This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Accidents This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Malaysia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands Ukraine B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe so, since:

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

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

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

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

Is now the time to make the change to International English? I understand that this was already discussed here and here. Sorry for bringing it up again. I understand that the logic last time centred around this being largely a European event, thus it appears to have been concluded that British English should prevail. Personally, I think this event was an international one. Obviously there is a significant Malaysian connection, and casualties link other English speaking countries (Australia, Canada and the States). This incident has had significant repercussions internationally (ie sanctions, accusations). Given this is British English the best choice? Using terms such as "lorry" serve to make the article harder for non-Brits to understand. I am happy to hear everyone's thoughts, even if we just decide to leave it as is. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, my preference is for Commonwealth English (including dmy dates) to prevail on all articles that aren't about the United States (or other countries that use similar dialects of English, like the Philippines and other former U.S. territories) or related topics. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is set in British English with Oxford spelling, and per MOS:RETAIN, will not be changed. I'm sorry if "lorry" is hard for you to understand, but we likewise don't understand American idioms. RGloucester — ☎ 01:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:RETAIN suggests that the current style should be maintained absent consensus which is what I am exploring here. We are open to discuss it. Actually, I am a Canadian. I also lived in Australia, they also don't use the word 'lorry' (only Brits and Irish do). In any event, you appear to be misstating the policy as a whole. MOS:ENGVAR makes it clear that Wikipedia does not prefer an particular variety of English. Furthermore, MOS:COMMONALITY makes it clear that we should be striving to use terms that are the same in all variants. It does not follow that just because someone has chosen to set the language to British English that it cannot be changed, and that is not what MOS:RETAIN says.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australians and New Zealanders traditionally did use the word "lorry" prior to the American wave, and I'm sure that younger Australians will understand what it means. MOS:RETAIN means that the English variety is not changed unless there is a good reason to do so, and there isn't. The word "lorry" will not be wiped from the page and replaced with an Americanism in an article that is written in BrE. RGloucester — ☎ 03:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I figured we might be able to have an actual conversation here and look for consensus, as I have often heard you call for here. Since you have made it clear that you WP:OWN the article, I guess there is no need for further discussion here. Thanks for your courtesy.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you meant, RGloucester, that you are the final word on how this article is edited? Cla68 (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker) Hi, sorry for disturbing here, but I do really agree with RGloucester that we should maintaining the British English in most Malaysian related articles. I'm a Malaysian, and since I was in kindergarten we have learn British English. We never use the word such as "color", "recognize" or any American spelling like in the Philippines. We have frequently heard the word such as "lorry", "bus stop" and many other British words even now our entertainment shows in the television was mainly been influenced by American entertainment programmes. ~ Muffin Wizard ^;) 06:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me what international English is? Our own article on the topic tells us that it does not exist. Arnoutf (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any such thing. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this thread is all about changing the language in this article into a non-existing language? That would make this whole discussion a waste of everybody's time. Let's stop it here. Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, I should have phrased this better. I vaguely recall stumbling across an 'International English' option in a word processor once, but Arnoutf appears to be correct that there does not seem to be any consensus on 'International English' despite attempts. Unfortunately, this does not resolve the matter. I am not trying to be a stick in the mud here. What I am trying to do is call our attention to the principles set out in MOS:COMMONALITY. This is an international article, on an international encyclopedia, concerning an international event, that has international implications. MOS:COMMONALITY suggests we should be attempting to use words understood in all variants of English. My concern is that this article is clearly going to be read by English speakers in the from all over the world. We should be striving for this article to be understandable in all varieties or English. Now this is not a massive issue here. I don't think there is any need to make more of it than necessary. But it is something to discuss, and attempts to WP:OWN the article and kill discussion are frankly anti-Wikipedian Wikipedia:Five pillars. I have not gone through the article and changed the type of English used, nor am I attempting to do anything untoward here, or take any action without a broad consensus. I have simply raised this issue for discussion. It is inappropriate for editors to move to stifle conversation and any attempts to reach a consensus which might be contrary to their position. I would kindly ask everyone to assume WP:GOODFAITH and we can discuss if there is room for MOS:COMMONALITY. Statements to the effect that 'it is the way it is, and it will not be changed' are not helpful. I hope we can discuss reasons here, because in my view there is real value in striving to have Wikipedia understandable by everyone, and I think MOS:COMMONALITY backs me up on this. Best Regards--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly understandable. The "stifling" of ENGVAR-related conversations without standing is written into the MoS (MOS:RETAIN) because ENGVAR discussions are never productive. The compromise written into the guidelines allows all variants to coexist, so that all varieties of English are allowed equal and fair play. It is a messy compromise, but it prevents us from having to argue over what variety to use at every moment, and prevents editors from getting upset about finding words they don't understand, like "flashlight" or "movie theater", in articles. What is "understandable" is subjective, and every little is "understandable to everyone". I'm a great supporter of WP:COMMONALITY. That's why automobile was moved to car. However, WP:COMMONALITY only applies in cases where there is a term that is the most common in all varieties of English, where there is no divergence, as if with "car". That's not the case here. As it is clear that you understood what the word means when you read it, the problem of "lack of understanding" is nonsensical. Typing it into the search bar might help, just as I'm forced to do every time I see odd and nonsensical words or phrases like "gas" and "long distance". RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This rather long discussion could have been avoided if editors would read WP:ENGVAR. - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The BUK isn't mounted on a "lorry", it's mounted on a tracked vehicle. (Unless it's Chinese, of course) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are wheeled Buks, too. Whether I would call such a wheeled vehicle a "lorry" is a different question. Grad rockets are launched from lorries, but Buks are launched from odd-looking military vehicles. RGloucester — ☎ 22:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might just be easier to call it a vehicle? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it doesnt read right and you would be more likely to say "vehicle registration plates" in British English. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that specific instance, I agree. I've fixed it up. That sentence was pretty rubbish in general. RGloucester — ☎ 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably why we have an article called that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: the wheeled lorry/truck is referring to the vehicle that tranported the Buk as seen in this picture [6]. While a Buk does have tracks, the entire Buk was sitting on a lorry/truck. Stickee (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that no version of English is preferred, it is at the discretion of the editors of each article. Since the article uses British English and most editors prefer it, there is no reason for change. Indeed, commonality means that we should use words current in both the UK and U.S. and other English-speaking countries, but that is not always possible. Fortunately, most of the differences are in slang expressions. TFD (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RGloucester is right on RETAIN. If "lorry" is a problem, I have no objection to replacing it with "wheeled launch vehicle" or similar. --John (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already replaced that specific instance of "lorry" with "vehicle", as it makes more sense. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed the only other instance of the troublesome l-word. (I've got a feeling it was I who added it.) It really isn't important the exact name we use to describe a vehicle. --John (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would truck be a better word? "Vehicle" gives less information to the reader. Although I guess it's not really that consequential. Stickee (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. This article is written in British English. Regardless, I wouldn't say that it is anything other than a "vehicle" really, as it is somewhat odd by comparison to normal vehicles. RGloucester — ☎ 23:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The instance I removed was in relation to vehicles used to remove bodies, not the Buk launch vehicle. --John (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this conversation was helpful, though it probably could have been a bit shorter, had I more clearly articulated what I was thinking from the start. I believe RGloucester is correct on his interpretation of MOS:RETAIN recently explained at 22:17 (ie that we should not change the overall default language from British English, short of broad consensus, and there does not seem to be any real appetite to do so). We should attempt to use universal words (also used in Brit English) where possible per MOS:COMMONALITY, as the above contributions appear to have now done. This has been the heart of my concern, so I am happy to lay this to rest with the limited qualifier that we continue to explore common terms as the article evolves. Thanks everyone.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use words commonly used in international english. And that suspect BUK TELAR is photographed on a tow truck, heavy transport vehicle or transport semi truck trailer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.185.93.200 (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no international English. Read the conversation before you comment. Arnoutf (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start an edit war here, over something so mundane, but this edit[7] by @RGloucester: seems to be contrary to the above discussion. I find it ironic that the SMH[8] and Al Jazeera[9] references actually refer to the vehicles as trucks, not lorries. This edit[10] he made to the Truck article also seems inappropriate. As the Wikipedia article on Trucks originally stated, prior to RGloucester's edit, the word truck is commonly used and understood in the UK, which sounds like WP:COMMONALITY to me. I also find it interesting that this Daily Mail article[11] refers the the vehicle these bodies were loaded on as trucks. It uses the words truck six times (and does not use the term lorry or lorries at all). I really don't know why this is such a controversial issue, but I will let someone else, perhaps John, be the one to kick the hornet's nest, if he so wishes.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bit on "truck" was unsourced. The dictionary did not support the citation. "Truck" is not a British word. It is a foreign word. You may be aware that the Daily Mail has heavily branched out into the US as a gossip paper, and has a US version. That's what you've just shown, and anyway, they do not dictate usage, and are about the lowest of the low as far as newspapers go. More useful is the BBC style guide, which proscribes "truck" as an Americanism. "Truck" is certainly understood in Britain, just as Americans will understand "lorry": as a term from "across the pond". What was agreed above was to remove "lorry" in reference to a vehicle that is not a lorry, i.e. the rocket launcher. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"vehicle that is not a lorry, i.e. the rocket launcher.": There is a lorry/truck, as seen in this picture: [12]. Although the Buk has its own tracks, the entire Buk was transported on top of a lorry/truck. This is seen in the videos recently released by the JIT. Stickee (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot look at the picture and determine what appears in it. That is WP:OR. Your comment is irrelevant. I cannot see what is in that picture, for to do so would be to violate the principles of the encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 22:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: It's not OR when the secondary sources say it:

