most apt and whether the previous text wasn't better phrased and ordered, but will 'go with the flow' on those.Pincrete (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no support?

An editor recently removed a section which provided some responses from the Malaysian PM to the investigation. The reason given for removal was that it had no support. What is this referring to? The article currently contains little information about the Malaysian government's views on the investigation. The section seemed fine to me and I would not support removal. Burrobert (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is over 11,000 words, so there is space for it. His is a minority opinion and it shouldn't be given excessive prominence, but not mentioning it at all seems tendentious. Heptor (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wait, he is mentioned, in the section Findings of the joint investigation team (JIT) (I searched for Mohamad earlier). It is not very well structured though. Perhaps this article could be organized better by having a section titled "Official Russian position", "Response by persons accused by the JIT". Right now, the Russian response is hidden in Counties. It should be given more prominence. Heptor (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Breaking up article POVs, such as by creating Criticism sections, is discouraged. Geogene (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's sometimes permissible, especially in political articles. Articles covering trials often have it in practice, because the subject matter is intrinsically adversarial. For example O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Defense_case, Trial_of_George_Zimmerman#Defense's_case, Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik#Defendant's_testimony. IMHO, in this case the accounts of the accused parties are so different from that of the prosecution that it's more straightforward to organize them in a separate section. Heptor (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Me and Nicholas Velasquez above also supported Malaysian reactions to be added. As it was said it complies with WP:NPOV and WP:CRIT rules and recommendations. While POV-pushing not to mention this seems to be possible bias. --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be biased against weird minority viewpoints. That's what WP:NPOV actually means. Including a huge block of text with the former prime ministers' unchallenged and controversial remarks was a POV push. And, let's be clear on this: not only did you want to include them, you wanted to give those views prominence in their own dedicated section, and you also denied that any of criticism of his remarks should be mentioned at all. Geogene (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene: Just take a look at the publications you provided above : [47][48][49][50] It means that Malaysian PM position is very widely discussed all over the world. That is why that PM's position is no less important than the other reactions of other world leaders. This also means that Malaysian reactions have sufficient encyclopedic value.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You opposed all of these sources, until it became clear that consensus was against inclusion. Now you've changed your mind? Geogene (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Opposed? I said "so what?" --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No one AFAIK - or very few people here - support Александр Мотин's proposed text and BTW he's former PM now. I believe it justifies a sentence or two neutrally phrased, though I'm not sure where. Also BTW, the country is called the Netherlands - calling it Holland is a bit like calling the UK, 'England'. Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Please just don't try to give the impression that you represent a clear majority here. You don't even have a majority at all.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not supporting the previously proposed version due to the phraseology problems mentioned above. However, I see no reason to oppose the addition of that passage in the rephrased form to the article, since throwing out neutrally phrased and properly sourced official statements would go against the fundamentals of Wikipedia. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said above I share your concerns about the most neutral wordings and I agree to rephrase them.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The 'reactions' section is largely reactions to the shootdown, and subsequent memorials. The proposed Malaysian ex-PM text is largely a response to enquiries. The two would not sit very comfortably together and the inclusion of this guy's negative reaction to the enquiries, opens up the prospect of hugely more numerous positive reactions. I'm not opposed to a sentence or two from Mohama, but more than that would inevitably invite 'balancing' endorsements of the enquiries or criticism of Mohama's position. Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware there already is such a statement from him, at the end of the finding of the JIT section? Stickee (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Stickee, if the question was addressed to me, I was aware that it was mentioned but hadn't looked at it today. Having done so, I don't see any need to add to that text and it is probably in the best place, No content, as opposed to rhetoric is missing IMO. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"Background" section

@Heptor: [51] then there should be relevant subsections because the content of "Background" section is narrated in chronological order, isn't it? BTW there are not only aviation incidents in that section and Russian/Ukrainian response as you said. For example, the article Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation has the same "Background" section and the content of that section is narrated in chronological order. Please provide an example where the content of "Background" section isn't narrated in chronological order. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? There isn't any content policy for the background section to be in the order you suggested. Just to pick an article at random, the background section of RMS_Titanic isn't written in a chronological order. In case of this article, it is more natural to group it by the type of events. Heptor (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Why then the seizure of a Buk missile launcher grouped with aviation incidents in a chronological order? --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Military action first, then civilian measures, and then the An-26 overflight..? I don't think it's a bad organization for this section. Chronological organization seems rather generic in comparison... Heptor (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, let's try to group aviation incidents per your conclusion and then the rest.--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, now it states that Ukraine should have closed the airspace upon learning that BUK SAMs were deployed. Personally I don't disagree, but I don't think you should state that in Wikipedia's voice without providing sources. If there are notable organizations who criticized Ukraine for that, then it should be mentioned. Otherwise, this is original research and should be published elsewhere. The passage in question: Ukraine imposed restrictions in the airspace of Donetsk Oblast, but did not close it for overflights even though the Russian news agencies reported that insurgents had obtained a Buk missile system after having taken control of a Ukrainian military unit A-1402. Heptor (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

'Even though' is original research? It does't say that Ukraine should have closed their airspace. But DSB does say that Ukraine 'didn't consider closing the airspace over the eastern part of Ukraine to civil aviation completely' --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

even though sortof implies that they should have. Again, I'm not saying that you are wrong and I appreciate your other contributions, but I don't think you have support from reliable sources for stating what you did. 22:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

OK. Let's divide it into two separate sentences to show you my good faith.--Александр Мотин (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Heptor: I think your idea not to follow a chronological order and group events by its type isn't too good... June, July, April, June, July... [52] --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can add subheaders? Heptor (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I changed wording to "Back in April" and now it looks good.--Александр Мотин (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is an improvement. Heptor (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, thank you for cooperation. I saw on your personal page that you speaks Russian very well. So it will be easy for you as well to check the provided sources in Russian and Ukrainian in order to achieve the most accurate and neutral wording.--Александр Мотин (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Александр Мотин: Sorry about the slow response! Yes, I will be happy to check the sources in Russian and maybe even Ukrainian if time permits. Cheers. Heptor (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Nicholas Velasquez: [53] Well, who exactly did state that, what is his source and what position does he have? It is said "according to Novaya Gazeta" but this citation belongs to an interviewed person. — "According to Novaya Gazeta, on the day of MH17 incident, a Ukrainian An-26 was scheduled to deliver paratroopers to the battle arena." Just CTRL+F this citation: «17 июля в зону АТО должен был вылететь транспортный Ан-26 с украинскими десантниками» and you will see.
• @Nicholas Velasquez: [54] "...while the Donetsk People's Republic claimed possession of such a system in a since-deleted tweet." Why this tweet is so important for you even though it is clearly said in the text and much better sourced that the militia seized that Buk launcher that day? → "In late June armed groups seized the Ukrainian military base A-1402 according to reports in the media. As a result, the armed groups had also been able to acquire a Buk system. The Ukrainian authorities declared in the media that this system was not operational." --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

