{{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 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 Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Malaysia Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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 C‑class Low‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reports from Interfax and Reuters are saying this was shot down. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reportedly shot down by a buk missile - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system - the plane would be within range even at maximum cruising altitude for a 777. "..can begin tracking at the missile's maximum range (32 km/20 mi) and can track aircraft flying at between 15 m and 22,000 m (50 to 72,000 ft) altitudes. It can guide up to three missiles against a single target." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.38 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the Buk missile system known to be in the possession of the pro-Russian separatists? --Bruzaholm (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if you can read Russian, official Russian source announced separatists had BUKs in late June [1]. Also, separatists have acknowledged shooting down a plane at exactly this time in exactly this location, thought they have (mis)identified it as a Ukrainian military transport plane: [2], again, from an official Russian source. 128.68.133.170 (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Very interesting link. Is it established who supplied the pro-Russia separatist with the surface-to-air missile in question? At which side of the Ukrainian-Russian border were the missiles originally used? --Bruzaholm (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per National Public Radio out of Boston, the plane was late/not arriving at the time expected in Russia, and then it was found burning on the ground in Eastern Ukraine. This was at 12:07 EST.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/17/malaysia-airlines-jet-reportedly-crashes-in-ukraine/ HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News just reported that Ukraine shot it down with a BUK. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was codesharing with KLM as KL4103 should we mention that? Were there other codeshares on this flight? Arnoutf (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the KLM codes (at the same time as your comment). – Editør (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to a footnote earlier, but now we have the full KLM flight numbers too. It really clutters up the lead, so I moved it back to the footnote. No reliable sources are using the KLM flight number, so it's not something that makes sense to bold. A footnote makes the most sense since we can fully describe it as a codeshare there. (I'm following what the MH370 article does on this.) 9kat (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @9kat: I think the KLM code is worth mentioning in the lead as many Dutch news sources are mentioning the KLM no. and the large no. of Dutch pax suggests a majority of the pax booked the KLM flight. Nathan121212 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What happened with MH370 and the China Southern codeshare? Is the KLM code being used much more than it was in that case, in Dutch media vs Chinese media? The few Dutch sources I found that mention KL4103 mention both. If it was being used as the sole primary name in most Dutch sources, there might be some merit, but I'm not sure that's the case. The footnote does a better job of explaining it than just including a bunch of cluttered letters and numbers possibly could. 9kat (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:11AM 51.2265 24.8316 107° East 562MPH 33,000 http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS17/history/20140717/1000Z/EHAM/WMKK/tracklog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.38 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a primary source and is unusable. Abductive (reasoning) 17:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Can't use primary sources?] 78.148.157.47 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are not inherently usableLihaas (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the fatality/survivor count from the article, as it was reading "Fatalities: 295; Survivors: 295", which looks rather jarring. As we don't know anything yet, just the number of people on the plane is sufficient. Microchip08 (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that shouldn't be there. The sources will have actual, confirmed information soon enough. 9kat (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People falling down from 10km usually do not survive.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While an RS is certainly needed, the Russians are saying it was at 33,000 feet when it was hit, and witnesses are saying body parts are strewn around the crash site in a wide area, so it is virtually certain there are no survivors. So tragic. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we can be reasonably certain that everyone on board is now dead following such a catastrophic destruction of the plane, it's not our job to perform original research: no doubt reports from reliable sources of the level of fatality will be forthcoming soon. -- The Anome (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note my statement about an RS. No-one's saying move forward w/o one. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where the discrepancy is currently coming from but latest reports are over 300 dead. Possibly people on the ground? [3] CaptRik (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the infobox picture is one of 9M-MRD ? I don't see that in the file description on Commons and I can't see the tail number at that resolution. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The letters "RD" are clearly visible on the nosewheel door. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitive proof can be found at the original source: [4]. See the notes section.--v/r - TP 17:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! Simon Villeneuve (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been changed to one showing the aircraft in an earlier livery. Should it be changed back? Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made many useful edits to this page whilst not logged in ( ip=91.125.15.174). I have now made this new account. Flyer500 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been disruptive editing? While it is almost certain there will be POV-pushers soon, can we pre-emptively do this on Wiki? I am not objecting, just wondering what the majority opinion is on the guidelines . . . HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also made this new account to protect other useful edits, because some vandal is removing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. After you have made 10 edits and your account is 4 days old, your account will become autoconfirmed and will automatically be enabled to edit this semi-protected article. Requests to decrease the page's protection level should be directed to the protecting admin, Reedy (talk · contribs). Mz7 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reedy (talk · contribs) made this page protected. I suppose it is just because of the fact that it was him, he is now the protecting admin. Can the protecting admin be changed? IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you continue to persist, I am going to block you per WP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just asking for now, not persisting.IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter - calm down. What is it that makes you think threats are appropriate or that WP:NOTHERE applies at all? You really just went from 0-60 in .2 seconds there. Reedy, who created this article and has edited it extensively, has protected this article and violated WP:INVOLVED to remove Russian sources that he doesn't like because he prefers English sources against policy.--v/r - TP 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not you see that all the contribution of this user (which is all in the last hour) consists of the accusations of Reedy in vandalism and in bad faith assumptions against them? They have zero contribution in the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I myself removed several Russian sources because they were not reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I assume this user is the IP that was adding the sources. Besides, if you have been removing sources then you as well are involved and shouldn't be making threats or issuing blocks. Reedy has been removing Russian sources because "Russian references are useless on an english site" against Wikipedia:Verifiability#Quoting_non-English_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Then Reedy protected the article despite being heavily involved.--v/r - TP 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then go to ANI and make the case there.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reedy also removed useful edits made by other users, for example Ilya. Fortunatelly this informations were brought back over time and currently they are included in the article. It is recorded in the history. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note from the guideline: "However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available" - this event is all over the news and heavily covered in English sources - unless the non-English source has unique information not found via English-language RS's, then they really should not be usedon enWIKI. Just FYI.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin here - lets be straight about this. The article will be kept in as neutral tones as possible, quoting from reliable sources wherever possible. Said sources are not, repeat not, required to be neutral, that is our job. The semi-protection is valid IMVHO, for the reasons given when it was imposed. Where an involved admin makes a move that any other reasonable admin may have come to of their own volition, generally, that move may be seen as permissible. This is a hot topic at the moment, and is directly linked from the Main Page. Once things die down a bit, we can look at unprotecting the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVOLVED says "any admin" not "any one admin". I'm an admin, I wouldn't have protected it. The reasons for protection was the use of Russian sources. Russian sources are not disallowed per the two policy links I gave above. The admin's reason for protection directly flies in the face of policy. Besides being involved, would you protect an article with a reason that directly contradicts policy? The admins reason for protection is simply that he prefers English sources. Are you saying that you would protect a page to ensure your preference for sources it met? On the issue of being a current event, we don't protect articles simply for being a current event. There has been no vandalism, and there are plenty of eyes on this to guard against spam.--v/r - TP 18:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: the reason given for protection was "Reference and link spam", which is a valid enough reason for me. Now, with foreign sources, I agree that non-English RSs are allowable. However, it we have an English source and a non-English RS saying the same thing, we go with the English one. With this particular article, I would expect that we would draw on Dutch, Ukrainian, Russian and Malay sources, as well as those in English. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the ANI report on what the protecting admin considers to be reference and link spam? Take a look at his edit two minutes after the protected. This was obviously a non-policy complaint reason for protection. You should save your efforts to justify this for a case with more merit.--v/r - TP 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, hang on. A new editor tries some edits, has them reverted. They think that's considered vandalism (because many new editors do think that). They get threatened with a block for still calling it vandalism, even though nobody thought to tell them the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Have I got this right? the panda ₯’ 21:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Daily News has some images of the crash site up. Abductive (reasoning) 17:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of which are copyright-protected, we can't submit to Commons. Need a freely-given image.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect to post them, but they are useful for research/confirmation of what the sources are saying. For instance, the plane seems to have missed any buildings. Abductive (reasoning) 17:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in ELLihaas (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're currently linking directly to Ukranian Wikipedia's article on uk:Hrabove; should this be a redlink instead? Microchip08 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid link, but it should be clear that it is a link to a foreign language article. Will fix it. Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