• "MH17 breakthrough: owner of Volvo truck that transported missile fears for his life" News.com.au
• "MH17 Owner of Truck that Smuggled BUK Missile into Ukraine Identified" IBTimes
• "purportedly shows a truck carrying the Buk-M1 missile launcher" SMH

Stickee (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the vehicle being referenced by the text? Why did editors above say that it was not a lorry, then? It was said that it was a "tracked vehicle". I suppose one will have to restore lorry, then. RGloucester — ☎ 23:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Never mind. I've sorted it out. It seems the editors above were confused. This was indeed a lorry, a lorry that carried the launcher into Ukraine. I've rewritten the text to make this clear, and added a secondary source. RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Truck is used, understood, and appears in most UK and Irish reporting on this issue. Put simply, the claims by RGloucester simply are not true, and I am not too shy to say so. This is just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behavior, contrary to WP:COMMONALITY. The following British newspapers use the term truck in their MH17 reporting:

• Daily Mirror[13]
• The Daily Telegraph[14]
• Daily Express[15]
• London Evening Standard[16]
• The Sun (United Kingdom)[17]
• the UK version of International Business Times[18]
• The Guardian[19][20].

The Irish also seem familiar with trucks, according to the Irish Independent[21].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The existing word was "lorry", and "lorry" remains per MOS:RETAIN. WP:COMMONALITY doesn't apply, as we don't share terms. "Truck" more commonly refers to goods wagons and the like. Everything I said was true. I provided the OED etymological analysis, and the BBC style guide. RGloucester — ☎ 23:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it is used in the numerous articles cited above, concerning the substance of this article. You, sir, are just a language imperialist.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I have never, ever, asked anyone to change a Wikipedia article from one variety to another, because that's both a stupid waste of time and against Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Do I dislike that "airplane" is not called "aeroplane"? Yes. Do I really care? No. Have I asked anyone to switch it around? No. That case is particularly egregious, given how it came to be. Regardless, it is irrelevant. RGloucester — ☎ 00:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to approach this issue nicely, but it seems that was not to be. Again, other British articles talking about trucks in the manner in which the Buk was transported:

• The Daily Telegraph[22]
• The Independent[23] (also note comments from readers)
• Daily Express[24]
• Daily Mail[25]
• the UK version of International Business Times[26].

