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 last map is wrong because not show the Debaltseve salient, at time under ukranian control — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.222.228 (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On July 17, Debaltseve was under separatist control. Geogene (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch media RTL news has confirmed that MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile system. Please put this in the lede of the article.^[1] De Oranje Ridder (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This looks like the first firm evidence. Very significant. Needs to go in both artcle body and lede, and may also affect infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in other sources too [1] [2] [3] [4].Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this can be described in intro as a fact. This may affect other parts of this page as well because they now appear in a different light. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fact or not, I expect a spate of edits attempting to discredit this evidence, its chain of custody and so on. Obviously, any actual weakness related to this evidence cannot be left out. Lklundin (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They can't be left out if they are mentioned by enough WP:RSs. Standby for the onslaught of Russian media counter-claims... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, BUK Missiles are used by Russians and Ukranians alike. This news only confirms that it was shot down and by what, not by who. De Oranje Ridder (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Ukrainians never used such missiles during this war: all planes which were downed during this war (10 to 20?), except that one, were Ukrainian planes, and all missiles used to shot down these planes belonged to Russian rebels. This should be noted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by My very best wishes (talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the DSB has released a "reaction" to the news report here. Stickee (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which basically just says "the investigation is still ongoing". RT took that and wrote that "Dutch reject new evidence". Lol.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added this to the article yesterday and tried to describe it in as objective way as possible. While this is indeed very interesting finding, it can and will be questioned as the evidence was collected by third parties and forensic examinators. This might be less of problem that RT tries to present, since they seem to have video evidence as well, but still... Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch legal experts have commented on this topic. They agree that evidence collected by non investigators may be less strong compared to when it would be collected by the investigation team, but is likely still useable. Especially in this case there seem to be relatively little problems as there is indeed video evidence, it is well known that the RTL team was on site, and it would be almost impossible for the RTL team to get shrapnel of a used BUK missile unless found at the site. But indeed let's see what happens. Arnoutf (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the page is where you can also see the rebuttal (In Russia, in Ukraine and in Germany) immediately the next day. Holland denied. RTL lied. Splinter received on 6 months later (it will add the in investigation but no more.) http://rt.com/news/242449-netherlands-downed-buk-missile/ And a wonderful fak. This fragment of Ukrainian Buk (M1) but Russian (M1-2 and m2) uses a different shard. Buk has regular many thousands of fragments, found 1 why ??? hahaha This fact enough biased that trolling is imminent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.182.14 (talk • contribs) 24 mrt 2015 07:03‎ (UTC)

• I agree this should be included in the article, but I think the current wording ("a Russian unit that was most likely manned by a Russian crew") is somewhat far-fetched, since the original report does not explicitly state that (it was just a willful interpretation of the report by the mass media). The original report only mentions that the shard is from a BUK rocket (which is used by several countries, including Russia, Ukraine, Finland, and Georgia), and that it has the Cyrillic letter "Ц" on it (both Russian and Ukrainian alphabets are Cyrillic, and the letter is identical in them). It says absolutely nothing about "a Russian crew". Buzz105 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The archived ref I just fixed says it was a Russian battery that shot the aircraft down. - Ahunt (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it was announced a refutation^[1][2][3] Media again all said lies. Netherlands officially denied media reports.^[4][5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.201.221 (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they did not deny anything. We covered this in the section above. The statement may be found here, which is effectively a "no comment". Stickee (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This March 19 here (Niva19 Mar 2015 Reaction to Dutch broadcast RTL News about MH17 investigation) This http: //rt.com/news/242449-netherlands-downed-buk-missile/ 20 March DISCLAIMER RTL News lied and was dismissed March 20, 2015. On the page is where you can also see the rebuttal (In Russia, in Ukraine and in Germany). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.182.14 (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"No comment" is not a rebuttal. Your use of the word "lied" suggests you have a strcng POV to push here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it is appropriate to quote some mysterious "leaks from the ongoing Dutch investigation" in the article's lead, given that the original report has been deleted from the Jane's website, and there are no other sources confirming this information (all the other sources only mention the RTL investigation and the missile shard). As far as I remember, there were problems with using a retracted BBC report as RS. Buzz105 (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, when a media outlet pulls a story, it has good reason for doing so. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, Jane's has not explained why it yanked this particular story. I think we should cut that information for now and wait for confirmation from other sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure the story was "pulled" and not just moved behind a paywall? - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, since:

1)The article was initially behind the paywall (unregistered users could read only the very beginning);

2)I couldn't find any info on it in any other sources, and something like this, if this was genuine, would undoubtedly have been covered by more than one source. Buzz105 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it's "undoubtedly" not genuine? For my part, I doubt that it's fabricated. Have you seen the Russian language video the Dutch just released? I note that officially Russia has said it is up to this Dutch-led team to determine the truth.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch mainstream media now state that the investigation team appears to have strong suspicions it was a Russian BUK system operated by a Russian crew [5]. Perhaps wait a few days to see how it evolves. Arnoutf (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]