en:Wiki article has been created. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The international reactions section is really nonsensical, it should be removed. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have always disliked them. Perhaps the list could be trimmed of statements that don't indicate any action being taken? Abductive (reasoning) 17:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, these are standard for this sort of article, and I disagree - they add important information.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • The list needs to be turned into paragraph/prose format and the reactions need to be more than just quotes. Who is starting investigations? Who is accusing whom? Who is providing aide or expertise to the investigation, ect?--v/r - TP 17:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standard by what measure? We go by WP:CONSENSUS here. The Twitter sources are WP:PRIMARY and per WP:TWITTER only to be used about themselves, which they seem to be slightly overextended to build a section. For that reason alone I would remove those ones. The flags detract, and don't fit the loss of life. Widefox; talk 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is in all such pages and endless debates have ngone nowehere. At any rate, lets wait for the issue to settle down (or heat u[p) as its likely to do nowLihaas (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has gone an uput the falgs up..Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These were arbitrarily removed twice but someone who thinks he is the arbiter of importance [5][6] Bildt and McCain's warring rhetoric is certainly notable by any imaginationLihaas (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that reactions from Ukraine, the rebels (for lack of a more neutral term), Russia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the USA and France should be considered notable enough. The first three due to the area in which the plane went down and the conflict going on in that region. Malaysia and the Netherlands due to it being a plane from Malaysian Airlines, which came from Schiphol in the Netherlands and had a LOT of Dutch people aboard and the USA and France because both are also confirmed to have had people of that nationality aboard. If people of other nationalities are confirmed to have been aboard, the appropriate countries should probably included as well. However, I do agree that reactions from, say, Sweden--which does not seem to have any particular connection to the plane or flight--and other nations not connected to this disaster should probably not be added unless there is something in them that would make them particularly notable and relevant. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Im in favor of keeping the section as it is notable and the standard on pages such as these. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually standard they are normally a reaction to the press reports when nothing else is known and in most articles will dissapear when the dust has settled. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, here on Wikipedia we even have full articles on reactions to events, seeing that this crash is caught up in another event I consider the reactions from different countries notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Still not convinced that a foreign politician like Senator McCain views are that important outside of the United States. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important enough to have already been mentioned in two reliable Dutch sources, in any case. BNR Nieuwsradio ("BNR Newsradio"), a national radio-channel. Algemeen Dagblad, one of the large newspapers in the Netherlands. Possibly more, that's just from a quick glance at google. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. McCain is a big-wig on foreign relations committees and defense committees in the USA, and his input/influence can directly influence the U.S. tangible reactions to this event - he isn't some junior representative from Bumsquat, Iowa - he's a very powerful man.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If McCain is being quoted outside of the U.S then I withdrawn by objection to him. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• United States vice-president Joe Biden is set to give a statement soon (Watching CNN here). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, please ensure you modify or open a section with "NPOV" in it when you toss a tag on. It may be obvious to you, but to others it may be very hard to find on the TP. I have modified this section's title to that effect.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NP, it was created by soimeone else

