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

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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 High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-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 Mid‑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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.forbes.ru/obshchestvo/379995-strannye-cifry-o-sbitom-boinge-pochemu-almaz-antey-ne-smog-oprovergnut

Template:Annual readership

I wonder why the information from the SBU chief's (Valentyn Nalyvaichenko) press conference for the world's media is missing in the article? It was held on 18 July 2014 (Eng; Ukr), but instead, the article cites his subordinate, Vitaly Nayda, and his press-conference held on 19 July 2014. Why is that? At that press conference just after a day after the crash, Nalyvaichenko pointed out, inter alia, the exact site of the missile launch (Pervomaisky), which the Dutch-led investigators have been trying to find out for several years. I think that we should reflect the fact that the exact site of the missile launch (Pervomaisky) was established by Ukr SBU the day after the disaster (!), and a couple of years later confirmed by investigators from JIT. --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I think it will probably be helpful if you participate in the discussion and then make some edits, since you blocked me and don't allow me to improve the article on my own.--Александр Мотин (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not an article in which I feel like participating actively as an editor at this time. Note that myself having acted in my capacity as an uninvolved admin does not obligate me to do so. El_C 22:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I improve the article since you don't want to unblock me? --Александр Мотин (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make any proposals you see fit, here, on the article talk page. El_C 00:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I have already made. So what's next? --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You discus.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (8 June 2020 version):

  "The responsibility for investigation was delegated to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) and the Dutch-led joint investigation team (JIT), who concluded that the airliner was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched from pro-Russian separatist-controlled territory in Ukraine"

Well, to my mind it is not correct to say this way because the Head of SBU said on the 18 July 2020 that Ukr SBU conducted their own investigation which concluded that (Nalyvaichenko's Facebook post and don't forget to watch a video I gave a link to)... So that means that initial investigation was conducted by Ukraine, and which formed the basis of the conclusions made by the Dutch-led investigators. But now it is said like there was no official investigation before JIT and DSB.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In his Facebook post Nalyvaichenko says:

It took us less than a day to solve the crime of bandits who shot down a passenger plane on July 17, 2014 over the village of Grabovo, Donetsk region.

So the crime was solved by Ukraine (what a surprise) the next day! But there is nothing said about it in the article --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 2016 is not 2020, nor is 2016 before 2015.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? This discussion is not a vote --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated I oppose your suggestion, and I have stated one objection to your material. I said I would not engage with you, but we also should not try and score points, check the damn date of your "source", and come back when you can at least get that right.Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check the damn date yourself, Slatersteven [1] (18 July 2014) --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What has that to do with that Facebook post?Slatersteven (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rbc.ua [2], Lb.ua [3] --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I do not think we need to add this, and that is my last word.Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand why a press conference close to the shoot down is significant. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the article claims:

The Donetsk People's Republic claimed possession of such a system [Buk missile launcher] in a since-deleted tweet.^[1][2]

My first question is: Was this tweet written in English or Russian? The source which was used in the article claims it was written in English (By the way what does DNI stand for?). But the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation claims the tweet to be in Russian. Each of these tweets (in Russian and English) on those screenshots has 279 retweets and 50 favs. So I wonder whether that means that the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation falsified that tweet because it was actually in English. Or not? --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My second question is: Would you please provide a proof that this twitter account (@dnrpress) belongs to the "Donetsk People's Republic"? Thank you. --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Errr we do not source to the tweet, so I suggest you contact the sources we use and ask them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I suggest you to delete this speculation since you cannot prove the ownership and authencity of that tweet in English. Check WP:VERIFY. --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I ask your advice as you seem to be an expert in "propaganda bullshit". Is this the American propaganda bullshit? [4]:

A deleted tweet by the Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession

