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.

Note that a closely related article has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requiem for MH-17 (2nd nomination) for details. Stickee (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I missed it. Here is a better ref [1] about Liya Akhedzhakova reading this poem by Orlov at Echo of Moscow. I think it deserves inclusion here as the only poem written about the tragedy. It was written by a notable poet and broadcast by a famous actress on the Echo of Moscow. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna add this up here, sorry if I don't follow your "wikipedia rules". I have been reading the BUK MISSILE SYSTEM page. It indicates the Max Effective Range of 42km for the most advanced Anti-Air missile. The others are roughly 30km range. This aircraft was shot down, as stated, 40km from the border. Where did the missile originate from, and how far away from the airliner was it when fired?

Measured distance from apparent Pro-Russian separatist controlled A-1402 ППО(Anti-Air battery) [2] to Torez(Last known contact with MH17) and appears to be a whopping 65km as the crow flies(straight distance).

The article for the BUK missile system, when you look at the Operators, states Ukraine, but does not state which model they possess. Further reading indicates Georgia purchased SA-11 (Buk-1M, 9М38M1 missile, 3,3–35 km range) from Ukraine. Which would indicate this is what would have been in possession of forces in the region. Who knows the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.96.36 (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Novaya Gazeta has just leaked a new analysis[3] which has two key points: 1) this was "Buk" missile, 2) the missile came from area controlled by Ukrainian army. The fact that it has been leaked at all is almost a certain mark of an intended disinformation but I believe it's important it's added in the article just as we added other Russian statements. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in particular since Novaya Gazeta is an opposition medium and is not controlled by the Russian government in any way.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not NG's own analysis, it's something that has been leaked to NG, perhaps on purpose. NG commentary is that they're publishing it mostly to cut all the conspiracy theories that are propagated in Russia about Ukraininan fighter jets etc. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

does the referenced article explain how from the damage traces on the wreckage they can deduce the launch place of the missile which is the claim being made. Unless it does this convincingly I suspect it is just another piece of Russian wishful thinking and is of questionable value.Andrewgprout (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does provide some geometrical analysis on the projectile traces on the hull and then deduction what was the angle of the warhead at the time of the explosion. Based on that they build a hypothesis what was the missile angle relative to the airplane at the moment of the explosion. According to them the missile approached the airplane from right side (south) and not from the front (Snizhne). I have no expertise to assess validity of these claims as there are many assumptions there (for example, that the missile indeed explodes on a straight line from the launch site). Also, the report definitely doesn't look like an impartial analysis written by engineers (it contains statements like "separatists obviously did not have Buks", "so called investigation" etc). Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like the 'dislocated' Ukrainian Buk site. The fuselage fragments in question are in Holland so I would await the Dutch findings. Meanwhile, although we should not be doing our own research, the pictures we have all seen clearly show a mass of impacts from the front immediately under the Port cockpit windows, that is on the left. Since the plane was travelling eastwards, that's coming from the north. Ex nihil ^(talk) 03:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The NG source basically just says that such a report exists. It says nothing about the credibility of its findings, although it notes that at the very least the existence of this report should put an end to at least some of the bullshit conspiracy theories (which, incidentally, numerous users have been trying to cram into this article). It was a BUK. For us, as encyclopedia editors, is about whether to include this and how to properly word it. I can see how it should be included. I want to see a proper warning which reflects the fact that this is not something which is "reported by NG" but rather NG saying that such a report exists.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the publication [4] the journalists do not really know who authored this report. Neither they know the purpose of creating this report, beyond telling it supposed to be sent (by whom?) to investigators. Perhaps the purpose of this report was to disinform the investigators and readers? "Info" like that should not appear anywhere on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Lukashevich (whose interview I've just added yesterday) had exactly the same observations on the report as you. He also presented counterarguments against the missile trajectory hypothesis pointing to Ukrainian army, which, on their turn, offered a quite complete description of how the photos were falsified. So the report itself as published by NG isn't definitely very reliable itself. On the other hand, we do present Russian point of view in the article as well, regardless of it being valid or not. One important part of this report, as note by Lukashevich, is that it kind of finally denies all the previousl conspiracy theories propagated in Russia (such as Su-25). Kravietz (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [5], [6], the report might be included in this page as a notable fabrication, except this is hardly a notable fabrication, and there is no real evidence who created it (this is not "Russian view"). Hence this thing is probably "undue". My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (as several Dutch mainstream news outlets reported) lies in the fact that this is the first Russian report that no longer talks about the Ukranian fighter idea, but acknowledges it was almost certainly a BUK missile. Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2 almaz antey press conference [7] - from Eliot Higgins twitter 'And this is yet more proof that the Russian Ministry of Defences July 21st press conference was a pack of lies and fabrications - It's obvious the report #MH17 leaked in Novaya Gazeta was from Almaz-Antey, matches everything they claimed -Though notably absent from the press conference were the Russian MoD satellite images @Bellingcat showed were fake' - from Shaun Walkers twitter 'Seems claimed launch site under *separatist* control. Russia now hanging seps out to dry over MH17 but claiming they used non-Russian BUK??' from marcel van den bergs twitter - 'have seen many recent pics showing Russian BUK TELARs using 9M38M1 missile. Almaz Antey suggests only in use by Ukraine' shaun walker twitter NB: The AP correspondents who saw a BUK in Snizhne on day of the attack said it was an M1 what happened the day flight 17 was downed' - veli kivimaka twitter - '9M38M1 was good enough for the 53rd brigade to train with in 2010. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [8] … evidence the Russian military supplied the type of missile used to shoot down mh17 92.3.5.81 (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The official designer & developer defense systems Buk stated that has been used and Buk-M1 missile 9M38M1 (data - 06.2015)^[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palma.palash.yandex. (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