Also i agree with full restoration per the 2 links above as there is no consensus on the removalLihaas (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The UK has been added again without any evidence of involvement. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the entire reaction section is stupid, don't know why I added international in there. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be stupid (or it may be not, that depends on one's opinion, I'd say), but the question ought to be whether it's notable, whether it's relevant and whether it's verifiable. I don't think anyone will claim that it's not verifiable, so let's focus on notability and relevance.
Because we're not speaking of whether or not it's notable/noteworthy enough to get its own the article, it does not have to fall under the normal Notability guidelines, per WP:NNC. Instead, the question is whether it's notable enough to include in the article. Because you're speaking of the section as a whole, rather than parts of it, I will not go in-depth as to whether or not I feel the separate parts are noteworthy enough--just whether the -section- should be included. That ties in directly to relevance.
Reasons to include the section in relation to noteworthiness and relevance:

• Closely entwined with the sources on this subject. Many of the sources in use to support more than a really specific claim (such as KLM, AirFrance and a fair few others now avoiding the area) make at least passing mention of or link to responses. Several of them pay more attention to it than just a passing mention.
• There are a lot of reliable sources ON the subject of those reactions, demonstrating that they are considered noteworthy by several secondary sources.
• Through these responses, at least some information on the official or unofficial stance of several nations is given. Furthermore, they give information about what the involved countries (or their spokesperson/s) see as the appropriate next step.
• They are highly relevant in that they are directly about the article's subject: these are not responses to something related to the article's subject but to the exact subject of this article. Provided that we appropriately filter which ones should be included or not, they're also responses from people/nations relevant to this tragedy. Nations whose reaction will likely determine what happens next.
  