So how this so-called "deleted tweet" could show a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession since this photo of the BUK missile launcher was posted on the internet in 2011? I mean how the photo which is made in 2011 could show a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession? --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not (again) cite the tweet, so take it up with the sources we use.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Didn't I say it clearly? "The source which was used in the article claims it [the tweet] was written in English" --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh sorry, I see, it does not matter what language it was written in, as we do not source to it, we source to RS saying it. NOw it is (dare I suggest it) possible that the DNR make announcements in more than one langage.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It does not matter what language it was written in"?? Oh gosh, it's so funny. I'll give you a little clue - there is a different meaning of the "same" tweet in Russian.--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will indulge this, what does the Russian text say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: So you want to say that DNR wrote two tweets in different languages but they were posted at the same time and have the same quantity of retweets and favs? You think they wrote that tweet in English in order to inform the British people? --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to say anything, policy says we go with what RS say. So if RS say "this was the DNR, and this is what they said" so do we. Unless we have RS saying it is not true. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will cautiously assume that what you call a "reliable source" (The Diplomat) is just a bucket full of the American propaganda bullshit. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2020 (U

I will cautiously assume that what you call a "reliable source" (The Diplomat) is just a bucket full of the American propaganda bullshit. Harassment? Especially that "bullshit" part. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 23:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask again, what does it say in Russian?Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Самоходные зенитно-ракетные комплексы "Бук" на территории зенитно-ракетного полка ПВО А1402 взятого под контроль ДНР.

--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In English.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be translated by a person who is fluent in English. Maybe Ymblanter will assist us? --Александр Мотин (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know what you translate it as. What do YOU translate "взятого под контроль ДНР" as?Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I want someone who is fluent in English to translate it as precisely as possible. Let's wait a bit. "на территории зенитно-ракетного полка ПВО А1402 взятого под контроль ДНР" → In the territory of the regiment A1402 which (the regiment; NOT the Buk launchers according to the grammatical case) was seized by DNR. --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And its not DNI, its "Deleted DNR" tweet.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it's just a translation of the original tweet in Russian. It isn't very helpful giving a Russian tweet to an English-reading audience, so the news agency translates to English. AFP translates it too with a slightly different wording: "@dnrpress: self-propelled Buk surface-to-air missiles systems have been seized by the DNR from (Ukrainian) surface-to-air missile regiment A1402," the Twitter post said. source Stickee (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but we do not know, nor does it matter, RS say it belongs to the Donetsk People's Republic, and say they posted it. That is all that concearns us.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFP says: a Twitter account for the "Donetsk People's Republic". What are these quotation marks for? (: --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As we do not write for AFP how are we gong to know, I suggest you ask them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest you start reading WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." it does, so it does not fail that "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Well have any RS said this was not a tweet by the DNR?Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then at least it should be written like "Some twitter user @dnrpress claimed (...) in a since-deleted tweet" since you cannot prove that the twitter account belongs to the Donetsk People's Republic. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the source says it says 'a Twitter account for the "Donetsk People's Republic", wp:v means we say what the source says. I do not have to prove anything, I am not the source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your goal is to write a propagandist article on Wikipedia, then, of course, you don't have to prove anything. --Александр Мотин (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my least word on this wp:v does not say I have to prove anything, all I have to do is say "here is an RS saying it, now does it?" You admit the source says it, so it does not fail wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I agree with Stickee. It's quite likely that one of the versions of the tweet is a machine translation. Given the nature of the screenshots, I think it's likely translated via a browser or similar rather than via Twitter. While I don't understand Russian, considering that the Russian version still has an English UI and that the English version has odd phrasing, I'm willing to bet the Russian version is misleading. It's misleading to claim a machine translation is fabrication.

Consider this example [5] [6] ([7]). You can see the original version here [8], it's in Russian as you may expect. Did I fabricate the first image? That seems to be a misleading or at least confusing claim. All I did was use Chrome's machine translation ability to translate the page and took a screenshot. If I claimed that the English translation was the original tweet that claim could reasonably be called a fabrication.

But AFAICT, no one source we use have ever said that. The Diplomat [9] "A deleted tweet by the Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession.". Notice there is no comment on the tweet's language there or anywhere. They link to this tweet of that screenshot. But even that tweet says nothing about the language of the original tweet. I do think The Diplomat failure to make clear that they were linking to what appears to be a machine translation of the tweet rather than the tweet in it's original language was sloppy journalism or even misleading. Machine translations are known to be inaccurate so if you are going to link to them, you should make it clear this is what you're linking to. Further, it's not clear to me if they actually got someone who understood Russian to view the original tweet. Possibly they didn't realise it was a machine translation. That piece seems to be a live breaking news piece "Editor’s Note: The Diplomat is currently monitoring this rapidly developing event. This piece will be updated as more information becomes available." so frankly it was never a great source.

