This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Accidents This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Malaysia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands Ukraine B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template.

On my Talk page, My very best wishes is repeatedly telling me that I should self-revert this edit. The sentence from the text of the article that is involved here reads thus: "Also in December 2014 the leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, Alexander Zakharchenko, said he saw MH17 shot out of the sky by two Ukrainian jets." This sentence was accompanied by one citation, of Ukraine Today, the article of which states this:

Zakharchenko was quoted by Russia's state news agency RIA Novosti as saying;

Oleksandr Zakharchenko, The leader of Kremlin-backed insurgents: "I saw how it happened. There were two aircraft and there was the Boeing. Then two planes flew away and Boeing fell. The DNR (Donetsk People's Republic) does not shoot down planes for two reasons. Firstly - we are people, not beasts and the secondly – we have no such technical means (to do so)."

All I did was track down that RIA Novosti story that Ukraine Today referred to and added it as a source. This simply strikes me as good and standard encyclopedic practice. We are used to news outlets publishing stories about stories by a different news outlet. In such cases, it is desirable for Wikipedia to cite the original story. Why should it be any different in this case? Yet here is what My very best wishes said on my Talk page:

I think you should self-revert simply because this page is under discretionary sanctions by Arbcom (you know about) and because you are currently engaged in edit war. Is not that a reason for you?