As to its actual contents, my personal opinion can be found above, at the post at 19:16 UTC. For reasons to exclude, I wouldn't be the best person to ask, as I'm pro-inclusion. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of this discusses if and how the section is biased nor how to address it. Unless that is established, the tag should be removed (whether or not you like such sections). The Dissident Aggressor 19:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the same thing, I don't see much NPOV there except perhaps the propaganda from Russia's Peskov complaining about US sanctions. The neutrality tag can be removed IMHO. –Wine Guy~Talk 19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Continued discussion about whether or not the section is useful is encouraged. The Dissident Aggressor 20:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there should be a separate article on the reactions. Also I remember when I first visited this article, there were more international responses than now. I've tracked down the edits responsible for the removal of so many responses: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Also why were YouTube links removed? They are quite interesting. --UA Victory (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOS has mentioned that two different travel agencies have confirmed that Dutch travellers have booked for the flight. It is not mentioned how many have boarded the aircraft, but it does mention that D-reizen has had 25 Dutch bookings and World Ticket Center (a Dutch online travel agency) has had approximately twenty to thirty bookings. Please see the following ref. http://nos.nl/liveblog/676042-vliegtuig-uit-adam-neergestort.html (Dutch) Christian299 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RTL just announced an estimate of 71 Dutch passengers in their evening news. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have an id on the AP reporter or where he said it, or if he has repeated his statement about the sighting after the crash? Oathed (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to twitter pic of Buk system in alleged rebel town: Via speigel.de https://twitter.com/michelhenrion/status/489823022090838017/photo/1 (User: B_part)

We can't add a copyrighted photograph to the article; sorry. If you contact the creator and get their WP:CONSENT, we'd be able to use it. Microchip08 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AP is saying as much here.

Why is this article SP'd? I see no good reason whatsoever. See MH370 for a kind of policy on this type of (fast-moving, current news) article. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Events this recent are vulnerable to especially disgusting vandalism by new users, a lot of which happen to be IPs. I think that is probably one of the reasons. Sorry that you cannot make any changes if you were hoping to help. Dustin (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By clicking on the view source button, I think you can still submit an edit request. Dustin (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how good. No. There is no policy for preemptive blocking, and furthermore, these articles attract new editors - well they would if they weren't blocked - which is the reason why MH370 was quickly unprotected after the same misguided protection was applied there. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Register an account and stop moaning. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful suggestion, I'll just go and register now and I'll be back in five minutes to edit it. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! Still can't edit it. Can I start moaning again? UniversalBowman (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can always ask at WP:RFPP for the article to be unprotected. But be aware that if it is unprotected and there are problems, protection is very likely to be reapplied, and getting it removed again will be that much harder. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MH370 wasn't a magnet for WP:NPOV violations though. LostCause231 (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On an article as high profile as this, any vandalism would last about 10 seconds. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily true. Some editors don't pay attention and make new edits after the article is vandalized. At that point, because of edit conflicts, it is difficult to remove the vandalism. Dustin (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. You just don't like unregistered users. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NPA. Dustin (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL and inconvenience should not be used as reasons to protect a page. That said, I think the Ukraine-Russia conflict tying into this is likely to make protection necessary, so probably not worth arguing over... 9kat (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is a very very good idea here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the reasons stated, it is a very, very, very stupid idea. UniversalBowman (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the amount of drama often associated with Ukraine related topics, and something this contentious/high profile, in addition to being featured on the main page, I think that semi is definitely warranted. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"New" users are inherently untrustworthy; the time spent removing citations to youtube, twitter, and blogs that people unfamilair with how the project functions is better spent elsewhere. Keep semi-protection on at least through the weekend. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least 12-24 hours, twitter refs, country links, flags and the world's commentators filling it up as it is. That's disruption, with WP:PRIMARY sources rather than basing on secondary. Widefox; talk 19:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it hasn't even confirmed the plane was shot down, it feels WP:UNDUE to have a picture of the Buk missile prominently featured under "Cause". Let's wait until sources confirm more than just initial speculation and a reporter seeing something. 9kat (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Leonhard saw it, or maybe he thinks he saw it ? He knows BUK system, is he expert ? --94.140.88.117 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing it doesn't mean it has been used in this specific case, however. It hasn't even been confirmed as fact yet that the plane was shot down--just a lot of speculation and investigation about it. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been confirmed, but they're unsure of what model of BUK missile it was. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If were gonna quote one side saying rebels fired, then we should the other side saying ukraine fired it for NPOVLihaas (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We follow reliable sources. That's NPOV. Not muddying the waters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then if we follow RS, a twitter posting alleging that rescuers were b locked(Lihaas (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

You are suggesting a Twitter post is an RS are you? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sky News is a RS, and they are saying that both sides blame the other. Will that do? Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think they have stripped most of the twitter stuff out. There should be plenty of RS (like Sky News) for most any point that is worth making, as every outlet is talking about nothing but this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is background generic information it has nothing to do with THIS incident so why add it before reactions? Its commonplace on incident pages to put the aircraft info in background(Lihaas (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