So IMO we shouldn't use that particular diplomat source if possible, and we especially shouldn't use it for the tweet. But AFAICT, there are other sources which confirm what the tweet said and these seem to be using the Russian version. Ultimately human translations by reliable secondary sources is what we want so it's not clear to me there was ever a major issue here, more a minor one of sourcing. Again, AFAICT, we have never claimed, nor have any our sources actually claimed, that the original tweet was in English.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And we do use other sources.10:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

But as I said, I don't think we should be using that particular article at all especially for the tweet. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies it seems my reply was partly mangled while I was editing. I meant to say "I'm willing to bet the Russian version is the original. However I don't agree with the way the now topic banned OP has approached this. For starters, IMO It's misleading to claim a machine translation is fabrication". Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dug into replies to that tweet and found this from the original poster [10] which pretty much confirms what they original posted was a translation. They don't say machine translation, but frankly I don't see how a non machine translation would end up looking like an actual tweet. That is actually likely far closer to a fabrication. It is unfortunate that the original tweet didn't make it clear that it was a machine translation although to be fair, I don't think they expected it to blow up like it did [11]. The original tweet is on archive.org anyway [12] Frankly, now that it's clear this is just some random person, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with some random person on twitter tweeting a machine translated screenshot of a tweet without mentioning it's a machine translation, I won't even say it's misleading. But I stand by my earlier point, while not a fabrication, it is at a minimum confusing and I'd go further and say misleading for The Diplomat to publish a full article which links to a machine translation of the tweet and not make it clear this is what they were linking to. Whether this is because they didn't realise they were relying on a machine translation I don't know, but IMO we probably shouldn't use that particular article, and we especially shouldn't use it for anything to do with that tweet. Can some explain to me why we need to use that article for the tweet? If other sources say the same thing and appear to be using the original Russian version, that seems eminently better. Even sources in Norwegian (although someone mentioned AFP) seem to be better than an English source that is potentially relying on a machine translation. If there is some contradiction between what the sources say about the tweet then frankly sources like the AFP which have likely used a human translation of the Russian tweet seem to be more accurate than a source which may have used a machine translation. Yet for all the mess of this discussion, no one seems to have actually mentioned any difference between what those like AFP and the Norwegian source are saying about this tweet and The Diplomat. So I'm not clear what's with the insistence of keeping it for the tweet. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None, but I would point out that the diplomat do not link to the translated tweet, but a tweet commenting on its deletion. It is sloppy yes. But (and this is the key) nothing the diplomat says seems to be incorrect (As other sources confirm the deletion). But by all means replace it with a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion over at wp:rsn about the RS status of the diplomat.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User:Александр Мотин has now been topic banned from this subject. - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a long read. I don't think there is any doubt that the DNR's press office (or media relations) put out a tweet. I'm not sure that so significant now that we have so much other evidence on the Buk travels in Russia and Ukraine, in 2014 it was important. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Pincrete for making me do some research on this. "Shoot down" is the verb in all forms of English. For the noun, "shootdown" is rare in British Englsh, and so "shoot-down" seems the best to use here. As I said in my edit summary, it isn't terribly important but it should be consistent throughout the article. "Shoot-down" seems to have been acceptable to the BBC and Alistair Cooke in 1989, for example. --84.64.249.140 (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, it's not hugely important, but the more usual term in British English is "shooting down", i.e. "the shooting down of the plane". "Shooting-down" (noun, with hyphen, but without hyphen in one of the two examples given, is listed on Collins Dictionary and it says it's British English). Lexico (Oxford) has "shoot-down" (noun, with hyphen) but says it's North American. Personally I don't like "shootdown" (or "shoot-down" for that matter) but one argument against "shooting down" (or "shooting-down") is it's not easy to pluralise it. "There were two shootings down last week" sounds a bit odd and "there were two shooting downs" sounds just wrong. Perhaps it can't be pluralised. Dubmill (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the one-word form is less common in UK English. I have no strong feelings about whether the hyphenated/spaced form is better. There is I think a general tendency to be slower to drop the space/hyphen in UK English and I tend to think this is usually clearer. I'm old enough to remember when people co-operated and I still get confused when I read of people referring to their colleagues as female-bovine-orkers. What's an 'orker'? Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back a hundred years or so, "to-day" and "to-night" were common. As Dubmill says, other than "shootdown", it's hard to get a good word for the deliberate destruction of a flying machine in the air. "Shooting down" (or its hyphenated version) is awkward, especially when pluralised, and I don't like "downing" either. Maybe there are some instances which can be trimmed entirely and the context suffice. I couldn't help noticing the plodding repetition of the term, and the two different versions of it ("shoot down" and "shoot down"). We have 20 instances of shoot-down now and I reckon we could afford to lose about half of them. Without straying into elegant variation, we could perhaps also look at phrases like "airliner's destruction" which emphasise the particularity of this event; most shoot-downs are of military aircraft, not an airliner full of passengers. --84.64.249.140 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? I'll settle for seven fewer. --84.64.249.140 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, this blurs and euphemises the meaning in most - if not all - instances.Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does it do that? --84.64.247.8 (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, whilst consistent spelling of the same term makes sense, I don't think that always using the same term is essential - English is like that, "shooting down of the aircraft" and "aircraft shoot down" mean the same thing - the former is more UK, but both are usable and structure of the whole sentence is more important than always using the identical term IMO. I had a closer look at your edits, I think that at times they make the info less specific eg (Russis's) "account of what caused the shoot-down has varied over time" becomes "account of what caused the airliner's destruction has varied over time", well Russia has never proposed a bomb nor an accident. There are ways out of this, but I believe it should be more, not less specific (to the extent that sources support of course) - in this instance perhaps "its account of how, and by whom, the aircraft was shot down …". Must go now, will continue later.Pincrete (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, sentence cohesion and styling is often more important than keep one term throughout. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to trim the paragraph to make it more like a summary style text per WP:SUMMARY. The current version was copy pasted without thinking or contains minor details imho. I can explain why something was removed and want to know what do you think about it:
An armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine led some airlines to avoid eastern Ukrainian airspace in early March 2014 due to safety concerns.^[1][2][3] In the months prior to 17 July, reports circulated in the media on the presence of weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, in the hands of the rebels that were fighting the Ukrainian government in eastern Ukraine.^[4] On 29 June the rebels had obtained a Buk missile system after having taken control of a Ukrainian military base.^[5][6][7] The Ukrainian authorities declared that this system was not operational.^[4][8] According to the statement of the Security Service of Ukraine three Buk missile systems were in the territory controlled by the rebels at the time that Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 was shot down. On the night following the downing of MH17 three Buk missile launchers along with a Buk command vehicle were moved into Russia.^[9][10][11]--Renat (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the cited source [13] tells nearly the opposite: "The Netherlands will not hold Ukraine accountable for decision not to close airspace over Donbas". Well, if they or official investigators would hold the Ukrainian government responsible, that needed to be included of course. But they "will NOT". As about the groundless accusations by the country-perpetrator, one could not care less. That can be included to the body of the page, but certainly not to the lead. I also do not see this specific claim by Russian government described in detail in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the source doesn't support the assertion that Russia holds Ukraine responsible because of Ukraine not closing its airspace. BUT, when last I examined this (a few years ago), the 'Kremlin line' was still that "it's Ukraine's fault anyway, since the plane should not have been there" - this was also almost the only thing that was consistent in Russian claims, and AFAIK is still their position. I'm not convinced that this should go - since the view of the accused country - which is also a 'global player' - is inherently important, even if it is a very thin defence. It also introduces the 'closing of airspace' issue which both Russia and some less partisan commentators deemed important at the time.