References

I just want to clarify that the reversion of your edits in the "Background" section is due to severe over-trimming of properly sourced and actually important content, like the mentioning of the Russian media reports on capture of the BUK systems by the separatists and the "Novaya Gazeta" analytical piece, as well as the citation from it. However, some of the changes in the structure of the narrative you had made were nice, in my opinion, so if you want to restructure the section without actually removing the content, feel free to do it. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it looks pretty logical that anything written within a "Novaya Gazeta" article is "according to Novaya Gazeta". If you so desire, you may change it to "according to 'Novaya Gazeta', citing [the name of the interviewed person here]", however, removing the whole passage does not seem like a good idea in this case. As to the "tweet" part, there's just no reason to remove it, since it is an important addition and is properly sourced. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: Well here, I don't think you use right citation. The right citation is: "Я не могу раскрыть свой источник и доказать эту версию, поэтому говорю о ней как о гипотезе / I can't reveal my source and prove this version, so I speak of it as a hypothesis" and "У меня есть информация, которую я не могу подтвердить документально и источник которой я пока не могу назвать. / I have information that I can't confirm with a document and the source of which I can't name yet.". This version can be moved to "Conspiracy theories" I believe. What u think? And could you provide additional source to that person's statement please. --Александр Мотин (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem there was the phrasing: it was implied by your edits that the absence of the "documentary proof" is attributed to the paratroopers delivery, while in the article it is attributed to the alleged presence of spies on the Ukrainian air bases. Needless to say, there's a big difference. This is how it goes in the article: "У меня есть информация, которую я не могу подтвердить документально и источник которой я пока не могу назвать. Он утверждает, что в мае прошлого года СБУ пришла к выводу, что на украинских аэродромах действуют шпионы. // I have information, which I can not prove with documents, and a source, which I can not name. It says that last year, in May, SBU came to the conclusion that there were active spies on the Ukrainian airfields". What additional source you're requesting, exactly? -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 0:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As to the moving it to the "Conspiracy theories" section, I don't think it belongs there, since it lacks the spirit of absurdity. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 0:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: Do you agree that according to WP:REDFLAGS "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources"? --Александр Мотин (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I do, but I do not think we're dealing with an "exceptional claim" of any sort. I'd say it would fall under this definition, if the source was stating something like "the spies were there, just believe me"; however, the language of the article is not that strict. On the contrary, it is emphasized multiple times that the information is unofficial and lacks documentary proof, which is a regular situation by the media standards. For example, every other TASS article on latest Russian weaponry cites some "unnamed sources within the industry" or "within the military", but they are widely used as references on Wikipedia. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: "every other TASS article on latest Russian weaponry cites some "unnamed sources within the industry" or "within the military", but they are widely used as references on Wikipedia" But in this case this unnamed source is not cited by Novaya Gazeta but cited by some private person, ain't it? So my next question is: are u able to provide any journalist's statement (but not by an interviewed person) which cites that fact? --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Unnamed sources

@Александр Мотин: regarding this edit [55], there's no reason an RS can't cite unnamed sources. It's a common practice in journalism. Geogene (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems that WP:REDFLAG can settle this case: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources".--Александр Мотин (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

But why is this claim so exceptional? Maybe the rebels got wind of a troop delivery and wanted to shoot it down. That's a fairly normal for rebels in general, notwithstanding what people may think about this conflict in particular. Heptor (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I also don't understand why the claim is exceptional. That rebels had been trying to down Ukr military planes in the area is well established, the only thing that is remotely disputable is whether they knew about a specific plane with paratroopers on board, and the claim is attributed to a paper and journalist, albeit not to a named original source. Pincrete (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Although it's a timely question if this statement should be there or not, regardless of its exceptionalness. It insinuates exactly what I wrote above, that rebels somehow knew the An-26 schedule. This insinuation isn't present in the cited sources, so it could be a WP:synth violation. Heptor (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see anything exceptional or "redflag" for this passage. Stickee (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

USS Vincennes ?

Regarding this removal, which has been reinstated. How exactly is Iran Air Flight 655 and the USS Vincennes relevant to MH17? I accept the premise that America may have been a bit hypocritical in initially trying to bluff it's way out of the Iran incident 32 years ago, while joining those nations trying to hold Russia to account in 2014 over MH17. But how exactly is Flight 655 relevant to the killing of Dutch, Australian and Malaysian and British citizens in Ukranian territory? Does the level of coverage of this comparison justify inclusion since the US is not even a major player in any aspect of this incident. Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Reinstatement is actually partial, still, why is this relevant? No disrespect to US editors, but USA and US media are not central to everything on the planet. Pincrete (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A clear case of Whataboutism. And RuPOV.--Aristophile (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This mention of Iran Air Flight 655 does not shift focus away from MH17, nor is it an attempt to justify it. Both were immense tragedies. Concerns over US-centrism could be a valid reason to consider removing it however. Heptor (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

We can move it to Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Countries? Heptor (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I looked up the 4 "commentators" - turns all they're all American. I guess they like talking about themselves? Stickee (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Reading it again, this sentence doesn't come off as overly US-centric. The international media coverage of this incident is notable in its own right. As it stands, the US coverage is given a slightly undue weight, but hopefully this can be fixed by expanding the section, not by deleting sourced material. USA is singled out many times in the article, for example in Cause of the crash, "Soon after the crash both American and Ukrainian officials said that a 9M38 series surface-to-air missile strike was the most likely cause". Heptor (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"US coverage is given a slightly undue weight"? I don't agree or understand really. US sources may be widely used, but thst is almost inevitable on en.wp,, since USA is the most populous "English" country, and this is of international interest. But what is the distictive "US position" on this incident? Does it exist? Or are we really just discussing US media's "righteous indignation" when someone other than US is at fault? More important from our perspective, criticism of US media coverage is fairly marginal and doesn't impact on the bigger picture significantly. If the criticism was of Netherlands or one of the 'key' states, were more widespread and more specific (less "but you didn't say that when you were at fault ...."}, I could see a case for inclusion,Pincrete (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

SYNTH?

@Pincrete: What do you mean by this [56]? Why do you believe that this information about the true circumstances reported by DSB should be concealed? It seems to be WP:NPOV violation and lying by omission.

So why is, for instance, below mentioned fact in the article is not SYNTH then?

In an interview with Reuters on 23 July 2014, Alexander Khodakovsky, the commander of the pro-Russian Vostok Battalion, acknowledged that the separatists had an anti-aircraft missile of the type the Americans had said was used to shoot down the aircraft, and said that it could have been sent back to Russia to remove proof of its presence; he later retracted his comments, saying that he had been misquoted and stating that rebels never had a Buk.

@Pincrete: What is the difference between these facts then [57]? --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Later the Ukrainian authorities retracted some of their initial statements and reported to DSB that in fact Su-25 was shot down at an altitude of 6250 m and not necessarily by a Russian MiG-29 presenting another version according to which Su-25 could have been shot down with a Pantsir missile system from Russian territory.

References

The text - and an even worse earlier version that stated explicitly that Ukr was lying, as oposed to this one that simply implies lying - has already been removed by several editors, including myself, several times. Reasons were given above, sections were already in place to discuss this text, if you don't understand the reasons, ask for clarification. Reasons were also given at the ANI which you initiated at which you were fairly clearly told that you had to establish consensus for any text you wish to insert. The onus is on you to establish consensus to reinstate, this you have not even attempted to do, simply waited a day and then re-inserted your favoured conclusion. Your text barely makes sense - but please quote from the section of the DSB that leads you to think that the DSB (as opposed to yourself) " concluded that in response to its additional questions the Ukrainian authorities disproved some of their initial statements". If the DSB does not say that fairly explicitly, then your text is WP:SYNTH. There are no DSB conclusions on the cited page that come anywhere near the text you are supplying IMO. Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just re-read the relevant page of the DSB report, it is clear that everyone, including the DSB is unclear as to how and at what altitudes some earlier planes may have been shot down and that in some instances the DSB says there may have been incorrect assessments. The page does not even suggest that the DSB concluded anything about this unclear picture and specifically no dishonesty on the part of Ukr - which is what your text is doing its best to imply. Pincrete (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright if the problem is in wording I will correct it.--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Александр Мотин, no, you get agreement for the text on talk, then correct it. That was made clear at ANI. So far you have shown no ability to render this topic in a manner that accurately reflects the source, nor indicated why you think the content is important OTHER THAN as an opportunity to imply that DSB claims that Ukr was lying, which it does not.Pincrete (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You do not suggest any wording and keep deleting this fact because it seems that you just don't like it, meanwhile calling my edits "almost gibberish". I'd like you to be more constructive. So what is the difference between the aforementioned qouted facts in the article? --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The biggest difference is that this section isn't about the Khodakovsky text. If you think the Khodakovsky text is SYNTH, start a section to make your case, I try to resolutely avoid responding to "but what about … …" questions. They only serve to "muddy the waters", unless they are from newbie editors, who might be forgiven for not knowing how things move forward.