We can move it down if there is consensus for it.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, so lets discuss reasons for ti to get that consensus(Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

At some point we will make it agree with the advise of the accident project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents). MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem to suggest the reaction section?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because it is not considered to be a requirement by the project. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is up to us to decide where we want to move this section (and whether we want to keep it as a separate section).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have attempted to add a statement to Igor Girkin stating that he has taken claim for the attack, which so far hasn't been confirmed in any reliable source (all that's confirmed right now is that he had claimed on Facebook to have shot down an An-26 earlier today, but has since deleted this post). So any extra eyes on this BLP would be appreciated. SheepNotGoats (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this information is widely reported by Polish media. And here's a tweet by Anne Applebaum, cited by Reuters at about 6:26 p.m.
Also, Russian agency RIA Novosti has reported earlier today that the separatists have shot down an Ukrainian Antonov An-26 IN TOREZ, around 4:00 p.m. local time : http://ria.ru/world/20140717/1016409306.html (archived). I'm not sure if we'll be able to find any better sources than some screen shots, but I'll keep looking. — Mayast (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's widely reported that he took credit for shooting down a Ukrainian plane earlier today and then retracted it, but people were editing the article to say that he took credit for MH17 explicitly, which he hasn't (and which none of your English-language sources above say either; I can't speak for the Russian ones). SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree that he is supposed to have taken claim for shooting down a military Ukrainian plane, not MH17 – and that those claims were later removed/retracted. I don't believe anyone has taken claim for the MH17 crash yet, so such additions to the article should definitely be removed. Mayast (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean, I don't doubt that he's the one responsible (especially since his rebel group just started removing old Twitter posts showing they had the missiles capable of doing this), but I just want to make sure we're not posting anything that's not explicitly verified by multiple reliable sources. I don't understand some people's need to have Wikipedia rush to be the first to host information like this, we're not a news site. But that's just me :) SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Applaubaum isn't a reliable source in this case, especially if that is just a twitter.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://vk.com/wall-57424472_7256 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.214.210 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could we not use european sources that are reliable? It is probably more than likely that Igor Girkin shot down the airplane as he shot down the Antonov An-26 half an hour earlier in the same area, but that post was later deleted by him. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/805200-igor-girkin-commander-of-donetsk-peoples-army-igor-strelkov-says-they-shot-down-malaysia-airlines-mh17-photos/, so who knows should we wait for more US sources to put this out? Martinillo (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that headline is not supported by any facts within the article itself. The article is just quoting Girkin's deleted post, which makes no mention of MH17 explicitly. SheepNotGoats (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's already been a lot of bad IP edits at Girkin's article (vandalism, unsourced, and badly-sourced stuff). As it's a BLP, is it worth semi-protecting it? (especially since there are far fewer people watching that article than there are here) SheepNotGoats (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Girkin wrote in Vkontakte web-site (popular Russian social web-site): "today we shoot down AN-26 airpalne. We told them not to fly under our sky." Later, when they found out that they shoot down Boing, the post was removed, but some people saved it. M.Karelin (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This info is already in the article, and has been there for a couple of hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to draw some attention to the explanation posted in Girkin's group where the info about the downed plane originated from:

• [12] The source basically says that the account is not managed by Igor Girkin and offers information from open sources except for the cases when a special banner is attached to a post (example). Girkin himself has not confirmed or commented on the catastrophe yet. The deleted post about the plane was a word-for-word citation of a message that appeared before in numerous communities of VK.com.