BUT I'm not going to 'push back' - I'll see what others think. I also note that MOST of the convoluted story of Russia's 'defence' is already covered very succinctly in the previous sentences. So maybe we don't need the 'airspace' claim, but if we do, we need to find a more explicit source. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has a place in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it doesn't belong, especially in light of official investigation findings and statements. Stickee (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That question aside, I think there is only one remaining controversy in this case. Here is it. As we know, the Buk was operated by a professional military team, and according to military/aviation experts (like Mark Solonin - [14]), there is no way they could accidentally confuse a passenger plane with a Ukrainian Su airplane(s) flying on much lower heights - with such advanced equipment! Furthermore, there were numerous passenger planes flying high through exactly same area during same day (and almost same time), most of them are operated by Russian airlines (that was well established by the official investigation). They did not try to hit any of them, obviously because they were easily identifiable as passenger planes. Which brings the question: what a hell they hit this plane? And the only possible explanation seem to be that one originally put forward by Ukarinian SBU [15], i.e. they wanted to hit a Russian passenger plane, which would serve as a casus belli for a much larger invasion to the Ukrainian territory planned at the time. That failed. They hit wrong plane. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, conjecture. Also, if I recall properly, the first words said by the first men at the crash site strongly suggest that they were expecting to find a military plane. Pincrete (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think we can leave out the conspiracy theories, this is not a wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is not my claim, it was described in RS, and this is hardly a conspiracy theory. It has not been reliably established why exactly they decided to shoot down this plane according to the official investigation [16]. They indicted 4 defendants: the prosecution accuses the defendants Girkin, Dubinskiy, Pulatov and Kharchenko of playing a commanding, organizing and supporting role in deploying the Buk-TELAR that shot down flight MH17. Girkin and Dubinskiy were leaders within the self-proclaimed DPR, an armed group. Pulatov and Kharchenko were their direct subordinates. And sure, these defendants could play exactly this role, they are probably guilty as charged, and they could believe whatever, but they were not the people who actually pulled the trigger, commanded to pull the trigger, and most importantly, did not plan and command the entire operation. According to the conclusion by the investigators, "As the case file shows, there were other people besides the four defendants in this trial who played a role in shooting down flight MH17 – first and foremost the crew of the TELAR, but presumably also individuals within the chain of command in the Russian Federation.". We do not really know what the Russian military commanders from Moscow were trying to accomplish. So whatever RS (such as the article by Andreas Umland linked above) are saying on this subject can be included to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An enormous percentage of military and police 'cock-ups' - targetting and killing unintended targets - happen because of human error. Not because the human lacks the equipment or knowledge to make a correct assessment, but because in the 'heat of battle', they are so full of adrenalie that they make a wrong judgement - in everyday speech they are 'trigger happy'. Solonin can not possibly know more than that the crew SHOULD NOT have made an elementary error.

The official investigation only raises the issue of 'why this plane' or "why a civilian plane" to make the point that legally the answer is irrelevant :"Thus it is not necessary to provide any evidence that the defendants specifically intended to shoot down a civilian aircraft with their Buk-TELAR. Indeed, as we stated earlier, the case file contains various indications that the defendants did in fact intend to shoot down a military aircraft belonging to the Ukrainian air force. This can be deduced from intercepted conversations involving the defendants that took place after flight MH17 was shot down.