If the text I removed were 'a fact', there'd be no difficulty finding the words in the DSB report which corroborate that fact, You haven't found them because they don't exist IMO. However, this time I have rendered your text in a way that accurately reflects what DSB says, and is reasonably clear, grammatical English - though I don't see the point of the text, and suspect that implying Ukr lied is the whole point to you of the inserted text. Maybe Ukr did lie, I don't know, but I know DSB doesn't say or even imply that there was anything dishonest about Ukr's answers. Pincrete (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Many BUKs

If there were at least three BUKs in the rebel territory at the time of the shootdown., how important is it then that the particular BUK launcher that hit MH17 was transported to Donbass on the day before the shootdown? The phrasing in the second paragraph in the lead, "transported [..] on the day of the crash, fired [..] and returned", seems to insinuate a premeditated plan being executed. Sources seem to mostly suggest that it was an accident, in which case removing the BUKs was a (clumsy) attempt to cover it up. I think this sentence should be phrased less suggestively. Heptor (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources place emphasis on this, possibly because of the denial and coverup after the shoot down. It is evidence at the trial. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is there nothing said about Ukrainian military deserter (Evgeni Agapov) who pointed to the Ukr Su-25 flights on the day of MH17 crash?

From here [58] --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Heptor: FYI, since your above mentioned topic is closely tied.--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Same jets as were observed by the radar and by the witnesses? Heptor (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe yes, maybe no... now no one can say for sure. Anyway several sources confirm this fact that Su-25 (or just military jets) was in use on the day of the accident including BBC as you mentioned above.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: What section, in your opinion, is it better to put this fact in?--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems your and my idea about what is urgent differ somewhat! Pincrete (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A'ight, sorry for that.--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This was previously discussed here [59] five years ago. Geogene (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

And here [60]. The original story was that the SU-25 had supposedly shot down MH17 with its guns, this narrative was more or less abandoned when Buk shrapnel was found in some of the remains of the crew. Geogene (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Our summary of the JIT report doesn't mention that Buk shrapnel was found in the remains of the crew. Where does that come from? Burrobert (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It comes from my memory of working on this article for five years. Burrobert, why don't you research the matter yourself? Geogene (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

DSB and several other sources including the Buk designer/engineer(?} completely rejected the possibility of an air-air shoot down, which I believe the article records already. More importantly from the WP point of view, almost no one (apart from the source given above, RT, and a small number of others), even covered, let alone gave any credit to the Evgeni Agapov account. It's textbook WP:FRINGE. Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Александр Мотин, does Agapov actually claim that the Ukrainian Sukhoys shot at MH17? From what I can read, he saw missing munition and agitated pilots, and made assumptions that although were reasonable turned out wrong. Heptor (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Even the Russian government dropped the Su-25 story. "in 2016, the Russian MoD held another press conference in this same room on newly “discovered” radar data: this “Ukrainian aircraft” was no longer present" [61]. Stickee (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stickee: Who dropped the story? It seems that they were not even going to. See my commentary below --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Heptor: He is an eyewitness that Su-25 aircraft was in use on the day Mh17 crashed like AP journalist in the "Background" section. "Missing munition" doesn't prove that Mh17 was shot down by Su-25.--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, if they initially said that they detected military jets nearby and later said that the radar didn’t detect other aircraft nearby, then this is what we write, I don’t see a problem with that. Of course, we have to keep a far more restrained tone than the Bellingcat article, and we need to verify this analysis with more than one independent source Heptor (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Heptor: Wait, who said radars didn't detect other aircraft nearby? Russian military disclosed primary radar data only from one of the radars which was monitoring airspace in the area where MH17 crashed. It was clearly said that Ukrainian Su-25 was seen by two on-duty (standby) mode radars for 4 minutes [62]. Do you know what a on-duty (standby) mode radar (РЛС дежурного режима) is [63]? And in 2016 Russian military disclosed primary radar data from Utyos-T [64] radar which works in the decimeter range of radio waves [65] And Utyos-T is not an on-duty (standby) mode radar, unfortunately, because on-duty (standby) mode radars works in the different (not only in the decimeter) range of radio waves and are being used by radio-technical troops and not for civilian air traffic control in comparison with Utyos-T ATC-radar.

So, just to sum things up, Russian military said that Ukrainian Su-25 was detected by military radars ("on-duty (standby) mode radars") [66]. And later in 2016 they disclosed primary radar data not from on-duty (standby) mode radar but from ATC-radar Utyos-T. --Александр Мотин (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

UPD: The Wall Street Journal is citing the same I told you above [67]:

Gen. Makushev said that Russian radars could only spot the aircraft at the point of its ascension because the on-duty radars only detected objects at above 5,000 meters.

ATC-radar Utyos-T [68] from which primary radar data was presented is not an on-duty radar. An example of on-duty radar is the 55ZH6UME mobile on-duty radar system as this said by the Polygon military magazine [69]. So why that Bellingcat, Stickee was referring to, didn't even read a transcript of the briefing of the Russian military from here [70]?--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Александр Мотин, so the BUK shot down the 777 by mistake, because the operator thought it had locked onto the Su-25, which was seen by the two radar surveillance units? Or maybe, lacking any direct reports from those two radar surveillance units, the BUK operator was unaware there were even two aircraft on the same or similar flight path with "removal ... ranged from 3 to 5 km"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I don't know if it was by mistake or not and it's not my business to guess on the coffee grounds. I'm just telling you what actually Russian military said at their press conference about radars which detected Ukrainian Su-25. My question is: since Ukrainian military deserter told that he saw Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft were in use on the day of the accident, why is this not mentioned in the article?--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, not our business to guess here, I quite agree. So was this deserter one of the radar operatives, or did he "see" the Su-25 with a pair of binoculars? Does he say if he also failed to see the 777 at the same time? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

He saw some Su-25 took off his military base on the day of MH17 crash, he said. --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Gosh. Yes aircraft do sometimes take off, don't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Agapov also overheard the pilots talk about MH17, being very agitated and saying something along the lines of "it in the wrong place at the wrong time"[71]. One of the pilot later ended up taking his own life.[72] So I have to say, it does make a lot of sense to guess that whoever shot the MH17 was aiming at that specific pilot. It is not our place to venture such guesses in the article of course. Heptor (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well that does sound more convincing. This is still hearsay from Agapov. The fact the missiles were gone is hardly strong evidence of where and when they were fired. If the Su-25 was there and Captain Voloshin saw the 777 shot out of the sky in front of him, I think he'd very likely look "visibly shaken" when he returned? I see that the BBC source says "A statement from Mykolaiv police on Facebook (in Ukrainian) described Voloshyn's death as "suicide", but it is being investigated under the "premeditated murder" section of Ukraine's penal code... A military service pistol was found at the scene and is now being examined by experts." So the final outcome of that investigation not known? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Voloshyn's suicide was very obvious... According to BBC, Family members quoted by Ukrainian media said Voloshyn had been feeling depressed. They were in the flat when he shot himself on Sunday and his wife heard the shot. Heptor (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, come on with that Voloshyn...--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Александр Мотин, I'm not sure what you mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