I hope someone will add this explanation to the article to clear some things up. Доктор Хаос (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to link to List of airliner shootdown incidents from "See also" so long as it's still uncertain whether the plane was, in fact, shot down? I mean, I personally think that it's well-possible, bordering on extremely likely, but personal beliefs and opinions don't belong on Wikipedia. To me, linking from this to List of airliner shootdown incidents feels extremely similar to adding something like List of serial killers in the United States on an alleged serial killer, to be honest. However, I suspect that removing it would be considered controversial, so I'm not going to remove it without more opinions. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can wait until we have an official cause, despite everything wikipedia is not in a rush. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AgreedLihaas (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I would prefer it to not have yet been added, which it has been. However, as it's there, I suppose removing it can wait until we have an official cause. Even if I personally feel it should be the other way around: NOT THERE until we have an official cause. Not the biggest deal right now, though, I suppose. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion is that its inclusion can wait until an official cause. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then we misunderstood each other. That was exactly what I was suggesting, in fact. Suppose I wasn't particularly clear because I typed up my message in a bit of a hurry to prevent getting edit-conflicted. In that case, if no one has removed it yet, I will remove it based on this tentative consensus. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's reliable source policy calls for reliable sources, not "official" ones. In my view, by the weekend and perhaps even before we should be able to say whether or not there are enough reliable sources suggesting a shoot-down to warrant inclusion. Wikipedia is not absolutely infallible such that nothing is included that has not been confirmed 500 times.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think considering the importance of WP:V, having the table figures referenced is appropriate (especially at this early stage). Tables often have refs. Widefox; talk 19:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If we have a table, it should be referenced (and the references should probably be closely checked. Most of the numbers in sources so far are just speculation. There's a fair bit of difference between "x were confirmed to have booked the flight", "possibly as many as" and "x confirmed to be on the plane") AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @HammerFilmFan: it seems Sen. McCain's comments have been removed again. Should it be re-added, I can't do anything right now from mobile. Nathan121212 (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction section needs to be removed from article completely. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on:

1. no linking to indirectly involved countries per WP:OVERLINK, and
2. no flags (and their country links)

Widefox; talk 19:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - there is certainly nothing in WP:MOSFLAG that justifies their use. Distracting clutter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only would I agree, but I see that "Passengers by nationality" is using flags, against WP:MOSFLAG. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about the list of countries of origin and numbers of passengers /victims then it should be the same as MH370 which used flags but no links! MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about FOUR countries. Flags are clutter and I can't see what justifies them in policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:MOSFLAG does it suggest that flags are appropriate in such a context? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just making the point that the two article will be different. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No flags in the "reactions" section, but if a table of nationalities of the victims is added, flags are appropriate there. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The victims do not 'represent that country, government, or nationality'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in WP:MOSFLAG that prevents the flags from being used in the reactions section, deaths though is in the guideline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of WP:MOSFLAG is that the passenger list (they're not officially victims yet) do not warrant flags, per Andy. Officials of countries seems tenuous too, even if it's a country's official statement (which clearly Twitteque reactions aren't). It should be prose not flag list style. Widefox; talk 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree on the passenger list but the flags should stay in the reactions section as they represent the countries reacting to the event, prose can come later on, do you expect things to be in prose now when the article is a hotbed of editing? There are also list of reactions articles present and seeing that this is tied to another event it is too early to tell what reactions by countries may unfold. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need flags to 'represent' countries reacting - we use text for that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a colouring-in book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is your personal opinion as there is nothing against Wikipedia policy that says flags in reactions sections can not be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the flags in the passenger death toll by country per WP:FLAGBIO. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think either the passenger list or the "reactions" section should use flags or contain material sourced to Twitter. --John (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the template at the top. Is this really an issue? -- Pingumeister^(talk) 19:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it for now. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 20:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it as well, per MOS:CAPTION, before noticing this section. (But I guess we have reasonable consensus to do so for now.) 9kat (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Initial reports and videos suggest that MH17 disintegrated and exploded upon impact due to the remaining jet fuel igniting." This is unclear, as it could be taken to mean the aircraft was intact until ground impact, or that it "disintegrated" at some unspecified time and altitude and to an unspecified extent and subsequently exploded on impact," which seems more in step with reports that bodies landed 15km away from the site. "Disintegrate" also suggests old science fiction disintegrator rayguns. Edison (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that this article cites YouTube and Twitter a number of times, such as [13], [14], and [15]. Shouldn't these be removed until better sources can be found? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already removed the youtube link a couple of times since it is, in addition to not being reliable, does not prove anything--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

During a press conference that I watched on TVP Info, Security Service of Ukraine informed that it had recorded a phone call between pro-Russian separatist leader Igor Bezler and Russian colonel Geranin, in which Bezler informs that the plane has been shot down by one of the separatist groups. Here's a Polish report by Gazeta Wyborcza mentioning the conversation, and that people who shot down the plane went to the site of the crash and only then realised that it had been a civilian aircraft. Also, here is a transcript in English which sounds similar to the conversation played on Polish television, however I have no idea who has uploaded it. Would be nice to find some English-language reliable sources on this, or the video from the press conference (a part of it was in English). — Mayast (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also published here - by Novaya Gazeta. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More on this – BBC:

• "20:23: The Ukrainian Security Service SBU has published on its Youtube account what it says are intercepted conversations between pro-Russian militants in which they say they admit shooting down a civilian plane, BBC Monitoring reports."
• "20:27: BBC Monitoring reports more from the conversation between militants allegedly intercepted by the Ukrainian Security Service. The conversation starts with Igor Bezler, a key militant, apparently telling a Russian security official by phone that the pro-Russian militants have shot down a plane."
• "20:31: In the YouTube footage a militant nicknamed 'Major' is seen saying it was shot down by 'Cossacks from the Chernukhino roadblock'. Major goes on to say: 'It is definitely a civilian plane... there was a lot of people on board,; BBC Monitoring reports."