The edit I made was utterly neutral and simply verified the observation made in the article's text. (And making one edit that so far is standing hardly constitutes being "currently engaged in edit war".) What does that have to do with ARBCOM? If somebody can explain to me why I should self-revert here, I will do it. – Herzen (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by their edit summary, I think Lute88 was attempting to undo the addition of the text altogether, but didn't do it right. Their position was that the sentence (beginning with "Also in December 2014...") was undue. Stickee (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that explanation. I must say that I was confused by that edit summary mentioning "Russian propaganda", since the text in question was based on a Ukraine Today story. I might as well say that I cannot take Zakharchenko's claim that he saw how MH17 was downed seriously. If he had, he would have said so long ago. So if this is Russian propaganda, it is very bad propaganda. I think it should be obvious to everyone why Ukraine Today picked this story up: it is because it makes the DPR leadership look very silly. Apparently, Lute88 and My very best wishes don't understand that. I follow Russian blogs pretty closely, but have not seen this new revelation of Zakharchenko's mentioned anywhere. I imagine it is an embarrassment to everybody. – Herzen (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is both notable and that "it makes the DPR leadership look very silly". I don't have a problem with this being in the article, but honestly, I don't think it's THAT notable that it absolutely must be included. So either way is fine with me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "an embarrassment to everybody", Herzen, then why were you arguing with Marek and I in October to defend RIA's reliability? You declared, with respect to another matter, that "Everything RIA reports there is true. ... So this report making "crystal clear" that RIA is not a reliable source is not the case at all." You even tried to draw an equivalency between RIA and the NYT, saying "The NY Times has published plenty of stories that it had to retract, so RIA occasionally making a mistake means nothing." Given this, you obviously believe RIA is RS, and the presumptive reason you want this added is to use it as RS. I believe you are pretending to be "confused" because "Russian propaganda" clearly refers to RIA, where this material originates, a source you've never conceded is not RS. You would have changed the "Also" phrasing if you truly thought this claim was an "embarrassment" and not equivalent to what was reported in the previous sentence by the Dutch news service. This material does not pass the RS test, and accordingly shouldn't be presented as if it does. That means the double citation, creating the cursory appearance of multiple RS support, is misleading.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made it clearer in the inline text the nature of the sourcing. I take it you will not object, Herzen, given your contention that your editing here "was utterly neutral" and simply intended to make more transparent the sourcing as opposed to beefing up the apparent reliability of the material.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdell555: As far as I can tell, your understanding of what reliability of a source entails is muddled. I also believe that Volunteer Marek and I see completely eye to oye on the subject of this Talk section. I maintain my position that RIA Novosti is at least as reliable as the NY Times. All RIA did is report Zakhachenko's strange claim (and I called it a "strange claim" in my edit summary). It did not say that this claim was true, or that it could be confirmed. So how does RIA's publishing this story in any way suggest that RIA is an unreliable source? If RIA were a half-decent propaganda outlet, it would not have published this story, because Zakharchenko's claim is preposterous. Volunteer Marek understands this (I'm not saying that he would agree with my last statement, but he understands what is going on here in terms of sourcing and the propaganda issues involved), but for some reason you can't. You seem to have this knee-jerk response that all Russian sources lie, so that any citation of a Russian source threatens you, because for you, Wikipedia is nothing more nor less than a battleground. Finally, for some reason it is beyond your capacity for comprehension that if a news story by one news outlet is about a news story published by another news outlet, Wikipedia should cite the story by the second news outlet so that readers can know that the claims made by the first news outlet are true. – Herzen (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why were you reverting another editor in order to add something that is still 2nd hand relative to Zakharchenko if repeaters of Zakharchenko's claims are doing nothing more than repeat? Please explain the relevance of citing RIA Novosti if citing RIA says nothing about the reliability of the claim. As for "Wikipedia should cite the story by the second news outlet", if I didn't agree with that then I've wouldn't have called attention to the "second news outlet" right in the body of the article, would I?-Brian Dell (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that with respect to that RIA Novosti story about the Ukrainians harvesting the organs from 300 bodies in the field, you replied to wave away "RIA occasionally making a mistake" and state "The problem is that exaggerated claims about the number of bodies in common graves were published..." Given that no sooner does RIA Novosti mention the organ harvesting conspiracy theory than proceed into laying it out in the form of an extended quote (prefaced by "В этой же информации сказано"), you now seem to be saying that in fact there's no problem at all with that story! "All RIA did is report [the] strange claim" about Ukrainians organ harvesting, right? Please clarify for us whether there is indeed a "problem" or not with these RIA stories quoting utterly unreliable sources (and RIA not making it clear its view that what's quoted is not to be believed if that's truly RIA's view).--Brian Dell (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RIA Novosti is not reliable and shouldn't be included, especially if we have a reliable source which represents the statement. My comment above was referring to the statement itself not to RIA Novosti. As to why they published it, and how they see it, I think the fact that they end the story: "На этой неделе российские следователи получили доказательства причастности украинского штурмовика Су-25 к крушению авиалайнера." - "This Sunday Russian investigators showed evidence of something-something Ukrainian fighter jet SU-25 in the airplane's collapse" (my translation). In other words, RIA Novosti takes Zakharchenko's statement at face value . They are trying to make it appear legit by coupling it with that BS claim from that "anonymous witness" who says he saw Voloshin do it with his own two eyes. My belief is that they know that many people in Russia, who really want to believe that Ukrainians did it, are likely to buy it. This is propaganda for home consumption, they know rest of the world won't believe it, but don't care. Either that or they're just a sloppy propaganda machine (were they the ones who published the faked photographs too? If so, then it might very well be the latter).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RIA Novosti publishes a claim Herzen concedes is an "embarrassment" and then contends that this does not reflect poorly on RIA because we're not supposed to shoot the messenger. RIA is just passing the claim on, no editorial judgment used. Yet WP:RS mentions "editorial judgment" as "an indispensable part of the process" and "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control..." and "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." A lack of editorial judgment is not a feature, Herzen, it's a bug.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted a change in the lead that specifically says ut was shot down by separtists, this is not proven so I have reverted it (twice) to the previously agreed wording, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK User:Mehmetaergun has decided to edit war rather than discuss what is a major change to the lead which now declares that the aircraft was shot down "by pro-Russian separatists" without providing any evidence. Not sure I want to revert it again in this minefield of an article anybody around who can help? MilborneOne (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So much fanfare for moving (nothing else, only moving) a clause from the ~5th sentence to the ~3rd sentence, along with its citation... As far as I can see, MilborneOne is overzealous in her/his reverts. The reader of this article will be interested in who shot down the plane and most people will want to read that as soon as possible in the article. Before my edit, that info was nicely buried in a later sentence. So, just specify it as such and put it in the lead. Put an "allegedly" if you care so ("allegedly shot down by"). Mehmetaergun (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The diff is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&diff=639955404&oldid=639934802 Mehmetaergun (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read your change, you changed the context of the text to say the the aircraft was "shot down by pro-Russian separatists" as a statement of fact (not supported by the attached reference) from a section that says "According to American and German intelligence sources, the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists" - clearly not the same thing. The reader is interested who shot it down and if you have any evidence then please provide it to support your change, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reader is indeed probably interested. But since there is no formal ruling yet, nobody knows at this time. So we cannot give this information. So please do not change it. (in other words I agree with MilborneOne on reverting this) Arnoutf (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MilbourneOne, no one knows who or what shot it down. SaintAviator lets talk 03:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- how can anyone think different to everything is unknown miasma, saint aviator? we don't know nuffink for sure - how putin is reinventing warfare Sayerslle (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The line: |summary = Airliner shootdown

