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.

The Russian government has edited the Russian Wikipedia of this page. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/18/russia-edits-mh17-wikipedia-article Tlsandy (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of improving this article, wikipedians have to be on the look-out for suspicious editing - also after the Russian government learns to spread its propaganda via VPN or named accounts. Lklundin (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that the account of Tlsandy, most of whose edits are of this article, was created after MH17 crashed, on 10 September. Also, Tlsandy is one of the most aggressive editors making sure that this article states as little as possible but "the truth" about who downed MH17. Just yesterday, he reverted my edit eliminating cherry picking of a news report that was being extensively discussed in Talk without making a single comment on Talk himself. In short, what we appear to have here is a single purpose account. And it is interesting that nobody has posted a welcome note on Tisandy's Talk page, which suggests that he does not produce the impression of being a new editor. Also, the creation of this new Talk section is Tisandy's first contribution to an article Talk page. – Herzen (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LoL. You are a premium member of Crimea/Novorossiya/KickUkraine-Club, having paused WP for 4 month, before coming back in April to help out Mother Russia whereever necessary. So I guess you have great expertise on SPA´s. Alexpl (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have had an account for many years, gone through phases in which I edited articles on different subjects, and I only started editing Russia-related articles after the February coup. So your accusation is nothing but an utterly unfounded, malicious personal attack. Your battleground attitude is of no help at all in building an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. Alexpl (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herzen is right, Alexpl, you are being unnecessarily aggressive and you are not showing good faith. You are not being compliant with Wikipedia, Alexpl. --Mondschein English (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousPanda: I'm not taking any action here because the next headline will read "US Government blah blah blah" but can you please take a look at the conduct in this thread?--v/r - TP 17:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The policies must the adhered to. With that said, I will add that showing good faith is only possible for so long. Lklundin (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see though that Herzen first accuses Tlsandy of being a single purpose account; and when accused in a similar way by Alexpl refers to wikipolicies. In my view a clear case of WP:POT. Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you subjecting me to more scrutiny than this new user? In the summary of this edit, Tlsandy accused me of editing his comment. But I didn't touch his comment: what I did was edit the section title so it does not make a false claim. (As I said in my edit summary, in English Wikipedia "Wikipedia" refers to "English Wikipedia". The article Tlsandy linked to says "Russia" edited Russian Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia.) To quote from the Talk page guidelines: "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed". In his edit, Tlsandy deleted my comment. That is a clear violation of the guidelines. How have I violated the guidelines? So how am I exhibiting WP:POT? – Herzen (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic, this news has been around for a long time. We decided not to mention it in this article for several reasons (not this Wikipedia, not central to the accident itself). So can we please let this rest. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the records, an example of Russian government edits in the German MH17 article: [4]. The IP belongs to the Federal Protective Service (Russia). There were Ukrainian propaganda counter-edits around the same time, but they were more clever in hiding their identitiy, e.g. [5][6]. Both stopped soon, we have not seen such edits for months. --PM3 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty funny. If you look up that IP with IPlocation, you get

95.173.130.218 Russian Federation Moscow City Moscow The Federal Guard Service Of The Russian Federation

I had never heard of the Federal Protective Service. I guess it is not one of the more elite Russian intelligence agencies. Actually, after reading that article, it sounds more like the Russian equivalent of the American Secret Service than an intelligence agency (разведка). In any case, this is certainly more notable than the subject of the thread, since a Russian government IP was used, whereas the IP mentioned by the Wired UK article belongs to a Russian TV network, and that network is no more the Russian government ("Russia") than the BBC is the UK. – Herzen (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm the edits seem fairly minor, and this is very obvious. I would not be surprised if this were an individual employee doing these edits during lunch break or so. In any case, we need a reliable secondary source to report on this to even consider it for the article. And even then, it is still another Wikipedia, and not about the crash itself, so I doubt it should be in this article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that this is notable or should be included in the article. What I said was that it is more notable than what Tlsandy saw fit to create a thread about, a case, it seems to me, of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Tlsandy said nothing about the merits of including this boring story in the article. All he said was that "Russia got caught".

I agree that this was probably a case of something like "an individual employee doing these edits during lunch break". Hopefully Russian officialdom has briefed its bureaucrats by now that using government IPs for editing sensitive subjects reflects badly on Russia. As PM3 noted, that has apparently stopped. – Herzen (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as no analysis of all Ip adresses of all contributors in this article is conducted, there is no way to tell. Alexpl (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change my title when it is the title used by Wired. Tlsandy (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Wired title is highly misleading? Do you honestly think that there is a rule that if there is a Talk section about a specific news article, the Talk section's heading must duplicate that of the news article? – Herzen (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph says 'Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17'? Tlsandy (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a much easier solution: [7]. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters: MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner - Der Spiegel

Dutch prosecutors investigating the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 believe the aircraft might have been shot down from the air but that a ground-to-air missile attack is more likely, a senior prosecutor said in a German media interview. …

In an interview published by German newsmagazine Der Spiegel on Monday, prosecutor Fred Westerbeke said the Dutch would ask Moscow to provide the information that had led them to believe a Ukrainian aircraft was nearby.

"Based on the information available, a shooting-down by a ground-to-air missile is the most likely scenario, but we aren't closing our eyes to the possibility that it could have happened differently," Der Spiegel quoted him as saying.

Dutch prosecutors are open to the possibility that a fighter plane shot down MH17, but some editors game the system to prevent English Wikipedia being open to that possibility. Are our the truth is out there editors now going to tell us that Dutch prosecutors are conspiracy theorists and FRINGE?
Spiegel article: MH17-Chefermittler Westerbeke: "Wissen die Russen womöglich mehr?"
Herzen (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spiegel International: Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence' SPIEGEL: So you're saying there hasn't been any watertight evidence so far?

Westerbeke: No. If you read the newspapers, though, they suggest it has always been obvious what happened to the airplane and who is responsible. But if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet or photos from the crash site. That's why we are considering several scenarios and not just one.

SPIEGEL: Moscow has been spreading its own version for some time now, namely that the passenger jet was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet. Do you believe such a scenario is possible?

Westerbeke: Going by the intelligence available, it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario. But we are not closing our eyes to the possibility that things might have happened differently.

Unlike Dutch prosecutors, some Wikipedia editors do close their eyes, because they already know the truth. – Herzen (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and your truth. In the specific case you left out the most significant statement from Westerbeke: 'We are preparing a request to Moscow for information ... including the radar data with which the Russians wanted to prove that a Ukrainian military jet was nearby". He is basically calling the bluff of Moscow and asks to see what cards they hold - and the fact that he uses the past tense (the Russians wanted to prove) is rather telling of his expectations. This puts Moscov in quite a dilemma. Moscov's decades of experience in faking evidence presented to the public via state controlled media will be hard pressed to come up with something that holds water in an actual forensic analysis. Time will tell how that goes. Lklundin (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, this is what any investigator should do. Keep all options that are not proven nonsense open; however implausible/unlikely. If they would say anything else the investigation would be flawed. However as the investigator also states is that they think the SAM missile theory most probable. So this does not change anything to our discussion Arnoutf (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If investigators are keeping all options open, why don't Wikipedia editors do the same? USchick (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE WP:UNDUE.

Also a new version must require consensus before adding; the mere removal shows no consensus and puts the onus of bringing it to the talk page on the editors who want it in. Not the editor who removed the addition. Arnoutf (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to a policy with that requirement. A brief statement properly sourced does not need special approval as far as i can tell. WP:BRD USchick (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that you're still clinging to the FRINGE smear. If Reuters runs a story with the headline "MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner" which many news Web sites pick up, this theory is not fringe. And as I said below, reporting what the chief prosecutor says is UNDUE. The chief prosecutor is quite possibly the main actor now when it comes to MH17. – Herzen (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in your OR. I can see that you honestly believe the preposterous theory that the rebels shot down MH17 with a Buk missile. Russian "state controlled media" don't have anything to worry about: Russia did not botch a false flag: Ukraine did. As for cherry picking, instead of adding "the most significant statement from Westerbek", Arnoutf just reverted my edit, instead of raising his objections to my edit here, which is what he should have done.

This is his edit summary: "Sorry but words like "preferred" are non neutral by nature. Also the lenght makes this unduly long." Why was that "unduly long"? That was an interview with the chief prosecutor. Significant further developments regarding MH17 will now come from the criminal investigation arena, not the technical investigation. So making my addition to the article any shorter would not have given due weight to this interview. As for "preferred", I really don't see what's wrong with that, but I can easily take it out. Doggedly sticking to his battleground attitude, instead of discussing what edits could be made to the text I added, Arnoutf unilaterally undid the edit. Such behavior makes it very hard for one to assume that Arnoutf is here to build an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lklundin: If that is "the most significant statement from Westerbeke", then why doesn't the English Spiegel article mention it? – Herzen (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, my contributions are not belief-driven I just report from reliable sources (although I allow myself some digression on the talk-pages). Also, I am not convinced that it was rebels who actually pulled the trigger on the BUK, it could also have been 'green men' from Russia. If you like to refer to that as 'preposterous' then that says a lot about the strength of your beliefs. As for Westerbeke I don't consider any of his statements regarding the super-capable SU-25 as notable - with a possible exception if they cause Moscow to show their hand. But I cannot speak for Der Spiegel. Dismiss also this as OR if you like. (PS. If I inserted this reply in the wrong place, then I am sorry - I am unsure about the meaning of the highly variable indentation in this thread). Lklundin (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This is an obvious attempt at a ... creative, interpretation of a source in order to push a POV. Volunteer Marek  20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a) It is not brief. b) it is not properly sourced. See my analysis of the most obvious problems in this 'short' section.