However, the YouTube video is now deleted... Mayast (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another Youtube ... Looks strange: everything was burned to the ground, but all passports are like new.My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Not inconceivable that 15 or 16 passports could have survived intact, but obviously have been recovered after a search of bodies/ baggage. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I just included a reference about this, but did not translate text from Russian to English. Here is translation by someone [16]. Not an RS, but possibly OK for translation, which can be done by anyone:

Igor Bezler: We have just shot down a plane. It was Mineman’s Group. It fell down beyond Yenakievo (Donetsk Oblast). Vasili Geranin: Pilots. Where are the pilots?

IB: Gone to search for and photograph the plane. Its smoking. VG: How many minutes ago?

IB: About 30 minutes ago. SBU comment: After examining the site of the plane the terrorists come to the conclusion that they have shot down a civilian plane. The next part of the conversation took place about 40 minutes later.

“Major”: These are Chernukhino folks who shot down the plane. From the Chernukhino check point. Those cossacks who are based in Chernukhino. “Greek”: Yes, Major.

"Major": The plane fell apart in the air. In the area of Petropavlovskaya mine. The first “200” (military code word for a dead person or “killed in action”). We have found the first “200”. A civilian. “Greek”: Well, what do you have there?

“Major”: In short, it was 100 percent a passenger (civilian) aircraft. “Greek”: Are many people there?

“Major”: It’s a total cluster-f*ck! The debris fell right into people’s yards (of homes). “Greek”: What kind of aircraft?

“Major”: I haven’t figured it out yet, I haven’t been to the main site. I am only surveying the scene where the first bodies fell. There are the remains of internal brackets, seats and bodies. “Greek”: I got it [obviously annoyed]. Any weapons at all?

“Major”: Absolutely nothing. Civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper. “Greek”: Any documents?

“Major”: Yes, of one Indonesian student. From a university in Thompson.

The next conversation took place between an unidentified militant and the leader of Don Cossacks Nikolay Kozitsyn:

Militant: About that plane shot down in the area of Snizhne/Torez. It turned out to be a passenger [plane]. It fell down in the area of Grabovo [or Hrabove – Ukr.]. There are tons of dead bodies – women, children. The Cossacks are looking at all that now.

Militant: They are saying on TV now that it’s allegedly an An-26 cargo plane, but they also say that it has “Malaysian Airlines” written on it. What did it do over the territory of Ukraine?

Kozitsyn: Then it means they were bringing in spies, understood? Shouldn’t have f*ckin flown here, it’s a war going on. My very best wishes (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't they being included in table? nationality can be taken as Malaysian till more information comes out, atleast the number is confirmed, there were two captains, two first officers and eleven cabin attendants according to Malaysian Wings forum, where MH insiders and people with contacts in the airline post. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, one cabin attendant could be Dutch. Let us wait for the official info.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That can be changed when its clarified as stated earlier.175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why should we add our conclusions which are likely incorrect when the correct info becomes available in a few hours?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I would say that including it now wouldn't be making conclusions, but pure speculations. Mayast (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But why the etched in stone attitude when the article is still in its developing stages, especially the passenger section, even the number of US nationals is not confirmed yet they are included, so its assumed that majority or all of the crew are Malaysian which they normally are. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because people come here to find out more about the incident. If we add in speculation, there is the legitimate possibility that one thousand people will walk away and think that something occurred, yet it was something that we made up. We want Wikipedia to contain reliable information, not pure speculation that we don't know the complete truth about. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for goodness sake, its just the nationality of the crew not anything related to how or why this accident happened, nor entertaining any conspiracy theories. So one thousand people will walk away with the information that all crew were Malaysian nationals, even if atleast one might not have been, big deal. The article is still developing they will be back to see what changes were made just as all of us are doing too.175.110.222.144 (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose speculation on the crew's nationality; wait until an official release. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Minister of Defence" of such called Donbass republic Strelkov (Girkin) put in very popular russian social web-site Vkontakte the following posts (see here http://www.peeep.us/4857cec5 and here https://archive.today/gxzhN#selection-252.0-754.0.) He wrote: "Today we shoot down AN-26 airplane. We have told NOT to fly under our sky". Of course this post later was removed, but some people saved it. It is prove, that pro-russian-separratist are engaged in this incident. Of course, the statements on Russian, but you can easily translate it. M.Karelin (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes:

