Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Russian State TV and radio company caught editing Russian Wikipedia entry about MH17

The Russian government has edited the Russian Wikipedia of this page. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/18/russia-edits-mh17-wikipedia-article Tlsandy (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of improving this article, wikipedians have to be on the look-out for suspicious editing - also after the Russian government learns to spread its propaganda via VPN or named accounts. Lklundin (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that the account of Tlsandy, most of whose edits are of this article, was created after MH17 crashed, on 10 September. Also, Tlsandy is one of the most aggressive editors making sure that this article states as little as possible but "the truth" about who downed MH17. Just yesterday, he reverted my edit eliminating cherry picking of a news report that was being extensively discussed in Talk without making a single comment on Talk himself. In short, what we appear to have here is a single purpose account. And it is interesting that nobody has posted a welcome note on Tisandy's Talk page, which suggests that he does not produce the impression of being a new editor. Also, the creation of this new Talk section is Tisandy's first contribution to an article Talk page. – Herzen (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

LoL. You are a premium member of Crimea/Novorossiya/KickUkraine-Club, having paused WP for 4 month, before coming back in April to help out Mother Russia whereever necessary. So I guess you have great expertise on SPA´s. Alexpl (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have had an account for many years, gone through phases in which I edited articles on different subjects, and I only started editing Russia-related articles after the February coup. So your accusation is nothing but an utterly unfounded, malicious personal attack. Your battleground attitude is of no help at all in building an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Alexpl (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen is right, Alexpl, you are being unnecessarily aggressive and you are not showing good faith. You are not being compliant with Wikipedia, Alexpl. --Mondschein English (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I'm not taking any action here because the next headline will read "US Government blah blah blah" but can you please take a look at the conduct in this thread?--v/r - TP 17:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The policies must the adhered to. With that said, I will add that showing good faith is only possible for so long. Lklundin (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to see though that Herzen first accuses Tlsandy of being a single purpose account; and when accused in a similar way by Alexpl refers to wikipolicies. In my view a clear case of WP:POT. Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you subjecting me to more scrutiny than this new user? In the summary of this edit, Tlsandy accused me of editing his comment. But I didn't touch his comment: what I did was edit the section title so it does not make a false claim. (As I said in my edit summary, in English Wikipedia "Wikipedia" refers to "English Wikipedia". The article Tlsandy linked to says "Russia" edited Russian Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia.) To quote from the Talk page guidelines: "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed". In his edit, Tlsandy deleted my comment. That is a clear violation of the guidelines. How have I violated the guidelines? So how am I exhibiting WP:POT? – Herzen (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

On the topic, this news has been around for a long time. We decided not to mention it in this article for several reasons (not this Wikipedia, not central to the accident itself). So can we please let this rest. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for the records, an example of Russian government edits in the German MH17 article: [1]. The IP belongs to the Federal Protective Service (Russia). There were Ukrainian propaganda counter-edits around the same time, but they were more clever in hiding their identitiy, e.g. [2][3]. Both stopped soon, we have not seen such edits for months. --PM3 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. If you look up that IP with IPlocation, you get

95.173.130.218 Russian Federation Moscow City Moscow The Federal Guard Service Of The Russian Federation

I had never heard of the Federal Protective Service. I guess it is not one of the more elite Russian intelligence agencies. Actually, after reading that article, it sounds more like the Russian equivalent of the American Secret Service than an intelligence agency (разведка). In any case, this is certainly more notable than the subject of the thread, since a Russian government IP was used, whereas the IP mentioned by the Wired UK article belongs to a Russian TV network, and that network is no more the Russian government ("Russia") than the BBC is the UK. – Herzen (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm the edits seem fairly minor, and this is very obvious. I would not be surprised if this were an individual employee doing these edits during lunch break or so. In any case, we need a reliable secondary source to report on this to even consider it for the article. And even then, it is still another Wikipedia, and not about the crash itself, so I doubt it should be in this article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that this is notable or should be included in the article. What I said was that it is more notable than what Tlsandy saw fit to create a thread about, a case, it seems to me, of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Tlsandy said nothing about the merits of including this boring story in the article. All he said was that "Russia got caught".