As I was unable to edit bias information about MH17 so I went here to look at the discussion and realize POVs are the real editor. Clearly the relevant information from Westerbeke is a) No info from US 100+ days after accusations, b) They now ask Moscow for evidence, AND c) They do not rule out the version Moscow have presented on the 21st of July. Sadly there are several bias history writing examples, i.e. citing a Polish source for RT claiming mistaken identity with Putins plane. Reading the *actual* RT story clearly shows wiki-article is factually wrong and only serves to ridicule and cast doubt on anything coming from Russia. Godvad (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Time magazine --Unencyclopedic to quote a secondary source like this--, the preliminary report was "vague enough to leave room for" both the theory preferred --Highly biased word; is not in the source hence original research--. in the West that the rebels downed MH17, and the prevailing --biased word; is not in the source hence original research--. theory among the rebels and in Russia that the airliner was downed by a Ukrainian fighter plane.[200] In an interview with Der Spiegel, the chief Dutch MH17 prosecutor Fred Westerbeke indicated that he is open to theory --not what the source states. The source states that they do not close their eyes to the possibility which is magnitude of order less than being open -- that another plane shot down the airliner, saying "if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet or photos from the crash site. That's why we are considering several scenarios and not just one." -- This now looks like it is on the plane shooting down, but it is not. Take out of context hence clear violation of orginal research/synthesis ---

And these are only a few obvious problems. The last remark of Herzen is clear violation of WP:AGF and pretty close to a personal attack. Arnoutf (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Time magazine, there are conflicting claims. Would anyone like to talk about that now? USchick (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the topic of this thread. So no. Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It happens to be the topic of the current edit war and the topic of your preceding comment, so feel free to discuss it at any location you feel is appropriate. USchick (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you understand in this Reuters headline: "MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner"? Please stop making false allegations against me. – Herzen (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about me: The phrase "Doggedly sticking to his battleground attitude, instead of discussing what edits could be made to the text I added, Arnoutf unilaterally undid the edit. Such behavior makes it very hard for one to assume that Arnoutf is here to build an encyclopedia. " Is a smoking gun for WP:AGF. The claim "false allegations" is another. Arnoutf (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One should really read the publication by Reuters quoted above [8]. It tells: "An interim report issued by the Dutch Safety Board, which investigates air crashes, listed several passenger jets in flight MH17's vicinity, but no military aircraft that would have been capable of shooting it down.", and also: "The Russian government has always said it has radar imagery proving the fully laden Boeing 777 was shot down by a Ukrainian military aircraft flying in its vicinity, but Western officials have never publicly accepted this scenario." Dutch investigators believe that the plane was shot down by BUK missile, however, they are ready to examine Russian radar data (meaning no one provided them such data so far). This is far from endorsing the alternative version. Quite the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the publication; "We are preparing a request to Moscow for information ... including the radar data with which the Russians wanted to prove that a Ukrainian military jet was nearby," he added. Dated today, Mon Oct 27. So we already have the initial report, but the request is still being prepared. No endorsement has been made yet. Also, The Russian government is just as uninvolved as the American government. In order to include either opinion, it would be helpful to explain why their opinion counts. Right? USchick (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@USchick. If and when they receive these data and come up with new conclusions, that could be a time for revision, but I do not see any new information about the crash right now. Filing a request by investigators is hardly something notable.My very best wishes (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting more: Dutch prosecutors investigating the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 believe the aircraft might have been shot down from the air... What's new about this is now we have an RS (dated today) that says the investigators believe in an alternative theory. Not fringe, not POV, investigators are considering this as a real possibility and requesting more evidence. It seems like it's time to update the article with this new information. USchick (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

False, the source does not say that "investigators believe in an alternative theory". This is just more misrepresentation. Volunteer Marek  00:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"shot down from the air" is not the same as "shot down from the ground" USchick (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and your "..." = "but that a ground-to-air missile attack is more likely". Stop playing games. Volunteer Marek  00:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So even you admit, there is more than one possibility, and the investigators are considering ALL of them. USchick (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was precisely my point (see above) that Dutch investigators do not believe in alternative theory, which is clear after reading whole article. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Investigators investigate and report. Their personal beliefs are irrelevant. And the same should go for Wikipedia editors. USchick (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely irrelevant. There is no reason to think that prosecutors "believe" the Buk missile theory, either. What the chief prosecutor said was that "it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario." He was careful not to say that "it is my opinion that a surface to air missile shot down MH17." He said that he believes that that is the most likely scenario. And he is clear about there being two main theories, with one more likely to be true than the other. This article must consider both theories, because Wikipedia policy is to " describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"." You do not stop insisting that there is one "best view". The only conclusion I can draw is that you do not understand the Five Pillars. – Herzen (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to think that prosecutors "believe" the Buk missile theory, either. Uhh, yes there is. The "most likely" part. Volunteer Marek  02:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't tell the difference between "It is more likely that event A occurred than that event B occurred" and "event A occurred", then there is no point in having a discussion with you. Also, why do you insist on using OR to read investigators' minds? The chief prosecutor is a lawyer; hence he chooses his words carefully. Why not let Wikipedia report what he says, instead of making guesses about what he thinks? You are not even trying to maintain the appearance of being reasonable anymore – just making wild, unprovable claims. – Herzen (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Look, I'm not interested in a discussion about epistemic logic so let's just say that the prosecutor obviously believes that the most likely explanation is that it was a BUK. Yes, we can say that. But we can't cherry pick, twist his words, or quote them out of context, as you and USchick are trying to do. *That* is OR. Volunteer Marek  04:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is giving an extended quotation "twisting words"? And the quotation I gave actually provided context: the investigation, unlike the press, needs evidence, precisely because it is a criminal investigation. That is the context of the investigators' remarks. I let the investigator provide this context by letting him speak for himeslf; Tlsandy took that context setting out. And how are cherry picking – which is precisely what you want this article to continue to do – and "twisting words" OR? All I can see going on here is one sustained IDONTHEAR and various random incoherent arguments produced to game the system so that editors who are here to build an encyclopedia are disrupted at every turn to prevent them from making the article attain neutrality. What part of "we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"" don't you understand? – Herzen (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Sun and Chicago Tribune have picked up the story. [9] [10] And The Sydney Morning Herald [11], MSN Phillipines [12], Irish Independent [13], NDTV India [14] USchick (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, they're all the same Reuters story, "This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source". Stickee (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's the same story. Reuters is a wire service. Volunteer Marek  04:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both of those are the Reuters story, as Stickee points out. AP and AFP have not picked this up. Predictably, the usual suspects – the NY Times, Wash Post, BBC, and Guardian – are ignoring it. I found one German story which, like the Reuters story, reports on the Spiegel article:

Schon länger gibt es die Theorie, dass ein Kampfjet den Flug MH17 im Juli abgeschossen hat. Nun äußert sich erstmals der holländische Chef-Ermittler zu der Frage. Er erklärt, dass sein Team nur noch von zwei Szenarien ausgeht.

For some time it has been theorized that a fighter shot down flight MH17 in July. Now for the first time the Dutch chief investigator has expressed himself on the question. He explains that his team goes out from only two scenarios.

So the journalist who wrote that can understand what the chief prosecutor said, even though some editors here can't. Also, it's funny how Dutch prosecutors are considering the exact same two theories that the Russian engineers' report considers. – Herzen (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's the same story according to Wiki policy, there's no question now about what the investigators are investigating. Can we please update the article? USchick (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed regarding the (criminal) investigation since a month ago when he said they're still investigating. There's no new information presented. Stickee (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is there a news wire? The headline could have been, "No New Information" but that's not what it says. And it confirms what the Malaysian and other international sources have been saying all along. See "Conflicting claims" section for links. USchick (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it would be a bit hard to sell newspapers with a headline like that. Stickee (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guys Im curious, for the Buk proponents, where was the 10,000 plus metre 5 min lasting massive smoke plume? No one saw it, or filmed it. Nothing. Odd. SaintAviator lets talk 07:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM. Lklundin (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True but its on topic, the Dutch will know this about the plume, hence the interest in the 2nd aircraft theory. There is too much counter evidence for the Dutch to ignore it. If this encyclopedia article is to be balanced, well it needs to be constantly updated by NPOV entries.SaintAviator lets talk 23:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not on topic. You just assume that there is always a massive smoketrail which stays there for minutes - based upon what? Maybe a youtubevideo? Leave that to the investigators. Alexpl (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no need to get personal. WP itself covers the fuel supply of rockets. Unless you know something rocket scientists dont know, ie a source of smokeless fuel, I suggest you do some research. SaintAviator lets talk 23:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean exotic stuff like wind, clouds and the effects of a hot summer day? Good point. Alexpl (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Alexpl proves himself to be an actual rocket scientist the suggested research would still be OR. Btw my own, non-notable experience with rockets is that while a large rocket like the Space Shuttle Booster leaves a smoke trail visible from far away, a much smaller (BUK-sized) rocket can leave a thin trail that quickly becomes difficult to see. Lklundin (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a fine clear day wind very low, you guys should know this. Buks are not small. A visible plume would point to a Buk. The lack of a plume has not been explained adequately by team Buk SaintAviator lets talk 09:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "team BUK". The highly questionable experts, who promoted the SU-25 theory, are the only reason, why the BUK theory seems to be dominant. Maybe you should send an email to the dutch investigators and point them to the smoketrail. But we cant help you. Alexpl (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There most certainly is a team Buk 'out there'. Its naive to ignore the politics, but WP should, I repeat should, be above it. Im not going to send an email to the dutch investigators nor Im sure have you. There was no Buk plume, perhaps you need to think on that and stay away from personal attacks to distract from the point. SaintAviator lets talk 23:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did not really think that through. "The West" with all its conflictive movements is stable and diverse enough to life with every possible "truth" coming up. Russia is not.