A more accurate link would be |summary = Airliner shootdown

70.25.37.181 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thanks for the eye Cannolis (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When User:Guy Macon closed the moderated dispute resolution thread on this article, about a week ago, I said that any given editor had five options, of which two were imprudent. The first (prudent) was to leave this article alone. Since some editors here belong to so-called camps, who are trying to impose POV as to who shot the airplane down, that is unlikely but prudent. The second and third imprudent options were to edit-war, and to file new WP:ANI threads. Edit-warring would lead to blocks. New ANI threads will either be ignored by the community or will be treated as boomerangs. I also mentioned two options, the fourth and fifth, involving arbitration. Those were a request for a full evidentiary hearing, a new case, or the use of arbitration enforcement. I mentioned that any request for a new case should specify why a new case was necessary. I pointed out that Ukraine is in Eastern Europe, so that this article is within the scope of WP:ARBEE and is subject to arbitration enforcement. A request for a new case should have specified why the ArbCom needed to hold a full evidentiary hearing, rather than to let its administrators deal with specific violations. I and others asked whether there was: a request for site-bans rather than topic-bans (AE normally does not hand out site-bans); a need for secret evidence due to sock-puppetry (only the ArbCom is trusted to handle secret evidence); or a request for the ArbCom to impose content guidance (neither AE nor the ArbCom imposes content guidance). User:RGloucester then filed a case request. However, there was no explanation of why the ArbCom was being asked to conduct a full evidentiary hearing, only of disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some arbitrators voted to Decline the case. No argument was given why a full evidentiary hearing was needed. RGloucester than said that he was withdrawing the filing. (I am not sure whether a filing can be withdrawn after other parties have requested its acceptance, but that is beside the point.) He also said that he wouldn't be going to AE and that no one else would be going to AE. That is unproductive and peremptory. He still hasn't explained why AE can't handle the case. He did refer to tribalization and polarization of the article, but said that AE would further tribalize the article. He didn't say why. Any particular AE request is against one editor, although one filer can request sanctions against multiple editors. Any arbitration finding contains sanctions against one editor at a time. Arbitration enforcement is still available, and his withdrawal cannot guarantee that other editors will not pursue arbitration enforcement. Tendentious and disruptive editing is still likely to result in topic-bans. Just because the case isn't being reheard by ArbCom doesn't mean that the edit-warring and quarreling can continue. Use judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article on a contentious subject. Sorry, you're gonna get some quarreling - and in fact that's as it should be. You're also going to get some reverting - that is also as it should be - though by standards of a typical contentious article there has been hardly any edit warring on this one. Some people are blowing this whole thing out of proportion, and others are trying to over micro-manage it. Soon we'll be cursed with the blessings of too much advice.

ArbCom does not do "full evidentiary hearings". It's not a court of law. It's a step - the last one - in the dispute resolution process. The request for the case was very vague, basically a "there's trouble at this article, please take care of it" kind of thing. Vague bad faithed accusations (like "edit warring and quarreling") aside, I believe I was the only one who provided evidence of specific user misconducted... and I strongly believe(d) a case was not needed!