I agree that this was probably a case of something like "an individual employee doing these edits during lunch break". Hopefully Russian officialdom has briefed its bureaucrats by now that using government IPs for editing sensitive subjects reflects badly on Russia. As PM3 noted, that has apparently stopped. – Herzen (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as no analysis of all Ip adresses of all contributors in this article is conducted, there is no way to tell. Alexpl (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you change my title when it is the title used by Wired. Tlsandy (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the Wired title is highly misleading? Do you honestly think that there is a rule that if there is a Talk section about a specific news article, the Talk section's heading must duplicate that of the news article? – Herzen (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph says 'Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17' and 'Russia caught editing Wikipedia entry about MH17'? Tlsandy (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a much easier solution: [4]. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Investigation

Several editors have said that the investigation section is too long, since this article is about the crash. Considering that the investigation is ongoing, and more information will make this section even longer, are there any objections to moving the Investigation section to its own article where the investigation can be expired in depth? USchick (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough. All comment on the possible cause that is not from the official enquiry should be removed. This includes (highly predictable) political reactions and Russian media coverage. It's all too political and unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree about removing all unofficial content. Now, how you you suggest we do that? :) USchick (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

'where the investigation can be expired in depth' - freudian slip there Sayerslle (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

lol USchick (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We are neither removing content (cited to reliable sources) nor are we splitting it off to form some kind of WP:POVFORK. "Some editors have said" all kinds of nonsense things. Volunteer Marek  21:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

When you announce what "We" are going to, who are you speaking for? USchick (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The editors of this article. Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek  21:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure they can speak for themselves. USchick (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is pointless. And tiresome. "We", as editors of this article, right here, are not, going to remove, reliably sourced text, because, that would be, in violation of, Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, WP:NPOV. As you and HiLo have been repeatedly told. You got it now?  Volunteer Marek  21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Many editors have repeatedly said that this article has all kinds of speculation that is not encyclopedic and hence has no place in this article. Yet you say that "'We', as editors of this article … are not … going to remove … text". I have not seen a clearer example of OWN than this "we" of yours where you claim to speak for all editors. You don't even try to hide that you see this article as a battleground, between editors who believe that in the case of MH17, Wikipedia should act not as an encyclopedia, but as judge, jury, and executioner of the rebels, and those editors who believe that Wikipedia should perform an encyclopedic function, which makes them not even be editors, in your view. – Herzen (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Many editors" is you three, plus some throw away SPA accounts, most likely sock puppets of banned users. "Many editors" have pointed out that what you are calling "speculation" is text sourced to reliable sources which you just happen to dislike. Many many many many editors (as in, more than 3) have said this many many many many many times. But you have a problem with listening. And it actually doesn't matter how many throw away SPA accounts show up here and complain. We have a policy. It's called WP:NPOV. It's one of the pillars. It means you can't label any reliably sourced text you don't like as "speculation" and remove it just because you feel like it. For the third time (and that's the third time in the past hour), following Wikipedia policies is NOT "ownership" of an article. It is following Wikipedia policies. Try it sometime. Volunteer Marek  22:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see a link to a policy where one editor is authorized to speak as "We" on behalf of Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am unaware of any SPAs involved in this article other than Tlsandy. If you make accusations, you should back them up. Who are the "many throw away SPA accounts [who] show up here and complain" about this article being not something that belongs in an encyclopedia but rather a primitive hit piece on Russia and the rebels? – Herzen (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Biased Phrasing

"The Russian Ministry of Defense has maintained that American claims of separatist responsibility were "unfounded", and said that the American intelligence agencies have not released any of the data on which they based their conclusions.[164] According to the Russian military, in what the New York Magazine called "Russia's Conspiracy Theory", MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane.[165][166]"

The author needs not underline his position on Russia's point of view being a "Conspiracy Theory" by quoting The New York Magazine. Instead she could quote correctly the Russian point of view in RT or Tass or elsewhere. Why filtering the Russian perspective by NYT or WSJ?

Pebble Beach (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Russian "Point of view" ? I guess you refer to the Federation and its official statements. The few statements which exist were never really explicit, they only pointed in certain directions - or were not official. So we need another source to tell the reader what the Federation wants the world, or its own public, to think. Alexpl (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC Should political commentary be limited?