Again: EOD until you bring something sourced and helpful. Alexpl (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On my Talk page, Adjwilley accused me of engaging in a slow edit war with Tlsandy. (The concept of a slow edit war is another Wikipedia concept I was not aware of before.) The passage in question is this:

According to Westerbeke, investigators initially considered four scenarios: "An accident, a terrorist act, downing by a surface-to-air missile, or an attack from another airplane. After the release of the DSB preliminary report the accident and terror scenarios were eliminated. The two others remain."

That is my translation of the direct quote that was given of Westerbeke in the German Spiegel article. I did not raise the issue of whether this passage should be included in the article in Talk because after I added it, it stayed there for a few days. And then, when it started getting deleted, the only people who did so were not editors I have interacted with concerning this article in the past, but My very best wishes (who self-reverted the last time he took this passage out) and Tlsandy, who is an obvious SPA. Thus, the problem here is that a SPA is reverting pertinent well-sourced information, without ever explaining his continual reverts in Talk.
One can say that there are three dimensions to the MH17 incident: the incident itself, the technical investigation, and the criminal investigation. The direct quote of the chief prosecutor I give that Tlsandy keeps on deleting concisely explains how the technical investigation has influenced the criminal investigation. If Wikipedia did not explain this connection, it would simply not be doing its job as an encyclopedia.
Is anyone willing to argue that this passage must be deleted from the article? If not, do we have a consensus that it belongs there? – Herzen (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comments at 22:51 and 00:24 appear to disagree with it. Stickee (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an answer. (1) Both of those comments were made before I inserted the text in question into the article, so they were about something else. (2) The comment at 22:51 was made by My very best wishes who, as I noted, self-reverted the last time he deleted the text in question, which indicates that he has changed his mind. (3) The comment at 00:24 by Volunteer Marek was about a specific paraphrase of mine, whereas the text that is being fought over now is a direct quotation of the chief prosecutor, who is now effectively the foremost authority on MH17. – Herzen (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't there when this all went down so perhaps I'm missing something, but it looks like My very best wishes had some help with the self-reverting. [15]. If you're talking about this self-revert then I would question your conclusion that they changed their mind, since the edit summary says, "this should not be included...". Either way, you need to work out some sort of consensus or compromise on this before any more reverting takes place. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Adjwilley: "Changed his mind" was perhaps an unfortunate formulation. I took his self-revert to mean that he felt that the case for the deletion of this passage could not be successfully made, even though he personally disliked it. As for working out a consensus or compromise, I created this Talk section and made a lot of comments in it, whereas the only editor who is now reverting the passage in question has made zero comments. Nobody has been able to produce an argument for why a direct quotation of the chief prosecutor of how the Dutch Safety Board investigation of the MH17 crash has influenced the criminal investigation should not be included in the article. So I have grounds for considering that a consensus has already been reached. What is going on is that one SPA has been continually deleting this passage, without even once deigning to participate in the discussion in Talk. – Herzen (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess I'll take a stab at it. You attempted to insert a sentence at the start of this thread, and it was reverted. When the conversation finished on the 28 October (ignoring SaintAviator's foruming), the section looked like this (note that it doesn't contain that sentence). You've now attempted to insert a similar one (7 times!) here. Stickee (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my opinion, yes, I self-reverted for the time being [16], but I still believe these insignificant details of ongoing investigation should be removed per WP:recentism. And I think they will certainly be removed sooner or later by someone.My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I've done this now. Stickee (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No single mention of the bullet decalls holes in the Plane debris. This its a shame of article. A complete whitewash, and "investigations are under way" panflet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what a "bullet decalls hole" is, can you please explain and provide a reliable source that whatever it is is relevant, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne If you don't know what the IP is referring to I suggest you do a search for the name German name Biedermann and MH17.Tobeortobe (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No cherrypicking please, see WP:CHERRYPICKING. User:Stickee and User:Lklundin. If you have issues, discuss here on the Talk page. As Stickee says that it is a quote from the article, we can consider putting your extract in quotes, as long as the statements correctly represent the source's contrast with Western media. Otherwise you are cherrypicking, contrary to WP policy NOR. Tennispompom (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The actual headline of the quoted source is: 'The Russian Public Has a Totally Different Understanding of What Happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17'. This does not contrast Russia with the West but Russia with everything. I do not see my quote from the article as cherrypicking. Lklundin (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you accept that cherrypicking is not according to WP policy. So, having established that fact, we can move on to whether it is cherry picking or not. The title doesn't say whose understanding differs from the Russian one. There is a single sentence in the summary which uses the ambiguous phrase "much of the rest of the world" - firstly, that doesn't mean "most of the rest of the world" and secondly it qualifies it by referring to the "stand-off". That stand off, is further elaborated in the source as being between West and Russia, and there are at least 5 references in the article which clearly contrast the Russian Opinion with that of the West. No other contrast is provided, no other world opinion is mentioned except the western and Russian. Any reader can see that is the case. Selectively picking an ambiguous phrase from the article instead of any of the numerous and specific phrases, constitutes cherrypicking.

Therefore, save me the effort of undoing your undo - and correct it back to state clearly and unambigusously "Western media", which is what it is. Let's not get into an edit war over a no brainer. Tennispompom (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "The picture of the catastrophe that the Russian people are seeing on their television screens is very different from that on screens in much of the rest of the world, and the discrepancy does not bode well for a sane resolution to this stand-off"? Where else in the body of article does the headline of that article refer if not to that sentence? Has the author cherry-picked her own headline? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Here! Here are quotes from the source:-

1) "Western media has been vacillating for days ... But in Russia, television..."

2) "Though this is not true of Western media, Russian television has ..."

3) "But though it may look unconvincing to us in the West, that is because we have seen and read other things that contradict it. The Russian media space has ..."

4) "So whereas the West sees the crash as a game-changer, the Russians do not see why..."

5) "And the more we insist on it, the less likely the Russians are to agree." (Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of source was digital campaign strategist for the 2008 Obama Campaign, i.e. "we" is clearly Western).

To top it all, there is no contrast with any other named media except Western media. Are you looking at the right source? Tennispompom (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing up audience (We in the West) and references to Western media. Only the latter could do anything to support your point. Arnoutf (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly agree with Arnoutf. The Western media is part of the "rest of the world" and so can be used to provide examples of the more general statement. But I'd be interested to see how many examples there are of non-Russian coverage that supports the Russian view. And that this demonstrates that the "much of the rest of the world" is a misguided claim. Perhaps you can find a source that does this? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another source to that part of the article in case Tennispompom still isn't happy with it (even though the current one still supports it). Stickee (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martinevans123, I don't understand the relevance of searching for "non-Russian coverage that supports the Russian view", except maybe in the context of a discussion re which view is right, but that's not what I'm doing and I hope no one else is either. As I've been arguing for weeks, there are other views, it isn't just Russia vs. West. Oddly enough, the Chinese have a different view from the West and Russia, so the generalisation that the rest of the world equals Western view is plain wrong. I'm putting together a statement referencing a Chinese source, but that's a different Talk section, see below. Tennispompom (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that your multiple revisions come across as supporting the view that Russia is not isolated from "most of the rest of the world" in its view of the shooting down of the airliner. I guess another, separate, Chinese view can only support that notion. Where did I say "the rest of the world equals Western view"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, If you had seen some of the discussions that have taken place on these Talk pages, you might come to a different view, that the objective is not to present a neutral article, but one which presents Russia as isolated and the Western position as the sole truth (viz. the unneccessary pseudo-restrictions to "reliable secondary source").