So a deserter is in a position to confirm that a Ukr plane flew that dsy! That changes the whole picture! Or might do if all competent authorities had not concluded that an air-to-air missile was not a possibility and one specific Buk variant was the only possible explanation, since it is the only one that fitted all the facts, including the distinctive butterfly pattern of the holes in the cockpit and the shape and composition of shrapnel embedded in the remains of some of the flight crew (all in the DSB report). Evgeni Agapov belongs in the "conspiracy theories" section, if mentioned at all, no RS gives any credit to this story. Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The only "conspiracy theory" here is that the Ukrainian govt lied about having no jets nearby. I don't think anyone here is supporting the idea that the Ukr govt shot MH17, or that it should be mentioned along with the mainstream theory. For this to happen, there would have to be something in the air for the govt forces to shoot at. It's not completely bonkers, maybe a Russian jet illegally flew in and Russians don't want to admit it, but of course it's not our place to speculate (at least not in the article space). We just report what the sources are saying. Heptor (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete and Heptor, just note that I did not say anything about shooting down MH17 by a military plane. I just say that Ukrainian deserter, Evgeni Agapov, told that Su-25 aircraft was in use on that day and it should be mentioned along with BBC's eyewitness in a since-deleted article.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I agree that you didn't. Heptor (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete and Heptor, put that Voloshin out of your mind for a while. I am talking about the fact that Agapov witnessed that Su-25 was in use on the day of the crash. The same thing was said by BBC's eyewitness! And this is not mentioned at all and it seems to be NPOV violation. --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

More relevantly, they say that the Su-25 was in the vicinity of MH17 when it was hit by missile. Although the missile type wasn't from the plane, because the warhead fragments were identified as coming from a Buk SAM. Heptor (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This is some interesting speculation, but the SU-25 "Frogfoot" is a ground attack aircraft with a service ceiling of 23,000 ft. I don't believe that a small fighter jet would have a larger primary radar signature than an airliner. And while there's no way to know, being framed by Russian media as supposedly having been the person that shot down MH-17 could plausibly contribute to a person's suicide. Most importantly, it fails WEIGHT because there are virtually no sources discussing this in the last few years. Geogene (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene: Haha, you should have told this first to the Ukrainian authorities who, under the flash of the cameras of the world's media, said that their Su-25 was shot down at an altitude of 27,100 ft (you say its service ceiling is 23,000 ft). And, no, it doesn't fail WEIGHT since there is some eyewitness from AP in the text at least.--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene: the size of the radar signature is helpful, but it's not enough to prevent accidents. Please consider taking a look this Quora discussion that I posted earlier. Citing: And the crew is really nervous as they are protected by nothing, when their location is known the opponent can send a low-flying ground attack plane against them. The moment they got from under the trees into an open space and turned their target illumination radar on, their main concern is to turn the radar off and get under a cover before they are blasted into pieces. Heptor (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it was to some extent an accident, or that anti-aircraft batteries are targets, too. I don't care to litigate it here, though. Geogene (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah nothing discusses this anymore with the exception of calling it a conspiracy theory. Stickee (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

How so? There is nothing exceptional about a Ukr gov Su-25 flying a sortie in the rebel-held territory. What do you see that makes it a conspiracy theory? Heptor (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stickee: I don't see anything exceptional as well, since Voloshyn also confirmed that Evgeni Agapov was his fellow serviceman at the Ukrainian airbase. He gave a big interview to the Ukrainian newspaper [73]:

This man (Agapov) really served in our unit. As I know, he served in the same squadron as an armament mechanic.

--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Thanks for your recent edits [74]. Regarding military on-duty radars it is said here [75]:

Ранее обнаружение данного воздушного объекта не представлялось возможным, так как контроль воздушной обстановки осуществляется радиолокационными средствами дежурного режима с возможностями по обнаружению на данной дальности на высоте полета более 5000 метров.<...> Данный воздушный объект устойчиво наблюдается радиолокационными постами УСТЬ-ДОНЕЦК и БУТУРИНСКОЕ в течении 4- х минут.

--Александр Мотин (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Google Translate gives the first part like so: "Earlier, the detection of this airborne object was not possible, since the air situation was monitored by standby radar with the ability to detect at a given range at a flight altitude of more than 5,000 meters." I think the term "standby" is what you translate as "on duty"? This seems to be sating that the aircraft was detectable only when it breached 5,000 metres (16,000 ft)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The word "дежурного" doesn't translate as "standby", it translates as "on-duty". If there are any discrepancies or contradictions in the translation, the transcript in Russian shall prevail.

"This seems to be sating that the aircraft was detectable only when it breached 5,000 metres" – Yep! --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You're suggesting we use a Russian word in the article here? Or your translation of that word? I accept Google Translate must be inaccurate, but perhaps you could show a supporting translation source. Alternatively perhaps you could explain what "on-duty" means when it applies to these types of radars (but, of course, only if it really matters in our understanding of how and why the presumed Su-25 was reputedly tracked)? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest proper translation. On-duty radars are used by radio-technical troops as I said above. And civilian radar station Utyos-T is used for ATC.--Александр Мотин (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

And I'm asking where this "proper translation" is. What does "on-duty" mean with regard to radars? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I've already answered above with links to specific examples of on-duty radar stations. Search in Google and Google images on "Дежурная РЛС" (on-duty radar) request (with quotation marks). --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

So it means "long-range air surveillance radar"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it was said "радиолокационными средствами дежурного режима" (on-duty radar aids/stations) --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Александр Мотин. Still no idea what that means. Never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

After looking into this further, turns out it's just some original research. [76] Stickee (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Really? And what fact is the original research?--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, replying to your comment below, since the radar discussion is here. Weight is about balancing the content of an article in respect to their prominence in reliable sources. That particular viewpoint is minority, and would unbalance the article. In regards to that piece of text, it's not at all "neutral" - it's promoting a fringe viewpoint [77]. Stickee (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we can mention something like "Russia claimed a Ukrainian deserter..."Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that we're now engaging in apparently endless discussions on well-known fakes that were[78] already discussed to death back in 2014, 2015 etc. Russian government and media have thrown dozens of these stories involving Ukrainian "deserters", "pilots", "air controllers" and a whole range of other figures. Do we really want to spend another week discussing re-adding the story of "Spanish air controller Carlos" (who has been proven to be a minor scammer living in Spain who was paid money by Russia Today to come up with this story)? All these stories about Sukhoi assault planes reaching 10 km could have been discussed back in 2014 when we had very limited information and WP:RS were discussing them too due to lack of other theories. Today with the evidence collected by DSB, JIT and Dutch prosecution re-adding this disinformation is simply waste of time and destructive for the article.

Please also consider the fact that User:Александр Мотин is currently blocked in Russian Wikipedia[79]. A number of disputes raised by and against User:Александр Мотин in the Russian Wikipedia ended unfavourably for him that and most of them were associated with highly biased and POV-pushing edits in the article on the same subject (MH17), just in Russian version. Cloud200 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Baudet

Is this DUE? [80]. Note also that there's now an open AN/I thread relevant to this page. Geogene (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No. It looks like a comment by a non-expert only indirectly related to the actual event. It stirred up enough minor controversy at the time to be reported in the news, but it certainly has had no lasting significance and doesn't belong in this article. I will remove it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene:@Red Rock Canyon: Then why, for instance, this below-mentioned private person's statement with a reference to an unnamed source is DUE? Why is it so significant to you? --Александр Мотин (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

According to Vadim Lukashevich in an interview to Novaya Gazeta with reference to an unnamed source, on the day of MH17 incident, a Ukrainian An-26 was scheduled to deliver paratroopers to the battle arena.