Should political commentary from parties not directly involved in the crash be removed from the article? USchick (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. USchick (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support It adds nothing. But I'd go further and remove ALL political commentary. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't seen your aggressive, politically motivated reply here. My vote is motivated by the aim of making a better encyclopaedia. Political comment on any topic rarely helps on that front. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. – Herzen (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. First, folks, you really could work on being a little bit less obvious here. Second, didn't we just discuss this several times? Do I need to start an RfC on limiting the number of times that stubborn users can keep bringing the same issue up for discussion over and over and over and over again? Third, the RfC is badly phrased. It's too vague. Who are "parties not directly involved in the crash"? What specific commentary are we referring to? This seems like some attempt to ask for a carte blanche to remove whatever one wants from the article. In other words, once again, just like the twelve, fifteen or whatever it is, times before, it's a demand that you get to edit the article according to your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.  Volunteer Marek  22:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support . The article has become ridiculously biased. This comment may change, so please don't directly reply to it.SaintAviator lets talk 23:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please assume good faith and not harass people as they vote? USchick (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please actually ACT in good faith rather than haranguing others about ASSUMING good faith towards you, even when it's clear you're engaging in WP:POINTy behavior?  Volunteer Marek  01:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you just change your comment to add a "don't reply" message after someone's already replied? Stickee (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Inclusion of material is decided by content guidelines, not whether the party is "directly involved". This comment may change, so please don't directly reply to it. Stickee (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Above I have a comment, here is my Procedural Oppose. The RfC proposal is so vague that it could be used to justify removing anything whatsoever from the article. File a better RfC if you must, specifics, details and all. This is just "let me removez some stuffs plz lol" kinda request. Volunteer Marek  00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In the 21+ archives, this has already been discussed. No one else seems to have any questions about what it means. USchick (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then tell me what it means. The only thing I can tell it means is "let me remove anything I want". Volunteer Marek  02:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Procedural Oppose reply. Disagree Marek. Its clear whats political. You yourself need to reconsider WP:IDONTLIKEIT SaintAviator lets talk 00:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I certainly have questions as well, quite a vague RfC. Stickee (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It could be helpful if USchick gave some examples or definitions yes. In General the thrust of the RFC is clear but could be refined. In this way it may attract more support. SaintAviator lets talk 00:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

" the thrust of the RFC is clear" - well, we agree on that part. The thrust of the RfC is "let me remove anything I don't like so I can push my POV". And I thought you were done editing with this article. And now you pop up... right along the three other folks. Volunteer Marek  01:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The thrust is to remove POV political comments. Yes I had no time. Now I have some time. Whats your point relevant to this RFC? In fact stay on topic and open a thread on my talk page thank you. SaintAviator lets talk 01:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Should political commentary from parties not directly involved in the crash be removed from the article?" Should commentary from parties not directly involved in event X be removed from the article about event X? Of course, not. All secondary sources about event X are normally written by people who are nor directly involved in event X. This so called RfC goes against core policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• WARNING to User:Volunteer Marek. Please stop harassing people as they comment here. This is an RfC. If you have a question about content, please start a new discussion. I have repeatedly started discussions, which are now archived, with questions such as: Who are the involved parties? Who should comment? There was no interest in discussing it. It's all archived, please go there to discuss further if you're ready now. USchick (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Who are the involved parties? There was no interest in discussing it." Yes there was. 20 comments even. See Archive 19. Stickee (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, that's where that discussion should continue. USchick (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