The reality is that until the Final DSB Report is published, none of us will actually know which of the multiple views is right. You could therefore also argue that ALL the views are isolated, because they are different from all others. Don't you find it irksome that competent intelligent people who have signed up to the Wikipedia neutrality policy are capable of producing such a blatantly biased article? Tennispompom (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very interesting view of what "isolated" means. But I have to admit my bias here. I became convinced very early on that the airliner was shot down by a BUK missile, provided by Mr Putin, and fired by the militant Ukrainian separatists. The alternative theories put forward by Russian media have appeared to me like pathetic fairy stories. Sorry to be so blunt and to stray so far into WP:FORUM land. Please delete my comment if you find it disruptive. But you're right, we should all wait for the official report before we can say we have a fair article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should not get our hopes too high regarding the work of the DSB. It has not been possible to conduct a normal investigation of the crash and evidence may well be (doubted as) tainted. So both before and after DSB publishes their work, I think we need to go with what reliable sources in general can provide. Lklundin (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are right. And even worse, because of the problematic collection of evidence, whatever party will be blamed may start a media propaganda war to shed doubt on the outcomes; which some editors may feel to be a reliable and relevant point of view to include here. Arnoutf (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a brilliant source for Chinese take on the tragedy. Where shall I include it? Separate section on "Chinese Media Coverage" or under "Reactions"? Ideas please. Tennispompom (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now it seems like you're just playing games here. No need to create a new section to prove a point when your comment clearly relates to the dispute in the section above. Stickee (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As China is about as involved as Tuvalu, we might have to consider adding a Tuvalu media coverage section too. Arnoutf (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playing games?!? USER: Stickee, please remember good faith principle. I've been recommending a restructuring of this article for reasons of neutrality for weeks now, this should not come as a surprise. As the restructuring didn't get much support, I can accept it, and am trying to fit in within the existing structure. Tuvaly is a ridiculous example, because it would clearly fail on undue weight grounds. China and India do not - one could argue that their views are more due weight than the US view, but I won't go there. I will be adding India's view too, when I have found out what it is. I am not playing games here. Perhaps the Talk section on Restructuring which i proposed earlier, should be brought back for a review. Tennispompom (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you really insist, throw them in International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown. Stickee (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A China section might get priority over Tuvalu, but should not over New Zealand and Belgium (who suffered casualties and are thus involved). We cannot start all these sections so if relevant it should go in a larger section indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arnoutf, if you followed that logic consistently, you would be excluding US and Russian views too - clearly nonsensensical. There needs to be a neutral and consistent approach, and - as I suggested many times before - the list must not be of editors' own making (to avoid NOR rule), it needs to be based on Wikipedia guidelines on due weight and neutrality: per WP, this is dictated by majority and significant minority views. Majority are clearly China and India (2/3 of global population) and significant minorities - participants in the official investigation, and - as you suggest - parties who suffered casualties. So please do suggest which section to include China, bearing in mind I'll be adding India next weekend. Tennispompom (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's this "brilliant source" that you've found, Tennispompom? Do the views of Chinese and Indian media represent some kind of "neutral perspective"? How can we know? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tennispompom where did you get the idea that the majority of the population of the world is always the relevant mainstream view?

Also you have serious problems with your maths (as I pointed out before). India and China have both about pop 1 Bilion. The world have about 6. 2/6 is not the same as 2/3.

In any case there is no policy that claims we always need global majorities and to be honest it would be ridiculous to demand that for many articles such as demanding inclusion of Chinese/Indian sources for the Barneveld article.

I do however agree with your analysis that Russian point of view is largely irrelevant, go ahead and remove it. Arnoutf (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acting in good faith is more important than assuming good faith. This proposal clearly fails that. Volunteer Marek  04:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arnoutf, how on earth can an intelligent person interpret a statement that the Russian POV is irrelevant, in a section proposing inclusion of Chinese view, as a recommendation to remove the Russian position from the article? Taking statements out of context seems like deliberate obtuseness!

Yes, China and India are about 1/3 world population, not 2/3. Excuse the typo. Of course their views are relevant - this is an international incident, nothing "local" about this one. In this atricle, the Western view is being presented as a single global view, which it clearly is not. And of course Chinese view is even more significant than Indian, coming so soon after the disappearance of MH370 and considerable Chinese casualties. I'm guessing you don't know what Chinese view is, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to exclude it. Chinese view is that MAS were sloppy and should be blamed for risking the lives of the passengers by flying over a conflict zone, when other Asian airlines had stopped flying over it a while back. They also accuse the West of hypocrisy in being outraged over 300 deaths on MH17, but ignoring the much greater number of deaths in Eastern Ukraine through bombing, which caused the rebels to shoot at aircraft in the first place.

Chinese view isn't any more neutral than any other view, but they do have the point which should not be silenced. MAS took the risk of flying over a conflict zone, and when the risk materialised, 300 people lost their lives. Tennispompom (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relation with MH370 is synthesis. The issue about flying the detour is mentioned elsewhere too (and Singapore airlines was also in the air corridor so not all Asian....). There is nothing hypocritical about caring more about people close to you than about others. This idea of social distance (we care more about families, colleagues, country people) than about strangers (also labelled as social distance) is human. In fact if we follow this through to the letter the Chinese should argue the West is hypocritical that we don't object to the many casualties in China due to bad labour conditions and smog created to make our products.

Also following your size of population logic China's view (1.3 B pop) should only be marginally more important than India's view (1.2 B) nowadays. So where is the Indian POV?

The view point presented should be based on relevance (hypocrisy is not relevant to this particular article but maybe to the larger theatre; the issue of choosing to fly over is dealt with by other sources too) not on population number. In the latter case the Dutch view should only receive about 1/1000 of the attention of the Indian view. I hope you agree that would be ridiculous. Arnoutf (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPIEGEL: So you're saying there hasn't been any watertight evidence so far? Westerbeke: No. If you read the newspapers, though, they suggest it has always been obvious what happened to the airplane and who is responsible. But if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet or photos from the crash site. That's why we are considering several scenarios and not just one.

There are no High-resolution images from US spy satellites either, after all these months. [19]

These points should go in 'causes' section to reduce bias. See whats happening? The lack of real evidence is apparent to the Dutch. SaintAviator lets talk 04:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The first time I added the Spiegel interview with Westerbeke, I included part of that quote, but it got deleted, apparently because editors don't like the point that "if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet". Earlier, I added another Spiegel story (which appeared only in the German edition) about the German government saying it has no certain information about the downing, but that was deleted, too. The government said that NATO AWACS lost contact with MH17 half an hour before it crashed and did not detect a SAM launch, but editors did not find that to be noteworthy. Unconfirmed accounts of rebels having a Buk launcher or telling their GRU handler over an open line that they screwed up and shot down a civilian plane by mistake are very noteworthy, however. – Herzen (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. Not again. The key factor of your Spiegel article is, like I told you before, that the Germans do have additional info, which they dont make public. Alexpl (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, that doesn't go for radar data. The German government has said that NATO has no radar data that would help to establish how MH17 was downed. It said that it can't reveal other information for reasons of secrecy. And sure eough, the USG is not handing over satellite imagery it claims it has to the Dutch criminal investigators. Do you really think it is going to do that? I certainly don't. If it handed over evidence, the evidence would have to be faked to incriminate the rebels, but if the US faked evidence, the Russians could demonstrate that the evidence was faked, so the US is not going to hand over anything. (end of crystal balling) – Herzen (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the USA has had time to hand anything over. Alexpl, we have to think of the neutral reader> Its not reading neutral. SaintAviator lets talk 06:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As have the Russians by the way; in handing over evidence the Russian have been considerably less helpful than the Americans so far. You are making a classical logical fallacy in your arguments: If one party behaves imperfectly then by definition the opposite party must be completely right. Arnoutf (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation please, giving evidence as to how "the Russian have been considerably less helpful than the Americans so far"? Last I heard, the Dutch criminal investigators have made a formal request for information about the MH17 downing to USG, but not to RF. – Herzen (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation please - where did you hear that by 3 November 2014 the Dutch (1) made a request to USG with a reasonable time span for USG to provide the information (2) The USG did not provide such information (3) Did not make such a request to Russia. Arnoutf (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article explains this? To quote the source cited:

Dutch prosecutors are still awaiting U.S. intelligence reports on the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 but American laws on passing on such information to criminal investigations are complicating the process, the Dutch government said on Tuesday. …

Prosecutors have also said they plan to ask Russian authorities for radar data supposedly in Russian possession that shows a Ukrainian fighter was in the vicinity of the airliner, German magazine Der Spiegel reported on Monday.

So USG is stonewalling, but RF isn't. By the way, since you are Dutch, you may find this to be illuminating;

The Ukraine, Corrupted Journalism, and the Atlanticist Faith

In much of the European Union the general understanding of global reality since the horrible fate of the people on board the Malaysian Airliner comes from mainstream newspapers and TV which have copied the approach of Anglo-American mainstream media, and have presented ‘news’ in which insinuation and vilification substitute for proper reporting.