This is a mundane issue, but WP:COMMONALITY does apply, and for a reason. Hopefully, in future, if we all are a little more reasonable from the start we can avoid conflict on smaller issues like this.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONALITY does not apply. I've provided RS that address the issue of the word itself, you've provided newspaper articles that use the word, which cannot be used to establish usability of the word itself. "Truck" usually refers to goods wagons, and we would not want ambiguity in our wording. Such an ambiguity would be dangerous, given that it would imply that the Buk was transported by rail. RGloucester — ☎ 00:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term in those articles should not be so quickly dismissed. The BBC guide you cited is hardly the only authoritative RS on this issue, and does not raise any concerns about ambiguity. It just says that the BBC prefers lorry driver to truck driver. Apparently, these other publications do not. Our original Truck article also reference the Oxford Online Dictionary which included an entry for truck: "A large, heavy road vehicle used for carrying goods, materials, or troops; a lorry". This article [27] in the Daily Mail also points out that British children in a national competition used the term Garbage Truck in greater frequency than Dustbin lorry. I think it is safe to say that truck is now a British word, even if it did not start out that way. In any event, the edit you changed was the word vehicle. I don't know why you are insisting on 'lorry'. If you want to make changes from airplane to plane, aircraft or some other common term have at it. I don't actually care that much either, but I don't much appreciate being strong armed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again using Daily Mail tripe, which isn't to your credit. Keep in mind that repeated WP:RS/N discussion have determined the Daily Mail is not RS. OED says no such thing. Of course, it does provide the definition you are speaking about, but labels it "American". Dictionaries are meant to be comprehensive. They are not going to exclude a definition of a word in another variety of English, just as Webster's doesn't exclude lorry (labels it "chiefly British"). RGloucester — ☎ 01:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge UK English dictionary has no problem with the word truck as far as I can see [28]. So if the Americans due to limited vocabulary have problems with understanding the word lorry, why not change it, as, as far as I can see the change of this single word doesn't change the language of this article. (In any case, can we stop this discussion and use our resources for content) Arnoutf (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I provided Webster's. It has a definition for lorry. If what you said is true, that means that Americans have no problem with the word "lorry". RGloucester — ☎ 14:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we cant have "registration plate of the vehicle "? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I am sure we actually discussed and agreed on that days ago! MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was revealed above that the "vehicle" in question was not a vehicle. It was a lorry, carrying the launcher vehicle. The change should not've been made, and seems to have been an attempt at trickery. RGloucester — ☎ 14:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my world a lorry is a type of vehicle, as is a truck. RGloucester, I think you may have "unresolved national language issues". Or maybe you're just insane. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "vehicle" is a broad category. This particular item was not a "vehicle", but a "lorry", which is a narrow and precise category. If one says "vehicle", one could mean pushcart. RGloucester — ☎ 14:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is batshit-crazy nonsense like this that seriously makes me consider proposing the entire MoS for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure I added this use of the word "lorry". If it is even slightly confusing, it really wouldn't hurt to change it to "truck" or "vehicle". Please, there are more serious matters to argue about. --John (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't confusing. "Truck" refers to goods wagons, rendering it incorrect and confusing. "Vehicle" lacks specificity, and fails to differentiate between the launcher vehicle and the lorry carrying the launcher. RGloucester — ☎ 01:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. "Truck" has those meanings for you, but not for me. The word "lorry" was incomprehensible to me before I saw you add it into the article. I don't understand your problem with the word "vehicle". You say it lacks specificity, and I respond by saying "Why does that matter? In what way is the type of vehicle important so long as it is obvious that it is a land vehicle?" Dustin (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add it to the article. It was already there. That's what sparked this whole row. I can say the same thing to you: the word "truck" has that meaning for "you", but not for me. Coincidentally, the article is written in BrE. I do not go to AmE articles and ask "truck" to be changed to "lorry", or ask for "car" to be changed to "wagon", or ask for "garbage" to become "rubbish". My problem with the word "vehicle" in this instance is that there are two vehicles. One is the launcher, which is best described as a "vehicle", as it combines the traits of multiple kinds of vehicle. The other is the lorry that carried the launcher. If we call both "vehicle", the wording will be ambiguous, and it won't be clear what is being referred to. The word "vehicle" could refer to either vehicle, but "lorry" can only refer to the lorry that is carrying the launcher vehicle. RGloucester — ☎ 22:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside to the number plate argument but is the "Ostanin" report that talks about trucks/lorries/vehicles a bit speculative, and doesnt appear to be a reliable source. If somebody here had made the analysis we would call it original research. So as a bit of speculative journalism it appears to be given a lot of weight in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did some searching and found some reports which mentioned it:

• fired by... the 53rd Buk brigade, based in the city of Kursk - The Guardian
• operated by 53rd Russian Air Defence Brigade - Daily Mail
• The convoy was part of a unit dispatched by Russia’s 53rd Air Defense Brigade which is based in Kursk. - Quartz
• by the the 53rd Zrbr 'Buk' brigade which is based in Kursk - Mirror
• 53rd Buk brigade - The Irish Times

Stickee (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already tried to quash this Bellingcat at RS/N, but I was wound up. RGloucester — ☎ 22:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shame as it doesnt really stand-up to any sort scrutiny, most of the newspapers dont qualify the speculation but rather "look what this journalist has worked out". If it has to be included it should be toned down considerably per WP:WEIGHT if nobody can find a reliable source that actually backs up the claims. MilborneOne (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with MilborneOne on this: he probably should be mentioned in the article (given the excessive third-party coverage), but given much lesser weight. To me he seems more like an extensively pumped up media project than a truly independent investigator (to begin with, no one ever heard of him before the Ukrainian crisis, but he instantly became a celebrity after the MH17 crash). And by the way, he is not Igor, but Ignat. Buzz105 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fundamental difference between a source doing original research and Wikipedians doing original research. The latter is a no-no, the former exactly what a source should do, and what we want sources to do. So saying "if somebody here had made the analysis we would call it original research" is completely beside the point. If this was only published on his website or something then it would be a self published source or primary source, which would cast doubt on its reliability. However, if this is being covered in third party reliable sources, then that's a different matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see this old RS/N discussion, which is relevant. RGloucester — ☎ 17:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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