References

That has nothing to do with Thierry Baudet or whether he should be mentioned in this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: Is above-mentioned private person's statement DUE? So if a statement of a member of the Dutch Parliament regarding JIT's probe isn't DUE that means that private person's statement isn't DUE even more so, ain't it? --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Completely undue IMO. We don't mention the relatives' reactions, we don't mention that almost the entire Dutch parliament had sought clarification from Russia, which Baudet opposed (Baudet "refused to support a request for clarification from the Russians about the disaster, something supported by almost the entire parliament." - from the same source}. We don't mention practically any individual politicians, except leaders and Foreign Ministers of involved countries. Why should Baudet be included, does he have some role in this, either as accused or accuser or as representative of one of the affected countries? Is he privy to info that others are not? Have his remarks even attracted significant coverage?

What Baudet says is also fairly valueless. Russia might not be to blame - well of course it might not, that's why the Netherlands has sought some sort of open judicial investigation where all the evidence can be weighed. Remind me, who is it that has opposed that? … … … ps ANI was closed without actionPincrete (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I do not insist that his reaction should be added to the text at all costs. But then we must be consistent with the rest of the much less significant statements of some private individuals and other parliamentarians in the article. Do you agree? If not, why not?--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If there are 'nobodies' in the 'response to JIT' text, of course, but I suspect you are trying to compare wholly unrelated matters - "chalk and cheese" as people say in the UK. Obviously, in some contexts people with no official status may be significant for other reasons - may be witnesses for example. BTW there is no need to 'name' me unless the matter is urgent, this article is on my watchlist and I will respond when/if it is convenient. Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stickee: So Pincrete and I think that some private person's (Vadim Lukashevich) speculation above is completely undue. Why do you think differently [81]?--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

No, Pincrete says no such thing about Lukashevich. This section is about Baudet. Stickee (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I have said no such thing about Lukashevich, because I think no such thing! Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Is above-mentioned private person's statement DUE? --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Completely undue IMO. --Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That's why I thought so.--Александр Мотин (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Please note the last post above seemingly posted by Pincrete was actually added by Александр Мотин. Who then decided to agree with his own post which he had copy-pasted and edited from a genuine post of mine. Pincrete (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Data from the radar station

The addition of a report from the radar station near Rostov was recently reverted[82]. The justification for this edit was that "it's largely undue weight". The consideration for WP:WEIGHT is a part of Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view, and I do not see how this policy is at all applicable to the removed text. It does not seem to carry any particular point of view, as it is a fairly technical report about what was detected by that particular station. If the contributor who opposed this addition does maintain that the addition violates the above-mentioned policy, may he kindly provide a more detailed explanation. Heptor (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Replied above to avoid fragmenting discussion. Stickee (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stickee: let's continue here, please, in order to highlight this particular issue. I would also like to hear some explanations regarding this [83].--Александр Мотин (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

A separate thread for this particular contribution would keep the discussion better organized. The discussion referenced above is about the testimony of Evgeni Agapov, which is a related but different topic. It should be noted that wp:weight is specifically about balancing conflicting views in the articles. The proposed text relates that there was a press conference during which certain technical data was presented. This is stated in a neutral tone. No explanation has been given as to how this text is in conflict with the mainstream view on anything particular. Heptor (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, you can read the first sentence of the ref in the diff to understand how it's in conflict. Stickee (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stickee: I don't understand your point, even though I'm not Heptor. Do you want to be a little more specific? --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Weight is about balancing the content of an article in respect to their prominence in reliable sources. The particular viewpoint promoted by the proposed text is minority, and would unbalance the article. Stickee (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not a viewpoint, it is an objective evidence (primary radar data).--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if it were true (which I doubt), that radar evidence cannot be faked, cannot be fraudulently represented, or simply open to several interpretations. The use of an individual editor's translation of a primary source - seemingly supporting a theory which has been dismissed by the DSB and all WP:RS, except 'the accused' party, ie the Russian govt itself - is SO WP:OR, that I wonder that you do not see that yourself. Pincrete (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not a theory, it is what they claimed. You have an English transcript of the Russian MoD briefing. So where is exactly a theory in my edits? Be as much specific as you can, please.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Raw data would be a [[wp:primary[] source, what we cannot do is analyse it. By its nature any radar data must be analysed, which is where [wp:or]] comes in. So we need third party RS to say what that data represents.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian radar data can be manipulated or completely invented just as any other other data supplied by the Russian side, starting from the "Spanish air controller", "pilot Voloshin", "photos of Ukrainian Buks" or "satellite photo of UAF Mig attacking Boeing". In such cases what matters is the whole chain of custody which did exist in case of MH17 flight recorders or DNR phone intercepts but is completely non-existent in case of the radar data or all the other fakes mentioned above, which just appeared in Russian media. Cloud200 (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cloud200: May I have any proof from you that a primary radar data from that civilian radar station was "manipulated or completely invented"? JIT seems to have never said that [84]. So what are you referring to? --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Александр Мотин, yes and that source plainly says also: "Furthermore, the radar experts confirm that no other aircraft near MH17 are visible on the radar images provided." I tend to agree with Cloud200. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I have never argued the fact that Russian civilian primary radar station didn't detect any other aircraft near MH17. Moreover that's what exactly I wrote [85]. What is your issue with me?--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is strange. The text added by Aleksandr in itself is OK I think, it just says that the radar data didn't show anything -- neither a rebel SAM, a Ukrainian SAM nor the Ukrainian fighter jets we discussed earlier. But yes, according to the cited article Russia [said that this radar data] was new proof to show that the missile that brought down a passenger jet over East Ukraine was not fired from territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists. This is a fringe theory. One could argue that the radar data is not fringe even though the conclusion presented by "Russia" is, but this is getting too deep for me.

How about we move this paragraph to Russian media coverage, could that be acceptable to others involved? Heptor (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

OK with that, it might have helped if they had not said they were using the radar data, rather than a media source.Slatersteven (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That would still seem to be largely undue and promotional of fringe, because it's not through the lens of analysis of media coverage. Stickee (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the problem is that it is NOT a media coverage in itself but rather an evidence since its authenticity was not disputed, even by JIT.--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian media coverage is wp:notable, even if it presents a fringe view. We do have an article on Modern flat Earth societies, and the belief system of Homeopaths is carefully detailed. To avoid it becoming a WP:POV fork, the section on Russian media coverage should describe how this coverage is inconsistent with the existing evidence and how it contradicts the established mainstream view. Heptor (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Александр Мотин, I have no issue with you. I have an issue with finding any independent source that corroborates what's in the Russian press briefings. I also have an issue with the use of the term "on-duty radar" in this article, but that now seems to have been resolved. Maybe you're trying just a little too hard to cram in information that most editors consider a little too "fringe" or "not sufficiently reliable" in a section headed Cause of the crash? The cause of the crash has been very clearly established. It was blown out the sky by a BUK. The proximity of an Su-25 might help explain mis-targeting by the BUK. But we really need an independent secondary source that makes that connection? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I presented a specialized literature which describes what an "on-duty radar" is. And if Heptor would be so kind as to verify my recent edits [86] you are talking about, since he is fluent both Russian and English, we'll be able to move forward. --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Alexander Motin, my concern was that this is not a phrase habitually used to characterise radars in the English language. It seems to be a idiomatic. Even if it was commonly understood, it looks like unnecessary detail. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't heard of anything called "on-duty radar" in English, and I struggle to understand why it is important that it was an "on-duty" radar. As described by Alexandr, "on-duty radars" are a class of military radars which are used to obtain intelligence, and for long-range detection of enemy aircraft. Why does this matter? What is the relevance of this radar being "a class of military radars which are used to obtain intelligence"? Also, I can't find the original term in the cited source. The only time the word "radar" is mentioned is when it says исчезновение отметки самолета с экранов российских радаров., literally translated, "disappearance of the [reflection] mark of the plane from the screens of the Russian radars". So it doesn't say anything about the type of the radar. Heptor (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Heptor: thank you for taking the time to inspect my recent edits about the circumstances of the discovery of a military Su-25 in the area of the Mh17 crash. Of course, I will give here a text excerpt from page 28, since you found it difficult to find the text you were looking for:

<...> Оправдано существование РЛС РТВ третьего класса - РЛС дежурного режима, которые технически проще и значительно дешевле, чем РЛС первого и второго классов. РЛС дежурного режима должны обеспечивать в основном добывание разведывательной информации, дальнее обнаружение воздушного противника, контроль и обеспечение полетов своей авиации.

The explanatory note was then edited and completely deleted by Pincrete with the rest of the text. My version was [87]: "in Russian-language literature the on-duty radars are described as a separate class of radars which are being used by radio-technical troops. It is said that on-duty radars are designed for obtaining intelligence information, long-range detection of enemy aircraft, control and support of the military aircraft flights"--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Aleks, as far as I can tell your translation is correct. It may be used in an article about Russian radar systems, but why is it relevant here? Heptor (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, Heptor It is not idiomatic because "on-duty radar stations" are a separate class of military radars used by radio-technical troops. I think it is very important to emphasize that Ukrainian Su-25 was detected by military radars, because the text of the article further suggests that when Russian MoD disclosed primary radar data from a civilian radar, thereby they reportedly lied that there was the other aircraft in the area of MH17 crash. But Russian MoD clearly stated that Ukrainian Su-25 was detected by "on-duty radar stations" (by military radars but not by civilian). Here's the thing. We can clearly see that the accuracy of the facts can have an impact on the entire text of the article. --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you just say that it was a different radar (less powerful)? Heptor (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I think we can just call it "military radar stations", but the opposing editors will argue that this is not what RS says.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe "opposing editors" will keep requesting a secondary (English language) source, with whatever better translation it offers? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The explanatory note (which was initially long and almost incomprehensible was edited down to the, fairly comprehensible form which Heptor quotes by me, Pincrete), I did this because I was fed up with long rambling, near=nonsense being edit-warred back in. I then removed both the text and explanatory note when the general consensus here seemed to be that original translations of primary sources advancing positions that none of us could see as relevant or important, using 'literal' translations of Russian MoD documents, had no place in the article. The literal translation of the radar type appears to be either 'on-duty' or 'standby', Martinevans123 came up with what might be the apt Western term by consulting a glossary. But why are we all struggling for days to accommodate a piece of WP:OR, seemingly not taken up by the DSB or RS and which none of us can actually see the importance of, except that it may have been part of Russian disinformation at some distant point.Pincrete (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I could agree more with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you agree that we are talking about military radars in the context of the transcript? And why you say about original translation while, for instance, this news site (sputniknews.com) uses the term "on-duty radar" [88]?--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned already in two or three distinct threads started here by Aleksandr: all these inconsistencies were already added to the article 4-5 years ago by both sides: fans of Girkin added all kind of new "witnesses", "satellite photos" and "air controller Carlos" while the other side added extremely detailed dissections of these fakes. The result was gradual degradation of the quality of the article. As result, most of these extremely detailed but secondary and news-like references and paragraphs were removed. Yes, we can probably copy a whole book on what "on-duty radars" are here and thousands of other details on Buk launchers or assault aircrafts or whatever, but I want everyone to ask themselves a question: does it really improve the quality of the article in any way rather than inflating it? Cloud200 (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Again the user is blocked they cannot respond.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Except they can wtf?Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Denies involvement .... responsibility ..... being responsible for....?

I am posting here because I'm unsure as to how best to express what Russia denies/has previously denied - all of the ways of phrasing have a degree of subtext, and I'm not sure which way of expresssion most accurately expresses the totality of Russia's past/present position. The phrasing has been amended slightly lately.

Some of the sources actively say Russia "denied involvement", which as far as I know was certainly their initial position … ie total denial, not us nor those acting with us, nor even our missile.

Some sources speak of "denied responsibility". This is often a standard form of phrasing for certain kinds of violent act - the "IRA claimed/denied responsibility" = "we, or those acting for us, did/did not do this".

The present text says "The Russian government does not consider itself responsible for shooting down the plane, and holds the Ukrainian government at fault for allowing civilian flights in a war zone". I'm not sure whether Russia has changed its position, I think not (officially at least) - but present text, especially linking to the notion of "Ukrainian airspace" - could easily be construed as meaning that Russia is saying that "whether we did it or not is academic, since Ukr should not have been allowing overflight in a war zone".

Reactions? What should the text say about what exactly Russia was or is now denying? Pincrete (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for a well-stated interpretation of this phrasing. My understanding of the official position of Russia is that they say both that they were not involved and that the moral responsibility lies with Ukraine for allowing overflights.

• A comment by the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press says that "Russia declassified for the first time ever documents on the Buk surface-to-air missile complex, proved that the missile that downed the aircraft, according to the JIT, belonged to Ukraine", and many other things.
• Answering a question about Russia's responsibility for the disaster, Putin first says that there is no evidence supporting the conclusion of the JIT, and then says "we need to return to the question we talked about earlier, about who allowed [civilian] flights over a war zone? Not Russia". Another comment by the Russian Foreign Ministry Information and Press Department says "It is outrageous that the Netherlands essentially absolved Kiev of blame for failing to close the airspace over the area of hostilities in the eastern part of the country".

Also, Igor Girkin, one of the four persons who are accused by the JIT, said that "whoever brought down MH17, the Ukrainian side is to blame because only a moron or a criminal would send an airliner into a zone of active hostilities". This is interestingly similar to how Pincrete interpreted the phrasing currently used to present Russia's position in the article, although with a less academic angle. I hope that these references will be helpful in finding a good summary for the Russian position. Heptor (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Update: for the benefit of others, and having thought about it, I've phrased as "denied involvement in the shooting down" (past tense intentional, but explicit, unequivocal denial of involvement) … "and holds the Ukrainian government at fault for allowing civilian flights in a war zone" (present tense intentional, since this remains their position). I hope this summarises matters to everyone's satisfaction. Pincrete (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Dont think we should be mixing the two together, clearly the deny involvement is OK but I dont think we should then add but we are not the bad guys in the same sentence which is clearly designed to move focus on the non-relevance of the airspace being open. They dont seem to note that Aeroflot aircraft thought it was safe to use the airspace 86 time that week including a flight on the same day. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You saying that airspace remaining open is irrelevant? Heptor (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly has nothing to do with the fact Russia is denying involvement, its just smoke and mirrors. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

They are denying involvement, and they say that the airpaace should have been closed. I don't see the mirrors. Heptor (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The airspace being open and russian involvement have nothing to do with each other. Although it is a change of tact as they are now not blaming the Ukrainians for firing or even owning the missile (and we need to remember the original and absurd Su-25 story), that might be worth exploring with reliable sources on how the Russian blame game seems to evolve as the facts are discovered. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably there are certain aspects of Russian involvement in the War in Donbass that Russia wants to keep secret, for reasons unrelated to MH17. The fact that SAMs were operating in the area was known to the Ukr govt however. Heptor (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian narrative - proposed addition to the lead

I've given some thought to this subject since first posting above. I believe there is a significant gap in our lead in NOT covering the various twists and turns of the Russian narrative. We jump straight from "we had nothing to do with it" to "Ukr should have closed the airspace". I propose an addition along these lines:

After "The Russian government denied involvement in the shooting down of the plane,"

Insert: and its account of what caused the shoot down has varied over time. Coverage in Russian media has also differed from that in other countries..