Given that you are an academic, I am mystified as to why you appear to be completely oblivious to this problem. – Herzen (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the dumbest thing I've read in awhile. Err. I mean outside of Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek  21:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly argued on this talk page that we should remove all speculation (Russian and Western) from the causes section for exactly that reason. However, while the western media is probably somewhat biased there are at least checks and balances in place; that makes in my view these media at least somewhat reliable (for example the article you quote above is published in Western media and Der Spiegel is a mainstream source). The Russian media is largely non-free as evidenced by licenses withdrawn and unpunished violence against journalists, making those media in my view generally unreliable. That leaves us with the dilemma if we refuse to cut out all speculation, have a somewhat biased view based on marginally reliable sources, or create the illusion of neutrality by balancing this with outright unreliable sources. As two wrongs do not make one right I do not go for the latter; and would choose for what in my view is the lesser of two evils. Arnoutf (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the effort to remove all speculation on both sides. USchick (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What criminal investigation?Tobeortobe (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point of your question. The article has a section called "Criminal investigation". – Herzen (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It´s in the article. Of course this conserved section does not contain the full quote of this "OSCE official" - that he is not trained to identify that sort of damage.[24]. Disinformation. Alexpl (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• HTML version
• PDF Version
• Kyiv Post article

This should soon be replicated by other sources. --PM3 (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this adds much of relevance to what we already have in the article and already know. Especially since a ranking rebel commander (Aleksander Chodakovski - Dutch transliteration) already acknowledged in an interview with Dutch media that the rebels had a captured Ukranian BUK, that they did not fire it, and that they moved it out of the region to avoid being (unjustly) blamed. [25] NB This is what he said, not necessarily what I believe happened. Let's not speculate about this until we know more. Arnoutf (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I knew you'd be interested in this! It's got the attention of a lot of the Dutch media already:

• [26] - PowNed
• [27] - BNR News
• [28] - RTL Nederland
• [29] - Suomen Tietotoimisto (Finnish News Agency)
• [30] De Telegraaf (This is from ANP agency).
• [31] De Dagelijkse Standaard

Stickee (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stickee. @Arnoutf: Chodakovski did not say anything in the interview about the origin of the Buk [32].

One new thing about this new Bellingcat article is that it thoroughly analyses the sidelines of Buk systems on different photos. That's nice evidence to find out which photos show the same Buk starter. The WP article currently speaks of "markings and lorry registration plates" which were analysed in the first Bellingcat report. So it may be noted that Bellingcat found more evidence which confirms their first conclusions. Also, this second report was not just made by Igor Ostanin, but a team of bloggers/journalists including Eliot Higgins. --PM3 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think these new publications and conclusions should be reflected in the page, with appropriate attribution. BTW, I think such reports by independent investigative journalists are significantly more reliable and informative than vague claims by state-controlled organizations, such as German intelligence, or meaningless statements by official investigators who do not reveal their data before the end of their investigation. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section that talks about Igor Ostanin would likely be the best place, as suggested by PM3. The current sentence as its own paragraph in the lead (placed by Sayerslle) is kind of strange by itself. Stickee (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since my last post there's now been some English-language articles out about the Bellingcat report:

• MH17 was brought down by weapon supplied by Russian military': Report claims 'undeniable evidence' that missile launcher was provided to rebels in Ukraine - Daily Mail
• Crowd-funded report reveals ‘undeniable evidence’ missile that shot down MH17 supplied by Russia - News Corp
• Russian military provided MH17 missile launcher, says report - SMH
• Russian missile, separatists took out MH17: report - NL Times
• MH17 Update: Missile That Took Down Airline ‘Undeniably’ Provided By Russian – Report - IB Times
• Missile launcher used to shoot down MH17 provided by Russia, says report - The Malaysian Insider

Not full articles, but also mentions in ABC [33], Business Insider [34], Deutsche Welle [35]. Stickee (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140911/192823230/Fragments-Found-in-Bodies-of-MH17-Pilots-Could-Be-Buk-Missile-Shrapnel.html

Add that in next to the fighter mention? Hcobb (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian government always simultaneously argued for two mutually contradictory explanations (in addition to about half a dozen completely ridiculous scenarios). "It wasn't a BUK, that's "Western propaganda", it was a Ukrainian fighter jet flying at an impossible altitude that shot it down!" and then "It was a BUK fired by the Ukrainians! Here is some blurry photographs with a little block dot on it! It proves it!" and then "Stop talking about any BUKs! It was a fighter jet!" etc. etc. etc. It's classic disinformation tactic, where what you say doesn't have to make sense, just confuse people. I guess this might be an indication that now that the evidence is coming in they might settle on one of them. Too bad for all you guys that've been running around with this conspiracy-website based fighter jet nonsense. That oughta teach ya to listen to propaganda outlets. Probably won't though. Volunteer Marek  22:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts (again) on how evil the Russian Government is. Any thoughts on improving the article? HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they're evil or not. I know they're lying their asses off and the proof is right there. Volunteer Marek  23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tempted to paste this on as a banner headline above the lede, regardless of how evil it is. Well, maybe not an improvement, so perhaps not yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian government just thinks that all relevant scenarios should be considered, unlike some Wikipedia editors. In other words, it just humors conspiracy theorists with their crackpot Buk theory. The rebels thought they were shooting at a Ukrainian military plane and hit MH17 by mistake. No wait, the rebels conspired with Russia to shoot down a Russian airliner and hit a Malaysian airliner by mistake. – Herzen (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "crackpot Buk theory" that they themselves propagate, just claiming it was a Ukrainian Buk? The "crackpot Buk theory" which has helluva more support than any of the ridiculous scenarios presented by either Russian government or the conspiracy websites? The "crackpot Buk theory" which now even RIA Novosti is starting to admit there's evidence for? You know, at some point this is going to get very difficult for you.

And as to your last sentence, that was already explained to you, several times I believe. It's one thing to speculate about the *motives* of the shooters. Motives are not observables, absent explicit testimony. So it's perfectly legit to think that they might have shot it down by mistake or that they might have shot it down for some other reasons. What is not legit is to give two mutually contradictory explanations for observable outcomes and insist that they're both correct. This is elementary. Just takes a bit of thought and reflection. Volunteer Marek  23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I would oppose including any info from that article, since it's not a reliable source. Wait to see if this is confirmed by RSs. Volunteer Marek  23:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Alexpl (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support both edits. Lklundin (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/russian-military-provided-mh17-missile-launcher-says-report-20141109-11jhb0.html

Good enough to include? Or too biased? Hcobb (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate: this story is already being discussed in the section #Updated Bellingcat report on the origin of a Buk launcher. Stickee (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, yes, the SMH is one of the most reliable sources in Australia. It is probably very accurately reporting what that crowd-sourced enquiry has found. Doesn't prove much though. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a bit of back-and-forth about this (the edit in question), so I've made a section here. From what I can tell, none of the sources are saying that his position has "softened", especially the source given. A quote by Abbott from another article:

"Abbott was asked ... whether he stood by his early strong statements. The Australian leader said his remarks were based on intelligence and he had not seen any evidence to contradict the initial conclusions: “We were given very strong security advice in the days following the atrocity … and there’s been nothing since then to question that original security advice.”" - The Guardian, 6 November 2014

This was only a few days ago, so it seems he and The Guardian have explicitly stated that their position has not changed. Stickee (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abbott is being a typical politician and avoiding answering the real question. His initial comments were made within hours of the downing of the plane, not days, which is the period after which he says he received his "intelligence". His initial comments were made before that alleged intelligence arrived, and were completely in line with the nasty things he had been saying about those evil Russians in Ukraine long before the crash. He is playing with words. He is a politician. They do that. He became a subject of ridicule in much of Australia after declaring he would shirtfront Putin. See here for what that means to many Australians. We eagerly await this event. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'we eager await this event' - what is the point of such asinine forum-ish posturing remarks. wp:notforum.Sayerslle (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my typo. I've fixed it. My post clarifies some obfuscation by a politician, obfuscation which editors from outside Australia may not understand. I'm helping you learn the truth. I'll await your thanks for that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn't the typo I was pointing out it was your endless pointless asinine remarks that serve only to raise temperatures and are forum-ish claptrap. as for your mockery of the idea of evil i'll pass this on to you from charles Baudelaire - 'La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas.' - don't thank me, just remember it next time you mock the idea of political leaders as evil . Sayerslle (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying Abbott is evil? (The thread is about him.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that HiLo48 was mocking "the idea of political leaders as evil". He was mocking the evident conceit of Western news media that Russians are evil. As far as I am aware, no one here has suggested that none of the political leaders of NATO and Anglophone countries are evil, so you don't have to worry that anyone is under the illusion that no political leaders are evil. American conservatives, for example, understand that not only is Putin not evil, but he is in fact the leader of the moral world; however, that Russian leaders are not evil does not imply that some Western politicians are not evil. I hope this has cleared up any misunderstanding. – Herzen (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