In WP terms, what you are proposing is distinctly FRINGE, and it also appears to be a SYNTH of various sources. Pincrete (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I read this text from the conclusion by investigators. They are very careful here saying that the actual motivation for the crime did not really matter that much, as far as the crime was committed, etc. They say it precisely because they do not really know the motivation, beyond "various indications" that ... They also say that the charges can be changed during the trial if new facts (about the Buk team and their military commanders) will be found. As about my suggestion, here is it in general. The shooting down this plane was obviously a crime (hence the international criminal investigation, etc.). Also, according to prosecution, that was not just an accident, but a murder. Which brings the obvious question: what was the motive for the crime? This is far from obvious. This needs to be included somewhere, possibly to a specific subsection, including the opinion by investigators you cited, along with other well sourced views. This is all I was thinking about. And, no, I believe such sourced view [17], [18], [19] is not FRINGE because: (a) it does not contradict any facts we know about this case, including findings by the official investigation, (b) it was officially claimed by Ukrainian government through Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, and (c) it was discussed and considered feasible by experts, such as Andreas Umland , Mark Solonin, and Andrei Piontkovsky. Sure, this suggested motive is not proven, but so are all other possible motives. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. More sources: [20],[21]. The young Bellingcat investigator Aric Toler (2nd ref) criticizes the arguments by Nalivaichenko, but his criticism is very amateurish at best. For example, he does not really address the argument that it was impossible to confuse the passenger and the military Ukrainian planes, especially by the professional military team, the point made by David Satter (1st ref), Piontkovskiy [22] and some others. Instead, Aric Toler misrepresents the argument as a claim that the Buk would be useless against Ukrainian military planes ("While some have argued ...", etc.). No one claimed that. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other arguments by Aric Toler. Lastly, and perhaps most obviously, we can point to the intercepted private conversations between the Russian and DNR commanders from mid-July 2014, discussing how a Buk was coming to the area to provide protection from constant Ukrainian aerial strikes.. Oh yes, such conversations did took place. That's why people like Girkin (one of the accused) believed that the intended target was a Ukrainian military plane, at least at the time of the event (as noted by investigators). However, that is exactly what DNR commanders like Girkin would be told in the event of the actual false flag operation (once again, we do not know if it was in fact a false flag operation, only that experts discussed such a possibility and that their views can be reliably sourced). My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am talking only about this one posting by Aric Toler. Of course Bellingcat made phenomenal work to establish the actual perpetrators, and the actual chain of the Russian military command used in the operation (as described in this report: [23]). Based on that, people who gave an order for the Buk team to shoot were not DNR rebels [24],[25],[26]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There may be individual elements here that warrant the briefest of mentions, but collectively it amounts to SYNTH advocacy of a FRINGE theory (ie one not given any coverage/much credence by most sources). Most of the sources you give here endorse the notion that targetting the missile on the day and decision to fire was taken by an officer 'on the ground', so human error is more likely than conspiracy. But regardless, this is fringe speculation. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course that was a human error. All these sources say it was a human error. No one intended to hit the MH17. The only question is why they have made this error, i.e. about the target they intended to hit. My very best wishes (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to have one line about this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead is outdated and needs to be fixed as follows.

1. It has been reliably established by investigations (JIT and Bellingcat), essentially as a matter of fact, that the airliner was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched by a Russian military team of 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade from the rebel territory. The team was dispatched on the orders from Moscow. This needs to be stated more clearly. Whatever Girkin (a GRU/FSB operative) was saying on his Facebook account should remain only in the body of the page. Whatever intelligence services were telling about it immediately after the event should probably also remain only in the body.
2. The promoting disinformation and obstruction by the Russian government should remain, but be more clearly phrased as such.
3. Add information about 4 people indicted by the court. My very best wishes (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 - the lead is very deliberately phrased cautiously. A mass of evidence, some strong, some circumstantial, points to Russia and Russian individuals having a case to answer, but we still live in a world where guilt or otherwise is not established by Bellingcat nor any news or internet site. Our cautious tone mirrors that of JIT/DSB findings, announcements and reports - and should continue to do so IMO. These charges still have the status of allegations regardless of how any of us might feel personally. The possibility, no matter how remote, that WP would contribute to an atmosphere in which a fair trial becomes impossible should be borne in mind. I don't know what Dutch law is on this matter, but in UK law, a paper or person declaring a person guilty before they have been tried is contempt of court and risks invalidating any subsequent trial. Therefore I would strongly caution against the change you propose. The simple fact is that these are still allegations, not established facts. You may be right about western Intelligence going, I think you are probably wrong about Girkin, but whatever remains should continue IMO to record the history of what unfolded immediately after the crash. There is a lot of 'catch-up' and back story to cover.

Point 2 - I don't have an opinion about the details of point two. This was reduced from a very long account of all the turns and twists of Russia's 'story'. Some balance between the present very succinct and the earlier overlong might be achievable.

Point 3 - probably include the 4 indictments, though maybe it isn't necessary to name them. Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cautionary approach in general - yes, I agree. Using Facebook and claims by Girkin in the lead - no, I think this should be fixed. We are not talking here about court convictions, and the 4 official suspects were not officially found guilty yet if I am not mistaken. We just describe what RS say on the subject. OK, I will try to fix something a little, just to make clear what exactly I suggest. My very best wishes (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Girkin's existing statement (as described by RS) definitely belongs in the lead. Stickee (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]