What follows would remain as: "Russia holds the Ukrainian government at fault for allowing civilian flights in a war zone."

Thoughts? This is as concise as I can think of, while retaining the broader picture.Pincrete (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks very reasonable to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that the Russian narrative changed, without detailing how and why. This does not fairly present the Russian narrative. I attempted to add more in the relevant section, maybe we can give this section a good brush-up before we summarize it in the lead. Heptor (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The following article Geopolitics brings the topic to the academic level. I started to add material from it, hoping that others can join me in this effort. Heptor (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know that it was known why Russia had changed its narrative - apart from the obvious reasons, that from Amritsar to Abu Ghraib, via Bloody Sunday, My Lai and plenty of other examples, govts don't like to admit that their 'loyal forces' might have fucked up big-time - in PR terms, apart from anything else. For every source that 'explains' Russia's changing narrative, there are probably going to be ten that simply characterise it as deliberate disinformation, muddying of the waters. The decision to not characterise Russia's changing narrative in the lead - either in apologetic terms, nor in conspiratorial ones - was deliberate on my part, but that the narrative has changed hugely, is key info IMO. Pincrete (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, lets go into the whys and wherefores in the body. Lets leave the lead just saying they did it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with the addition, but maybe even leave out the last sentence about airspace. Stickee (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The impression I get from this is that what you actually want to write is that Russians are lying through their teeth. Except you can't write that, so instead you insinuate it by saying that they were changing their story all the time. This is no way to write an encyclopedia. If you want to say that they are lying, then say it, specify what exactly they are lying about how and when. Heptor (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So did they stick to the same story? Ohh and you are right we cannot say Russia lied, we are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, we don't usually use those exact words, but for example the wording in Watergate_scandal is " Nixon administration's continuous attempts to cover up its involvement in [...] break-in", in Lance Armstrong, "USADA investigation concluded that Armstrong had used performance-enhancing drugs over the course of his career". If they were lying then they were lying, don't ask me like it would bother me. Heptor (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Again we have to go with how RS frame it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And yet, the wording proposed by the OP seems like cherry-picking, motivated by his stated view that Russia is lying. Any number of alternative formulations are possible. Heptor (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe he think this is the best formulation, read wp;agf.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as an accusation, we all have our views. Heptor (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Then stop saying it, we discus edits, not users motives.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, the proposed addition insinuates that the Russians are lying. The insinuation part is problematic. A straight and direct statement of facts should be preferred. Consider the above-mentioned examples in Watergate_scandal and Lance Armstrong. Heptor (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Personally, I wouldn't actually want to say they were lying, even if we could. The judgement of most sources is, quite overwhelmingly, that they have engaged in a disinformation campaign - which is not quite the same thing as lying, but is also 1000s of miles away from being open, frank and honest. Knowing that someone has been busily engaged in creating a smokescreen, doesn't of course tell you what exactly lies behind that screen - which may well now never be fully known, and which may have been done to please a home, not a foreign, audience anyway. I don't see how the proposed text insinuates anything, but please suggest an alternative wording that reflects the broad sweep of what sources say. Pincrete (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

In which case I would like to draw attention to the wording in , As soon as it became evident that a commercial passenger aircraft was destroyed, MH17 became the object of an intense struggle over blame attribution – the projection of blame causality onto certain actors and not others - between the warring parties in Ukraine, their regional allies, and the international community. I dare say this article could do well by using more academic sources, at present it relies far too much commercial news. Heptor (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

O'Loughlin's statement may be true, but it tells us nothing at all about the Russian narrative, or how it differs from most of the planet's,(inc JIT's and DSB's), nor how or why their narrative has changed. The statement is a fudge in our context, vague and with false balance IMO - "they're all as bad as each other". Perhaps, in the abstract everyone has sought to shift the blame, but the bulk of forensic evidence has pointed in one direction, not the other. O'Loughlin's comment is a bit like saying that since the publication of origins of the species there has been an intense struggle between religionists and evolutionists. True, but a statement that tells one nothing about the character of that struggle, and where most sources think the evidence lies. I might agree with you about news sources, if they contradicted at all the verdicts of forensic investigators - they don't to any substantial degree AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The statement by O'Loughlin is more broad. The Russian Federation tries to avoid being blamed. But also, the Ukrainian govt tries to use the disaster to demonize their adversary. The shootdown became an integral part of their narrative about the War in Donbass. And the narrative of "Russians are the baddies" is attractive to the popular press because of its simplicity and dramaticism. Fortunately I would say, many of the academic articles that now get published appear to be more nuanced. Another paper we could consider, published by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, presents and argument that the loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was a systems accident – a product of the interactions between the actants that compose the commercial aviation system network-space. You also appear to agree that the shootdown most likely happened by accident (although I see truly little chance of anything else). So I don't quite understand how you assign so much moral responsibility to the rebels, who neither willed MH17 destroyed nor could be expected to act with excessive caution when themselves being fired upon. Heptor (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That was my thought too - seemed to be a "both sides are just as bad" sentence. In the version I brought back I focused on the actual conclusion. Bennett seems to have the same problem, and then he just concludes with fancy sounding mumbo-jumbo saying that it would have been safer if they used a safe mindset "The theory of emergence holds that systems phenomena like positive synergy, negative synergy, incomprehensibility, miscommunicationand non-linear interactions may cause complex socio-technical systems". Stickee (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what to think about the O'Loughlin's paper, but it seems that in the "systems-based" approach, nobody is ever individually responsible for anything, and he seems to treat even the idea of assigning blame for things with disdain. There may be a philosophical tradition of some kind behind this, but I doubt that this is a widely held viewpoint on MH17. When I entered "MH17" into Google Scholar, this paper [89] was at the top of the results. Its thesis is basically, Yet, while the Russian state is certainly deserving of moral and political blame for this tragic event, what is less clear is Russian responsibility under international human rights law. Geogene (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Ukrainian investigative journalist Anatoly Shariy said Ukr SBU falsified their "compelling evidence" which was disclosed on 19 July 2014