drivel. Sayerslle (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted in a couple of places elsewhere about how a group of Putin hating, self appointed owners of this article reject all other views without intelligent (or in some cases, any) conversation. Thank you for proving my point. HiLo48 (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about putin-haters, - its about Reuters, and such, other RS. -and not paraphrasing them in a rubbish way - not our 'views' Sayerslle (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent put-downs of others' edits is another problem I mentioned. I think much of the current content is rubbish. Better rubbish than it used to be, but still displaying a massive anti-Putin, anti-separatist bias. And don't try to tell me about reliable sources. We disagree on that too. That's where the ownership comes in. I'm waiting for some sanity to prevail. HiLo48 (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to Abbott, I can assure that in Australia he has been the subject of considerable mockery for his over-the-top comments about Putin. His personal popularity in polls is currently quite poor. Using him to try to strengthen your case against Putin may not be wise. HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians who are convinced they know the truth and wish to impose this truth on others are really not useful, see WP:SOAP. What is useful here is WP:RS. Lklundin (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the truth is. Do you? HiLo48 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The truth as far as we know now is that a civilian airliner was destroyed by the impact of a large number of high speed objects. This is consistent only be an attack with military means. That is what we know for sure. Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The subject of this thread, however, has acted from a time only hours after the downing of the plane as if he knows far more. HiLo48 (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is real politician who plays with words. No need to repeat all his words here. If he "had softened" or not his position is simply not worth mentioning here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we already have quite a bit from Abbott in the article, mainly his initial, rather rabid allegations that basically said Russia did it. I'm not sure who wants that in the article, those who also think Russia is to blame and that having Abbott agree makes their case stronger, or those who think Abbott is a fool and quoting him reinforces that view. His position has definitely softened to a more sane position, but I wasn't allowed to add that to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except his position hasn't changed, according to the Guardian quote. Stickee (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His position has definitely changed, no matter what the Guardian says. I wish I could find the text of what I heard on the radio news this morning from Australia's national broadcaster. They were quite clear on the matter. So is any rational reading of his words. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is this in the smh [36]- though this wasn't the article sourced when hilo wrote his softened material - i agree with my very best wishes really anyhow - is the detected change in this politcians rhetoric that the smh comments on very important to the article? Sayerslle (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His early comments were significant because they were probably the most aggressively anti-Russian of all the politicians quoted, and this from the Prime Minister of the country with the second largest loss of life in this crash. If he is now no long taking that extreme position, it's significant. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The usual game of accusation of OR when all that is being done is an editor pointing out what is obvious to anyone who is paying attention, and of claiming that something is undue if an editor doesn't like it is being played against you. So you have to find a secondary source that says that Abbott has softened his position. I think I have:

Mr Abbott is likely to hold a short meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he vowed recently to "shirt front" over the shooting down of Flight MH17, resulting in the death of 38 Australians.

But Mr Abbott signalled a change in his approach to the meeting, saying his discussion with Mr Putin would not be the biggest part of his agenda either at APEC or the G20.

"It wasn't a tragedy, it is an atrocity, it was a crime. Russia has said it will do everything to bring the perpetrators to justice," he said. "Good on Russia for saying that. I will just be looking for an assurance from the President that what they said then, they meant."

That sounds like a softening of one's position to me. And yes, it is noteworthy, because talk of shirtfronting the leader of one of the world's two nuclear superpowers (the one that does not make a habit of destroying countries the governments of which are not willing to get with the program) was scandalous. – Herzen (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the SMH article linked to above is even more explicit: Tony Abbott again softens tone against Vladimir Putin over downing of MH17. But no, even though one of the main Australian newspapers finds it worth running a whole story about this development, Wikipedia should ignore this because most editors really don't like Putin. The position that the editors who think they own the Ukraine related articles will take on a given matter is perfectly predictable: if it helps bash Russia and Putin, put it in; if it in any way gives the impression that Russia is just another country which is trying to look after its interests, keep it out. I would say about 80% of the comments here follow that logic. They have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the SMH article: a change in rhetoric/tone (to a more diplomatic language) isn't a change in position. No source have said his position has changed. In fact the sources have said the opposite: he "stands by" it. Stickee (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User talk:Herzen: You like to quote the wikipedia policies, so here is one for you: don't use wikipedia as a soapbox. Or did you write the parenthesized part thinking you were on the talk-page of Anti-US sentiment? Lastly, even though Ukraine gave up its significant nuclear arsenal in exchange for a guarantee of its independence and sovereignity from Russia, USA and the UK, there are still more than two nuclear powers in the World. Lklundin (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lklundin: If you don't have any suggestions to make regarding the subject of this thread, why are you posting a comment in it? The only explanation I can think of is that you like to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, instead of being here to build an encyclopedia. And I wrote "nuclear superpowers", not "nuclear powers". So you appear to be yet another non-native English speaker who has problems with English comprehension. The only two countries with a strategic triad are the US and the RF, which means that there are only two nuclear superpowers. – Herzen (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herzen, don't get sucked in by the Putin/Russia haters. There are many people I know who believe the Russians are evil (without ever having met one.). These are people who tune their radios and TVs to stations that push a line similar to Fox in the USA. The degree of evilness they are willing to attribute to Russia is unbelievable. They are not well informed, and very easily influenced by propaganda, and there was an awful lot of that around BEFORE this plane crashed. People like Abbott, and similar pollies in the USA and elsewhere, saw it as an opportunity to blame it all on Russia. Clearly Abbott's minders have told him to ease off. (His popularity is not good in Australia.) I suspect the "evil Russia" propaganda will now begin to ease off in the west overall, and we will gradually see some sanity over these issues. HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking nonsense. Or you hang out with some very strange people. Even Fox News doesn't go around saying "Russians are evil". People are blaming Russia because the Russian government *is* to blame. There's no "evil Russia" propaganda. There is reporting about all the f-ed up things Russia is doing. If someone kills someone and you say "you killed someone", that person has no right to whine about "you just hate me because my name is Bob!". Volunteer Marek  00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, beware of that different group of people who dislike imperialism in any form. As such I can bash the US with the best of them. I just don't do it (much) on Wikipedia. Also, you are welcome to check out my user page, to get an indication of my experience with different countries. Lklundin (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's not always about you. I was describing people in my own country, people who would have been the target of Abbott's earlier, anti-Russian tirades. I've never met you. I wouldn't describe you as someone I know. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herzen, 'nuclear' is redundant together with 'superpower', so don't lecture me on my English. As for Russia's nuclear triad, I will just say that 'The Soviet knight is dying inside his armour' with the low point being the sinking of 'Kursk' (when it had all been taken over by Russia. I still remember Putin in his rolled up shirt sleeves at the Black See ensuring the world that he had no need for help, while the last seamen of the 'Kursk' were suffocating). And in spite of the huge Russian spending, that knight has not recovered. Poor Russians, so much ambition and so little capability. Lklundin (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lklundin: OK, we are definitely engaging in forum-like activity now, but I think it is permissible in this case, since this helps us to understand each other better. Russia is a superpower in terms of nuclear deterrence but not in terms of manufacturing capability, finance, or soft power, so the "nuclear" in the term "superpower" is not at all redundant when it comes to Russia.

Yes, the Kursk incident was certainly a low point in post-Soviet Russian history. But note that Putin became president on 7 May 2000, while the Kursk disaster occurred on 12 August 2000. Thus, Putin had only been in power for three months when the disaster occurred. (Putin had been appointed as prime minister a year earlier.) Nobody such as myself who considers Russia to be the main defender and representative of European civilization at the present time denies that Russia under Yeltsin was a complete basket case and essentially a colony of the US, in the same way that the EU is now a colony of the US. What one needs to understand is that once Yeltsin was gone, Putin began to restore the functionality of the Russian state, and in the past few years, to restore the functionality of the Russian military. One can see that in the contrast between how the Russian military performed in the Georgian crisis and how it performed in the liberation of Crimea (which wasn't a crisis at all, because the Russian military and intelligence services were so effective).

You wrote, "Poor Russians, so much ambition and so little capability." Why don't you also write, "Poor Americans, so much ambition and so little capability"? Because the US has not managed to win any of the wars it started since World War II, other than against countries with a trivial military. You do realize that the US lost the Vietnam, Afghan, and Iraq wars, don't you? Since World War II, Russia only lost the Afghan war that the virulent Russophobe Zbig tricked it into entering. So who has the "little capability", Russia or the US? And why, being a European, do you identify with the US, which is not European but is on the other side of an ocean from Europe, instead of with Russia, which most definitely is European? – Herzen (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watch BLP. And stop soapboaxing (although... if Russia won all but one of its war and US lost all of them... how come US way richer, powerful and a better place to live than Russia?). Volunteer Marek  00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Abbott has now met with Putin]. he didn't shirt-front him, as he had promised. I suspect both will now declare that they will be working together in a friendly manner. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An option is to add Abbott's recent statement without interpreting whether or not the difference in his wording constitutes a difference in position. Lklundin (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It already is. See this. Stickee (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzen: To answer your first question: I did not write that because we are currently discussing Russia, not the USA. But I agree with you (and now you got me started), that the global influence of the USA is being severely hampered by its terrible, terrible internal problems. (Although they are not nearly as terrible as Russia's). I take great offence when you assume that I 'identify with the US'. And you are gravely mistaken when you consider 'Russia to be the main defender and representative of European civilization' - and I don't think I am alone here (try and ask people from former WAPA-countries about that). The world does not need Russia nor the USA to defend or to represent European civilization. Please do not misrepresent my opinions again. Thank you (and I will try not to continue this digression). Lklundin (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway. Hat this stuff as off topic and forum'in. Volunteer Marek  00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question is this one:

Abbott also said in an interview on 13 October 2014, in anticipation of Russia's President Vladimir Putin's attendance at the 2014 G20 summit, scheduled for mid-November 2014 in Brisbane, Australia: "Australians were murdered. They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment. We are very unhappy about this."[37]

The reason for keeping it was, "it's still notable that he said it." Can someone please clarify what makes this quote notable enough to keep? The preliminary report did not arrive at this conclusion. Does anyone else think this quote needs to be kept? USchick (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable because it was such a strong statement by a leader of a major country, whose citizens were a good percentage of those murdered. Why shouldn't it be kept?  Volunteer Marek  06:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hot tempered leaders say all kinds of things, but when it was time to do it, he didn't go through with it. This has more to do with personal relationships and nothing to do with this crash. USchick (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He "didn't go through" with what? What does that have to do with the quote? Where do you see "personal relationships"? Can you make some sense please? Volunteer Marek  06:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is being taken out of context. Here it is in full: TONY ABBOTT: Look, I'm going to shirt-front Mr Putin. You bet you are - you bet I am. I am going to be saying to Mr Putin, "Australians were murdered. They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment. We are very unhappy about this." USchick (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Out of context" implies that the quote misrepresents something. It doesn't. Also: [38]. Volunteer Marek  06:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Here's what was said less than 24 hours ago: "Mr Abbott told Mr Putin he had evidence that Russia had armed the rebels who shot down the aircraft and killed 38 Australians." [39] Stickee (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is more appropriate than a quote that he was going to say, but then never said. He's not the only one who claims to have evidence. Why is he being singled out? Do we need to make a section and include all the evidence people claim they have? USchick (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the list of people that were murdered. Then try your hardest to figure it out. That's why he's "being singled out". Volunteer Marek  06:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. I would like to hear from others what they think. There are other people who claim to have evidence. If this is important, we need to create a section and outline all those claims, and list all the evidence. To single out one person who claims they have evidence is undue. However, VM seems to be moving the goalpost about what this discussion is about. It started out about a very specific quote that Abbott was going to say, but then he never said it. USchick (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"he was going to say": He did say it. It's on his official website: Joint Doorstop Interview, Queensland | Prime Minister of Australia. Stickee (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"we need to create a section and outline all those claims" - we need to do no such thing. Volunteer Marek  07:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how The Independent reported the meeting of Abbott with Putin: No sign of Tony Abbott 'shirtfronting' Vladimir Putin over MH17 at Apec summit:

Telling journalists that Putin had stressed Russia has always insisted on “an unbiased, quick and effective investigation,” [Putin's press secretary] said that the meeting went “without harsh phrasing” and that Abbott “has not attempted” to shirtfront the President.

The Sydney Morning Herald also noted the warmth of their conversation, saying it was understood to have been “measured and respectful in tone”.

As I said in my edit summary, this is old news. There is nothing notable about Abbott having blurted out that he was going to shirtfront Putin, given that when he actually met Putin, the interaction was cordial. This is just the usual "If it puts Putin and/or Russia in a bad light, it is highly notable and must be put/kept in, but if it gives the impression that Russia is just another country doing what normal countries do, looking after their own interests and going about their business, then it is not at all notable and must be kept out." – Herzen (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding anything he said [40] that matches the quote at the top of this page. USchick (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly there. The 7th response of "PRIME MINISTER". A copy and paste from it: "Australians were murdered and they were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian supplied equipment. We are very unhappy about this." Stickee (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is saying what he is going to say to Putin. Then when he talked to Putin, he said something different. So this particular quote at the top of this thread is taken out of context. USchick (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you know what "taken out of context" means. The proper context for the quote is actually provided. Volunteer Marek  08:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what you mean? I understand this quote to be a lie. He said he was going to say something, and then he didn't. To leave this quote after the fact is to misrepresent what he actually said. Also, please explain why unidentified evidence from this man is important, but named evidence requested by the investigators is not important to mention? USchick (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Can you please explain what you mean": He's saying the 26 words preceding the quote provide the context. Plus the quote is still accurate: "...Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's allegation that [Russia] had a role in the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17" ([41]). Stickee (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please address the issue, which is, this quote is a lie. If the actual quote is, "Russia had a role," that's not what's being quoted at the top of this thread. Can you please address why you insist on presenting this man's evidence in the article, which he claims to have, but he doesn't say what it is, but actual evidence that the investigators requested is not allowed to be mentioned? USchick (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

??? How is the quote a "lie"?  Volunteer Marek  14:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tony abbot calls for apology and compensation - doesn't seem that cordial, herzen, really Sayerslle (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of Russian-Australian cordiality, the Russian navy has decided to exercise its freedom of navigation in international waters, North of the Australian cost: Russia sends warships towards Australia before G20 meeting. Subtle. Lklundin (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how statement by Abbott can be viewed as something about "personal relationships". Agree with Marek: this should stay for now. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is a lie because it was a claim about something that was going to happen at a specific event, and then it never happened. To claim that it happened is to misrepresent sources. On purpose, in bad faith. In a deliberate lie. USchick (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you know what a "lie" is. At best what we got here is a broken promise (and not even that). If you say "I will do x in the future" but then you change your mind that's not a lie. If you tell untruth about something that's happened in the past (or is happening) that's a lie. As in, if you say "it was decided at AN/I that a source should be used" where in fact "it was decided at AN/I that you shouldn't accuse people of being racist without basis". That's an example of an actual lie. Volunteer Marek  18:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason for including this "broken promise?" USchick (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the words "At" and "best" up there?  Volunteer Marek  22:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making me guess, and in case I guess wrong, would you please kindly tell us the reason? USchick (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A major reason for this quote being notable is that, in the eyes of Australians who didn't vote for his party (and in the eyes of many who did) it makes Abbott look like a fool, and people feel good when they laugh at politicians who are fools. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we use the quote we should use the whole quote, including the threat to "shirt-front" and not that it is Australian slang for a type of assault, according to the urban dictionary.[42] But I think it would be better to provide an official statement from the Australian government, rather than some rant. TFD (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you would get that "official statement". HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind editors that we still need to establish what makes this quote notable. The idea of making people look like a fool doesn't translate to people unfamiliar with Australian politics. And to assert this idea, we would need RS. After notability is established, the entire quote needs to be used, not just parts of it. USchick (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most important question here is: what is/was Abbott's position on the matter? In July it was "Russian controlled territory, Russian-backed rebels, quite likely a Russian supplied weapon - Russia can’t wash its hands of this". In August it was "the Russian-backed rebels who shot their plane out of the sky". In September, "Russian-backed rebels shot down Flight MH17 using Russian-supplied weapons, thus murdering 38 Australians". In October, "They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment." And now in November, "Thirty-eight Australians were murdered" and "MH17 was destroyed by a missile from a launcher that had come out of Russia".

From those quotes alone it's pretty clear what his position has always been, and still is. Stickee (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is part of an active edit war. There was no consensus to remove it. Whoever is edit warring, please discuss.

"In an interview with Der Spiegel, the chief Dutch MH17 prosecutor, Fred Westerbeke, said that a shooting down by surface to air missile is the most likely occurrence, saying "Going by the intelligence available, it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario. But we are not closing our eyes to the possibility that things may have happened differently." According to Westerbeke, investigators initially considered four scenarios: "An accident, a terrorist act, downing by a surface-to-air missile, or an attack from another airplane. After the release of the DSB preliminary report the accident and terror scenarios were eliminated. The two others remain." Westerbeke also said that investigators are in contact with the United States with regard to obtaining satellite imagery and are in the process of preparing a request to Russia to obtain radar data which it has indicated it possesses.Investigators have not yet received US intelligence materials on the crash because, according to the Dutch government, "In the American legal system it is judicially complicated to pass intelligence information to the criminal justice system."