article in theage - mh17 buk missile Russian weapons manufacturer and bbc [9]92.3.3.48 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Almaz-Antey, a manufacturer of missiles for Russian BUKs denies that it was their missile, and yes, they "leaked" this report to Novaya Gazeta. This is because they want all western sanctions against them be lifted (as they say). Obviously, no one trusts their claims... I am not sure if this is notable enough to be included in this page, but this should be definitely included on page Almaz-Antey. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buk approaches its target at Mach-3. Its control surfaces are fairly small. It uses semi-active radar homing. ...Which means, the missile would not be turning circles around the far slower airliner. It stands to reason, the missile's angle at detonation relative to such a target, would have a predictable relationship with the location from which it had been launched, and can probably be consistently replicated in an experiment.Alex.K.NY (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is not a forum or social network for original research or any personal speculation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/fm/MH17/Transfer-of-the-wreckage-Malaysian-Airlines-flight-MH17-ondertekend-Engels_web.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6YTHYzgdE
• http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/fm/MH17/Removal-of-wreckage-of-Malaysian-Airlines-flight-MH17_web.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6YTHa7n0N

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bellingcat has reported on buk in Russia then sziznhe then luhansk and so back to Russia [10], and in the lead it says bellingcat says the separatists were in control , but they seem open to it being a Russian crew, as in this report on joint investigation team video

'•The Buk had a crew with it, though it is not explicitly said where the crew originated from (Russia or Ukraine)'[11] - perhaps the sentence in the lead should be 'the seps/Russians were in control of a ..' - and Eliot Higgins says , at roughly 4:25 in this interview for Australian radio 'was it a Russian crew in a Russian buk- I believe it was' -[12]92.3.2.96 (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I left for several months. Last time I checked, it was Oxford. Why is it now full-on En-UK? Dustin (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit months ago needs to largely be reverted as it changed the established spelling without consensus. Dustin (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the few changes make much difference mainly "ized" for "ised" endings so I would just leave it alone. To quote Oxford "In British English, it doesn’t matter which spelling convention is chosen: neither is right or wrong, and neither is ‘more right’ than the other." MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we let that kind of thing slip through the cracks, what's to keep vandals, imperialists, and nationalists from sneakily changing articles (especially obscure ones) to their preferred dialects and/or spelling? I'm not just trying to be dramatic or anything, by the way, I seriously don't like it when people just get away with this kind of behavior. Dustin (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says expires April 13. It should say the protection expires June 6. Dustin (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]