So we can close this nonsense here and continue the discussion over there, yes?  Volunteer Marek  02:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a separate discussion over there not related to this one. USchick (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Either that's a "separate discussion over there not related to this one", in which case the relevant question is "why the hell did you bring it up in your comment at 1:29 and endorse it as being on topic at 1:46", or it is NOT a "separate discussion over there not related to this one" in which case we close this nonsense because it's already been done to death. Volunteer Marek  02:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You already voted here, you harassed people who didn't vote the way you wanted them to, is there any further disruption that you would like to do here? Or would you prefer to revive old discussions for your next disruption? I'm not answering, because I don't care. USchick (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I "voted", and now I'm asking a question. It's called "discussion". And I didn't "harass" anybody, stop using inflammatory language and making baseless and false accusations. I asked editors to actually substantiate their !votes with reference to article Wikipedia policies rather than just personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's also "discussion", and that's how these RfC things are supposed to work. It's not actually a vote. Now, can you answer my question?  Volunteer Marek  02:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is "nonsense" please feel free to go do something else, no you can't close it. USchick (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose if political commentary pertaining to this is in RS reportage why not in the article. Sayerslle (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this a question that you would like answered? If you're new to this talk page, that's a reasonable question. USchick (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. We keep notable reactions, not just reactions directly involved. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Conditionally support However we do require consensus what directly involved means. I would opt that every country that has a victim on board, the country under which flag the plane was flying and the country over which it was shot down can be considered directly involved and none other. For example: Canada and New Zealand (one casualty each): Involved. United States (one dual Dutch-US citizen): Involved, Russia - not fulfilling any of the involvement criteria - Not involved. If and only if we can avoid a POV debate about this and adopt this idea I would support - otherwise I would strongly oppose as the use of involvement would become another POV pushing thing. Arnoutf (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia got involved when Kiev and Washington accused it of supplying the Buk launcher that allegedly shot down MH17. Also, this article belongs to seven Russian categories. Your claim that Russia is not involved is disingenuous. – Herzen (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And there we go with the debate what involvement entails. (1) Accusation by others is not involvement (unless these accusations are of course true) (2) Wikipedia is not a reliable source; and addition to categories would not even be a usuable argument if it were. Arnoutf (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am open for other criteria for what country is involved, but these should be fair and not include the foregone conclusion that one named country is involved. Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia is very much involved. Under a number of criteria that one may come up with for "involved". Volunteer Marek  17:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Following what criterion would Russia be involved? By being a neighbor of Ukrain? That would make Romania involved. By being a bully state? That would make the US (among others) involved. By supporting the rebels? Russia denies that. By self-involving them in the debate? That would include every country that made a statement. So please propose a clear list of criteria for involvement; that does not claim any named country to be involved. Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

following the criterion that RS have discussed Russia being very much involved - it keeps pushing its theories too, odd if it has no direct interest really - seems interested - its latest half-arsed disinformation didn't take long to look feeble either - [5] - and do they deny supporting the rebels? they deny supporting them in certain ways, but do they deny supporting them at all? Sayerslle (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think the correct approach is to discuss whether a specific comment or statement of a specific person or organization should be removed. We should not write a blank cheque for USchick or others to vastly change the content of the article. Specific changes should be proposed and discussed (hopefully not debated) here. We need to start having civil discussions that reference Wiki policy. If editors are unable to discuss issues and seek consensus then they should consider whether they need to take a break from editing this article.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - this crash has created political tension around the globe, with leaders of nations not directly involved engaging in commentary. Of course there is a political dimension extending well beyond the usual factors of aircraft, pilot etc. A similar example is the shooting down of an Iranian A300 airliner by the USN, which had political repercussions. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this proposal could be interpreted any number of ways, and I doubt that is accidental. Should cited opinions be attributed? Yes. Should opinion commentary or sources with a clear and present bias be cited to present claims of fact? No. Should the political positions of factions, i.e. the Australian government, Dutch government, Novorossiya separatists, etc., be presented with due weight? Yes. Should they be presented with undue weight? No. There is clearly a lot of nuance that this proposal seems to ignore, for whatever purpose. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• If opinions are citable and reach WP:N, they should be included. The event, tragic as it was, invited a lot of notable commentary in world media, and it seems a bit strange to ignore that. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment in my view being citable and notable is a lower threshold for inclusion. For this article there are literally thousands of citable and notable opinions. It would be impossible to include all those and end up with anything readable. Arnoutf (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but notability is a relative thing. Notability means something pokes up above the base level of background noise that is the world; the more notable a subject, the higher a bar thoughts about it must clear. So what the governments of (say) the USA and China have to say about this would be rather more notable than what the government of Angola has to say. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally would be very interested to find out why the government of China or the US is "rather more notable" than the government of Angola. Because the only reasons that make sense to me would be racism and systemic bias. To claim this outrageous claim, one would need a reliable source, otherwise, it's Original Research. If all three governments are equally uninvolved in the crash, the only reason for any of them to get involved after the crash would be political. USchick (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you just accuse a user of racism? Again? After you were almost banned for making false accusations of racism previously?  Volunteer Marek  23:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you harassing me again? After we just came back from ANI? Would you be interested in going back? USchick (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not harassing you, not now, not ever, so quit trying to play the victim. You just accused another user of racism, yes? Quote: "the only reasons that make sense to me would be racism and systemic bias", directed at User:Ipsissima Verba's comment. Can you answer the question? If you blurted out something you didn't mean to blurt out, then at least strike the false accusation. Volunteer Marek  00:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you're stalking my edits, maybe you could leave me a "to do list" of things you want me to strike out, on my talk page. USchick (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What?!?? Stalking your edits??? Are you just making random nonsense accusations? Please explain how in hell I'm "stalking your edits". Please explain why you just accused another editor of "racism", after almost being banned for making such odious false accusations. Or strike your comments. Volunteer Marek  02:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