USchick (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate thread. Being discussed here. Stickee (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a discussion about edit warring there. I see no consensus to remove this latest development in the investigation. If people want to shorten the article, trimming back irrelevant opinions of non investigators would be much more appropriate. USchick (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then discuss it there, rather than fragmenting discussion. Stickee (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see an edit war about this particular section, and I don't see a discussion there about this section. I invite the edit warring parties to discuss here, (this section only) since this seems to be the point of contention. USchick (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should take a closer look at this diff I posted 4 comments above, which is exactly about the edit in question. Pay particular attention to the link inside the diff. Stickee (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the link. I see the paragraph quoted at the top of this thread. This is the most recent update from the official investigation. My question is, why is it being removed? I don't see it in the article. Recentism would apply if it was a quote from a politician about something he said recently (and then changed his mind.) This particular paragraph is the latest development in the investigation. It's not clear to me who thinks it's not relevant and why. USchick (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt contain any hard facts. So why the excitement? Alexpl (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hard fact is that this is the latest development in the official investigation. This is the only place in the article that mentions what is actually being investigated. Why is it being removed and all kinds of speculation is being added instead? USchick (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a development. The same text could have been written in the very first week of the investigation. Maybe you should consider to shorten the Westerbeke statement. Alexpl (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're following the 20+ discussion pages, you know that this statement was not supported earlier because the sources that said it were considered unreliable and it was too early, according to some editors. This statement is supported undeniably by more recent sources. If this statement could have been written earlier, why wasn't it, especially since editors have been asking for it all along? What's the reason for deleting it this time, since it's no longer "too soon"? If anything needs to be shortened, there's lots of opinionated commentary from uninvolved parties. Why not start with that? USchick (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement does not bring any new information and is therefor useless. If you find it noteworthy that they wait for some info or consider every option for the crash, go ahead and write that, but I dont think that its worth more than one phrase. Alexpl (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The exact wording has been reached by consensus and it's the paragraph at the top of this thread. If some people find it useless, that's ok, there's lots of other stuff in the article that's much more useless. This is part of the official investigation, sourced content, and previously agreed upon. I respectfully request for this content to be reinstated. USchick (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yea, I read that now. Its about Russia again. I sincerely hope that they had nothing to do with the crash, cause otherwise things could really nasty. But this interview doesnt really help anybody. Its just a statement that work is ongoing. Alexpl (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statement that has consensus to be included in the article. To remove it, there needs to be a better reason than "it doesn't help anybody." I'm asking for reinstatement. USchick (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this so called consensus to add this statement actively achieved. Arnoutf (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was achieved in the article on Oct 27 with this edit [43] and in the archives of this talk page. Nothing has changed in the investigation since then, and there is no consensus to remove it. USchick (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that edit as evidence of consensus if and only if, it were the first addition of that argument. It was not. A similar argument had been reverted twice, just before. The refusal to get close to something like an edit war by those editors opposing the argument should never ever be construed as consensus; as that would validate aggressive behavior by editors willing to get close to sanction for edit warring just to push their point.

Instead I am looking for clear and unambiguous statements of all involved (even those originally opposing) where it is clearly stated that they agree it is indeed a good idea to add. I am pretty sure such active consensus was never reached. But since you claim it is, please provide a pointer to the relevant section in the archive (since I claim no such section exist, I cannot provide such a link by definition). Arnoutf (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can point you to many discussions where people continue to ask for facts instead of opinions to be included in this article. This information is specifies to the investigation. It has been in the article by consensus since Oct 27. It is being chiseled away in favor of less factual information like the thread right above this one, and I request for it to be reinstated. USchick (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you were asking to "remove all speculation" in this section: No watertight evidence so far. Dutch investigator. USchick (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It has been in the article by consensus since Oct 27." - no, it has NOT been in the article by consensus since Oct 27. It has been in the article since Oct 27 because one user edit warred to get it in. Personally I'm on the fence about it. But even if it stays, it's obviously cherry-picked to push a POV and give a false impression, and it is also too long. Volunteer Marek  04:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean just like they edit warred to delete it? Considering that it's information about the official investigation, I'm very interested to know what makes it POV and a false impression? USchick (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could editors please use out-denting rather than narrow indented paragraphs no one else is likely to read. TFD (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't know what this means. USchick (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last few paragraphs above are hard to read. TFD (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What TFD said. See the first example at WP:OUTDENT. Stickee (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the template {{outdent}} from time to time to jump back to the left margin.

More on topic. Silence is not consensus; although in low traffic articles you may consider an unopposed edit to be consensual after a few months. You yourself raised BRD, which requires consensus for addition but not for the original revert. Do not twist the policies around making the revert the topic for discussion. As I have said in previous posts - every good investigator should keep all possibilities however unlikely in mind until they can be excluded; so even if there is a 1/1000 chance it was a fighter the investigator should not exclude that. That does not say that investigator claims all possibilities are equally likely. Arnoutf (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That the criminal investigation originally considered four possibilities, and cut that down to two possibilities once the DSB preliminary report came out, is certainly notable, especially when compared to all the discussion of what was said on social media which, incredibly, seems to make up the bulk of this article. The edit in question makes clear that the Buk theory is the theory favored by Dutch investigators, so your comment does not in the least give an explanation justifying the deletion in question. Here are the two comments that were made in Talk to justify this suppression of this well sourced content:

Just to clarify my opinion, yes, I self-reverted for the time being [15], but I still believe these insignificant details of ongoing investigation should be removed per WP:recentism. And I think they will certainly be removed sooner or later by someone.My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep I've done this now. Stickee (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that the only argument given for suppression of the material is that "details" about the investigation which is tasked with determining who shot MH17 down amount to recenticism. How does recentism apply to the main criminal investigator telling a major news weekly what progress the investigation has made to date? Even if at a future date, the investigation narrows down the scenarios considered to just one, that would not make its narrowing them down from four to two not notable. I feel that I have to argue the most obvious points here. And note that My very best wishes says "I still believe…", which suggests that even he realizes that he doesn't have an argument and is just insistently not liking this. And Stickee is not any better. He makes no effort to provide a less ridiculous argument, but pretends that consensus has been obtained to delete material which had remained in this highly contentious article for days. And to see just how loony this all is, consider what my very best wishes wrote elsewhere:

I think such reports by independent investigative journalists [Bellingcat blog] are significantly more reliable and informative than vague claims by state-controlled organizations, such as German intelligence, or meaningless statements by official investigators who do not reveal their data before the end of their investigation.

My very best wishes thinks that a blog is more reliable than statements made by the relevant investigative authority, which is engaged in the largest criminal investigation in Dutch history. Are editors really going to try to pretend that there is consensus for this madness? – Herzen (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bellingcat report was picked up by multiple RS - you are protesting too much methinks - belingcat pointed out blatant lies from the Russians concerning where certain vehicles were - perhaps its that that drives your determination to rubbish the messenger. I like the way you don't mention what was in the bellingcat report - just denigrate it - lowbrow stuff really. Sayerslle (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change the subject. Just because I point out that bellingat is a blog doesn't mean that I'm denigrating it. I take your putting words into my mouth to be hostile. I never tried to delete any belingat-related material. And this isn't about belingat. It is about the Spiegel interview with the Dutch chief prosecutor, which was also "picked up by multiple RS", but which the editors who act as if they own this article are determined to suppress anyway. – Herzen (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough information to create a separate investigation article. I will let you decide how much you want to summarize here. USchick (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a classic case of WP:POVFORKing. Volunteer Marek  17:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assuming good faith. USchick (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to assume anything, I can see it for realz. Volunteer Marek  17:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating the WP:POVFORK how about making a proposal here first?  Volunteer Marek  17:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have said that the investigation section is too long, since this article is about the crash. Considering that the investigation is ongoing, and more information will make this section even longer, are there any objections to moving the Investigation section to its own article where the investigation can be expired in depth? USchick (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's enough. All comment on the possible cause that is not from the official enquiry should be removed. This includes (highly predictable) political reactions and Russian media coverage. It's all too political and unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree about removing all unofficial content. Now, how you you suggest we do that? :) USchick (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'where the investigation can be expired in depth' - freudian slip there Sayerslle (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol USchick (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are neither removing content (cited to reliable sources) nor are we splitting it off to form some kind of WP:POVFORK. "Some editors have said" all kinds of nonsense things. Volunteer Marek  21:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you announce what "We" are going to, who are you speaking for? USchick (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editors of this article. Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek  21:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they can speak for themselves. USchick (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointless. And tiresome. "We", as editors of this article, right here, are not, going to remove, reliably sourced text, because, that would be, in violation of, Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, WP:NPOV. As you and HiLo have been repeatedly told. You got it now?  Volunteer Marek  21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors have repeatedly said that this article has all kinds of speculation that is not encyclopedic and hence has no place in this article. Yet you say that "'We', as editors of this article … are not … going to remove … text". I have not seen a clearer example of OWN than this "we" of yours where you claim to speak for all editors. You don't even try to hide that you see this article as a battleground, between editors who believe that in the case of MH17, Wikipedia should act not as an encyclopedia, but as judge, jury, and executioner of the rebels, and those editors who believe that Wikipedia should perform an encyclopedic function, which makes them not even be editors, in your view. – Herzen (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Many editors" is you three, plus some throw away SPA accounts, most likely sock puppets of banned users. "Many editors" have pointed out that what you are calling "speculation" is text sourced to reliable sources which you just happen to dislike. Many many many many editors (as in, more than 3) have said this many many many many many times. But you have a problem with listening. And it actually doesn't matter how many throw away SPA accounts show up here and complain. We have a policy. It's called WP:NPOV. It's one of the pillars. It means you can't label any reliably sourced text you don't like as "speculation" and remove it just because you feel like it. For the third time (and that's the third time in the past hour), following Wikipedia policies is NOT "ownership" of an article. It is following Wikipedia policies. Try it sometime. Volunteer Marek  22:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a link to a policy where one editor is authorized to speak as "We" on behalf of Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any SPAs involved in this article other than Tlsandy. If you make accusations, you should back them up. Who are the "many throw away SPA accounts [who] show up here and complain" about this article being not something that belongs in an encyclopedia but rather a primitive hit piece on Russia and the rebels? – Herzen (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should political commentary from parties not directly involved in the crash be removed from the article? USchick (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. USchick (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It adds nothing. But I'd go further and remove ALL political commentary. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. – Herzen (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]