In his video Anatoly Shariy states that Ukr SBU falsified their "compelling evidence". He says that a photo of the Buk missile launcher, which was made on a night background and presented by Ukr SBU as "compelling evidence" (in a since-deleted statement by SBU), actually was made in March but not in July as Ukr SBU stated. What u think?--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I found a quality video on Youtube (which Anatoly Shariy was referring to in his video and which was uploaded on 23 July 2014) and a description section says that it was recorded in March 2014. In the video you can see snow lying on the ground and people wearing warm clothing... And the title of this video seems to troll Ukr SBU - "БУК 312 знаменитый )) который все ищут не там где нужно // Famous Buk 312 )) which is being searched for but not in the right place" --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Stickee (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Why? Anatoly Shariy is not an investigative journalist or what? --Александр Мотин (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A YouTube video, really? Vici Vidi (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not only about YouTube but the fact that Shariy has been actively involved in the MH17 disinformation from the very beginning, for example inventing an interview with an alleged "Ukrainian Buk operator"[90] back in 2014 which was quickly picked up by a network for Russian websites, which makes him completely unreliable as source of any information regarding MH17. The undated video from Ukraine mentioned above is shows "Buk" 312 while the one seen in Snizhne and used to down MH17 had number 332 and a number of other details don't match (truck, wheels, skirt etc). This has been discussed and thoroughly dissected many times (e.g here[91]) so let's not reinvent these old fakes once again. Cloud200 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cloud200: Could you provide us a publication which states that Anatoly Shariy was lying in that video, please? Upon prompt fact checking (before posting this topic) I failed to find one. Maybe you will succeed? --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I won't. Just like I won't waste my time once again finding evidence that "air controller Carlos" or the "UAF Mig satellite photo" were fakes. We did this here already 5 years ago. If you believe that Shariy video from 2014 contains revolutionary new evidence that significantly changes the course of the investigation by DSB and JIT, you should in the first place contact JIT and then come back here when they change their conclusions as result. Cloud200 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually I would like you too, it would make the case easier.Slatersteven (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If you both actually checked the two sources which I have already provided in my comment from 15:46 you wouldn't really need to ask for it again. Once again: Buk 312 in the YouTube video filmed in Ukraine was already analyzed by Bellingcat among all other Buk sightings in Russia and Ukraine. There were 7 (!) of them in total and both of you would know that if you indeed did any "fact checking" as declared by Aleksandr. Cloud200 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you remember that I am not hostile to keeping this out, I just want to make sure we are not acting the goat. I do not want to feel we are railroading him.Slatersteven (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Steven, I understand this very well but having seen this pattern of distractive editing especially in this article many times in the past I believe there is actually a moment you need to say "sorry, stop". In case of well-known articles from 2014 the duty to prove that they are in any way WP:ENC and WP:NOTE for the article based on 2020 WP:RS lies on the person proposing these 2014 articles. It is specifically not our duty to disprove him and even if we do, he will immediately come up with another long-forgotten 2014 fake. Cloud200 (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cloud200: So why on the Ukr SBU's photo of a Buk missile launcher the snow is lying, and SBU said that this photo (on a night background) was made just after MH17 downing? Was it really snowing on 17 July 2014 in Ukraine or what? P.S. I searched through the archive of this talk page and didn't find anything related to Anatoly Shariy... But you seem to say Shariy was discussed here several times. --Александр Мотин (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want to get involved into WP:OR, run a blog. Wikipedia relies on WP:RS. Shariy is not WP:RS and his allegations about some random inconsistencies in materials published in 2014 are not WP:ENC nor WP:NOTE for this article as they do not change anything in the conclusions of DSB or JIT which are WP:RS on which this article is based. More importantly, this talk page is Wikipedia:NOTFORUM to comment on Shariy videos. Cloud200 (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cloud200: I wasn't even going to since there are plenty publications regarding a reported Ukr SBU falsification: RT — the head of counterintelligence of Ukraine lied to the whole world about the Ukrainian Buk missile systems. Some more WP:NEWSORGs citing Shariy and Ukr SBU falsification: [92] (RT), [93] (NTV), [94] (Komsomolskaya Pravda).

Bellingcat [95]:

On July 19, two days after the tragic shoot down of Malaysian Airlines flight 17, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) published an image in a press release that showed two Buk-M1 anti-aircraft systems. One of them was the Buk-M1 that likely shot down MH17, transported on a truck eastward through Luhansk on July 18. The other was a Buk numbered 312 operated by the Ukrainian military that was videotaped on March 19 at the Yasinovatsky post just north of Donetsk, Ukraine.

<...> Additionally, with firm confirmation that Ukrainian Buk 312 was photographed in late July/August 2014 in a government-controlled airfield, we can safely say that pro-Russian separatists never seized, let alone used, this particular anti-aircraft system.

It's your turn--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Александр Мотин: Turn for what exactly? This is not a game or competition, sorry. The current version of the MH17 article does not mention Buk 312 and it should stay this way. Buk 312 story was quickly dismissed and had no part in the DSB and JIT investigation so it's irrelevant for the article just as "air controller Carlos". No minor 2014 fakes, either by Russia or by SBU, are relevant to the article as of 2020. Cloud200 (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cloud200: Yeah, but the Ukrainian "irrefutable evidence" said that Buk 312 was moved into Russia on 18 July 2014, but it seems to be a false evidence since Bellingcat said that this Buk 312, which is on a night background on the SBU's photo here, "has never been seized, let alone used". Maybe I got something wrong from this Bellingcat report. Geogene, could you confirm that I got it right from the Bellingcat report (since you seem to have expressed interest in this topic)? --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stickee: Can you confirm that Bellingcat, in fact, refuted a specific part of the Ukrainian so called "irrefutable evidence" about Buk numbered 312? --Александр Мотин (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I am confused, that is not the Bellingcat source is it, but rather "http://www.sbu.gov.ua/"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A link to the Bellingcat report is slightly above.--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Found it, and I am now even more confused, as we do not mention something that this source says was not used (yes you are correct they say this particular vehicle was not seized or used). So what is you you want us to say and why?Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, Bellingcat says that Buk numbered 312 was not seized or used and the Ukrainian Security Service said it was moved into Russia on 18 July 2014. This should be mentioned in the article since "compelling evidence" by Ukraine's SBU presented to the world's media wasn't too compelling.--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

:They have been blocked, so we can drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Do we (we not the Ukrainians) say it was used?Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Now we say it was moved into Russia along with other Buk missile launchers on the night following the downing of MH17 because the Security Service of Ukraine said that.--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So does Bellingcat "The Bellingcat MH17 investigation team also believes the same Buk was part of a convoy travelling from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade in Kursk to near the Ukrainian border as part of a training exercise between June 22nd and July 25th, with elements of the convoy separating from the main convoy at some point during that period, including the Buk missile launcher filmed in Ukraine on July 17th. There is strong evidence indicating that the Russian military provided separatists in eastern Ukraine with the Buk missile launcher filmed and photographed in eastern Ukraine on July 17th." What they do say is that the BUK that the Ukrainians say was responsible was not, and neither do we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Firstly, I never tried to claim that the Buk 312 could be responsible for MH17 downing. Secondly, I'm just saying that one of those Buk missile launchers (on a night background), which according to the statements of the SBU was moved into Russia on July 18, in fact, according to Bellingcat, wasn't even seized by militia or moved into Russia, as the text of the article says now. Just check it out (SBU vs Bellingcat)--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

So, we do not claim it was. So this seems to be trying to address a point we do not make.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

We do claim it was moved into Russia since SBU stated that.--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: So shall we mention that Bellingcat thinks Ukr SBU falsified info about Buk numbered 312 or shall we conceal this? What would be the right thing to do in your opinion? --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

We are concealing nothing, it is just not relevant to our understanding of why this plane was shot down, or by who. As we do not parrot the SBU's claims we have no need to point out its also wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand you. So why then are there "parroted" SBU's claims in the article (see "Cause of crash" section)?--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Because its not the only BUK in the world. Because Bellingcat say it was separatists using a Russian BUK (just not that one) (as you have already been told).Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify: he is blocked from editing the article page, but is allowed to use the talk page, unless he continues to be disruptive here, in which case his block may be extended. You are also free to ignore him here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)