1. We are already discussing it here: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Eyes needed at Igor Girkin.
2. Archive.today is a reincarnation of Archive.is, which is banned of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. — Mayast (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• OK use first link. M.Karelin (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. This profile in Vk.com is fake. Strelkov doesnt have any official accounts in social media (except one forum) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.183.184 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How did we get those figures? The current source says nothing about 149 Dutch, ...US, ...UK etc. These figures have no reference, they might as well have been put in at random. Can somebody show a link to a reliable source or are we presenting speculation as fact? Nathan121212 (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be part-speculation, part "unofficial list"-source based, part non-reffed source based.
I suspect the following Belgian (Flemish) source has been used: -click- That one has recently been updated and now says

"Aan boord zaten 283 passagiers en 15 bemanningsleden. Van 47 mensen is de identiteit of de nationaliteit nog niet geweten. Aan boord waren zeker 154 Nederlanders en 4 Belgen. Verder zaten er 27 Australiërs aan boord, 23 Maleisiërs, 11 Indonesiërs, 6 Britten, 4 Duitsers, 3 Filipijnen en 1 Canadees." (translation: "On board were 283 passengers and 15 crew members. Of 47 people, the identity or nationality is not yet known. Aboard were at least 154 Dutch and 4 Belgians. Beyond that, there were 27 Australians on board, 23 Malaysians, 11 Indonesians, 6 Brits, 4 Germans, 3 Filipinos and a Canadian.") AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That excerpt is from the Dutch Schiphol airport (port of departure of MH17) press conference. Arnoutf (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good. Can treat it as confirmed, then. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no confirmation yet that any Americans were on board. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Can it be corrected in the article? Normalgirl (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems US VP Biden has confirmation from the Pentagon that the plane was indeed short down by a SAM missile. e.g http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5913609/biden-blown-out-of-the-sky/in/5677250 http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838653 Arnoutf (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I am noticing that the coordinates, as written in the article, are closer to Petropavlivka than Hrabove. Where did we get the coordinates, as I am tempted to change the closest village if the coordinates are indeed correct. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid an edit that placed the passengers and crew in separate columns as all of the crew are from Malaysia, as such having 0s in all of the other countries is redundant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been confirmed that all the crew were from Malaisia?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No but the edit had all of the crew in one column from Malaysia and all the other sections of the columns simply marked with a 0 for the other countries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes codeshare flights have one flight attendant from the other company.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: per this [17] all flight crew were Malaysian. CaptRik (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here I removed the following clause because I could not find any support for it in the two cites given in section "Cause":

, and linking to video of smoking wreckage of the 777.

My edit comment was "removed claim video showed 777 wreckage as not found in the cites; please only reinsert with precise and reliable citing to avoid OR". The whole section is also problematic in that it does not follow a chronological order, and appears (to me at least) to rely on unreliable ephemeral sources. -84user (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The info about the videos is cited in the Guardian article, see their screen capture of the original post. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the deadliest air disaster since the 1980 Saudia Flight 163 incident. Is this accurate, and if is it significant enough to be mentioned? It feels to me that it should be added in the paragraph about the number of deaths (and how it outstrips MH370). Prokhorovka (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you shouldn't cite Wikipedia... but this indicates otherwise: List of accidents and disasters by death toll#Aviation Dustin (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an idiot. I was actually using that table but just looked for the next deadliest one, not the most recent one above it in the table. General question still stands, add this to the article? Deadliest for almost 20 years seems significant to me. Prokhorovka (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the deadliest single-aircraft accident since the Japan Airlines Flight 123 accident. That includes all of the 9/11 aircraft (excluding ground fatalities, which of course makes the WTC impacts top of those charts) and MH370. This is a significant accident. Not sure how to word it in an elegant fashion, however. --Pete (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was it 13:15UTC or 14:15UTC? Nathan121212 (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13:15 UTC. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-17/here-real-time-flight-path-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh-17 Anthonyliu (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]