But like I said at the request; before I was too lazy or AGFed too much to file WP:AE reports. That's not going to be the case in the future.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to submit an AE request, feel free to do so. The idea that ArbCom can only work for "site bans" and the like is absurd. Just take a look at the recent Landmark Worldwide case. Their job is to arbitrate disputes, not to site ban editors, unless that is warranted. Tendentious and disruptive editing isn't likely to result in a topic ban, given that no topic bans have been imposed on anyone editing this article. AE will not work because it will cause more polarisation. Anyone seen to target one editor in one camp, will inevitably be railed against by that camp, and vice-versa. An involved party doing this is a recipe for even more disaster, which is what I said when I talked about tribalism. I believe the evidence of a systematic dispute across many noticeboards was provided. RGloucester — ☎ 17:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for any WP:AE requests at this time. There was in the past, but it didn't happen, there might be in the future. WP:AE requests are regularly filed by involved parties.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, to both editors, please look at what I did and not did not write. I did not write that ArbCom only does full site-bans. They do site-bans, topic-bans, and occasionally interaction bans. I meant that AE does not do site-bans, so that if anyone was requesting a full site-ban, they should request ArbCom. Also, an ArbCom proceeding is an evidentiary hearing with an evidence phase. That is the only advantage that it has over AE, is a long evidence phase. To VM, thank you for saying that you will go to AE if it is necessary. To all of the editors on this case, either work collaboratively or go to AE. RGloucester, it still isn't clear what you expected ArbCom to do that AE wouldn't do. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking a neutral third party to investigate the systematic problems with the editing environment surrounding this article, and impose sanctions or take other measures as appropriate. AE is not systematic, and that's its problem. It looks at individuals, rather than the big picture. RGloucester — ☎ 17:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @RGlouster. Repeatedly claiming without evidence that people belong to "camps" (like here) on administrative noticeboards and other pages means casting aspersions and sanctionable. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing one particularly troublesome individual from a topic area can do wonders for it. I've seen it happen, rotten apples and all that. Anyway, this is getting way off topic - this is still the talk page for the article and that's what should be discussed here. We can continue this conversation on somebody's talk page if you'd like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MVBW, if you want to sanction me, go ahead. There is no doubt that these Ukrainian crisis-related articles are dominated by polarised camps. I'm not judging either camp, but the existence of these camps is not a question. I wish those that edit this article well. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider myself to be a member of any "camp". Do you? Same with many others. If you want to accuse someone of being a pro-something "camp member", please do it with respect to specific person, on appropriate noticeboard (such as WP:AE), and most important, with evidence. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what I meant by "camps". I was not implying advocacy. Regardless, I'm not commenting on this article any further. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a self-declared "Marxist." If it would be a pejorative and/or irrelevant to Wikipedia editing to place you in the Marxist "camp", then I suggest you extend to the rest of us the same courtesy you expect to be extended to yourself, RGloucester. Your "camps" taxonomy is a piece with the "nothing [to] do with a 'false balance'. Absolutely nothing" line you've been pushing that creates a bogus equivalency between the "camps". How about asking the UN to review the "tribalism" going on between North Korea and South Korea, and by extension China and the U.S., circa 1950 - 1953? Note that the UN DID review and... threw in with and officially endorsed one of those so-called tribal camps! What the AE route invites you to do is to open your mind by asking you to name names and consider whether one editor or several editors might actually be more in the wrong than others.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

just putting this here in case any german speakers can use it - implicates Russian 53rd Anti-aircraft Missile Brigade (Kursk)? [1] Sayerslle (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This part you mention is the Bellincat stuff. What is really new in the Spiegel to me: 1. Mentions, that people spoke to the russian crew in Torez. 2. Speaks to witness near launch site (who anwers correctly to unspecific question: being asked "Did you see the vehicles" he answered "no, not me but someone else saw this vehicle (hence, he put the plural question in a singular answer). Quite a few interesting details like this. What you can see is a preview online of a even broader article in the printed edition. --Anidaat (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that guide to what the material relates to. Sayerslle (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true,http://lenta.ru/articles/2014/07/18/buk/ but doubts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx7KQmSzQfU that there is no published evidence (flame rocket motor during the flight, the rocket launch sound, sound rocket flight, the trail in the sky from the missiles warhead explosion noiseand the effects at aircraft wreckage left behind by from the the warhead (many hundreds of fragments = punctures)). Any of effects for the rocket start, noticeable at 10 or even 100 times smaller missiles (MANPADS for example start from the ground can really be seen Pilot-target). The explosion of the warhead missiles Buk is very noticeable. Quote (translated) - Why no pictures or insurgent rocket contrail after an impressive start? Why no journalists BBC, nor staff TheTelegraph, who conducted extensive research in the snow and in areas south of it, could not find any local eyewitness alleged missile launch?.http://oko-planet.su/politik/politikukr/252982-podrobnyy-ekspertnyy-analiz-krusheniya-boinga.htmlhttp://via-midgard.info/news/in_midgard/reportazh-rassledovanie-bbc-vnezapno-propal-s.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.56 (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spiegel Journalist spoke to witness who saw it. There is two photographs of the trail of the Buk.--Anidaat (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]