My question is specifically for Ipsissima Verba. When they come back, I would be interested to find out how those three countries were chosen as examples of notability and what makes two of them more notable than the other one. USchick (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And my question is specifically for you. Did you just - AGAIN - falsely accuse another editor of racism?  Volunteer Marek  02:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No I did not. If you have any other personal questions please make them in a personal space. USchick (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then can you clarify by what you meant by this comment: "the only reasons that make sense to me would be racism and systemic bias.", directed at User:Ipsissima Verba. It very much looks like you're saying their comment was "racist". If I'm missing something, please enlighten. If not, then strike it. Serious accusations like these directed at other users need to be substantiated or else they are personal attacks. Quite nasty ones at that. The fact that you have a history of making such attacks is also relevant. Volunteer Marek  04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking a question. What's relevant, is the reason for choosing three completely unrelated countries of three different races, with two races being claimed as more notable than the African country. I would like to hear an explanation of how this decision was made and a source to support it. I would like to point out that this is an RfC, and not a place for unrelated commentary and I will not answer anything else in this location. USchick (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You are asking a question and then providing your own answer, which involves a baseless and vile accusation against another user. The obvious reason why China and US's reaction might be more notable than Angola's is that China and US are super powers and Angola isn't. Nothing to do with racism. Yes, this is an RfC and hence certainly not a place for making disgusting personal attacks like you did. Don't pull any more stunt like this. Volunteer Marek  20:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support The focus of the article should be about Flight 17 and the parties involved, we have a separate article International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown for outside parties. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point. I have trouble keeping track of spinoff articles. Maybe we should try to agree on a list of the "parties involved"? (This discussion can be split into a new section if others want to pursue it.) It is not as if we need to debate on an abstract level what involvement entails. We can just try to agree on a list. My proposal: Malaysia, Netherlands, Australia, Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. I did not include in the list countries that had fewer than thirteen of its citizens among the victims. Doing that allowed me to cut down the number of countries involved for that reason from 10 to 3. If someone objects to the inclusion of the US, that can be discussed. – Herzen (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What other countries are mentioned in the article? Germany. Because of their intelligence report. That certainly belongs here, not in the spin-off. Volunteer Marek  23:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well some countries are a given these include Russia, Ukraine and the Netherlands. Malaysia should also be included as it is their plane. Can you think of any others and why they should be included? The USA in my opinion was not directly involved in this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course US should be included. The point is, that other than the countries mentioned in the US, the only other country mentioned is Germany, because of the intelligence report that was released by their services. So this supposed "excellent point" is "beside the point". Volunteer Marek  00:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. No other countries than these seven are mentioned by the article. So my list is useless. (Sorry, but the article is so long-winded I just have trouble following what's in it.) Anyway, Knowledgekid87's idea is still excellent, because some material that is more "human interest-related" than technical or factual can be moved to the international responses article. – Herzen (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally believe that the US is involved, but I don't want to get into an argument about that, because it would get into political issues. If it appears that a majority of editors do not believe that the US should be considered an involved country, I would go along with that. – Herzen (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well from the standpoint of coverage you can say that seeing this is the English Wikipedia it would include English speaking countries but I feel it should be for things like presentation. This is hard though how many sources do we need for a country to be more involved versus less? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that this isn't going to go anywhere. But you gave me an idea when you brought up the international reactions article. I am inclined to boldly move some less significant material from this article to that article and see what the response is. That would at least reduce the bloat a little. – Herzen (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to wait for the RfC to close first. Stickee (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, thank you for the suggestion. I was actually thinking of doing that tomorrow. Anyway, I think we've accomplished some productive brainstorming here. – Herzen (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, good point. There was also that reply given by the German Ministry of Interior to questions submitted to it by die Linke (which I believe is not mentioned in the article). So that makes seven involved countries. – Herzen (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I support Knowledgekid87 idea. Its too long winded. SaintAviator lets talk 03:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Is it not time to close this RfC? My take is that no consensus was reached. However, Knowledgekid87 made the useful implicit suggestion that some material in this article should be moved to the International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown article. So I suggest that we should close this discussion and proceed with that plan. – Herzen (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Which material should be moved? As pointed out above, and my understanding is that you agreed with this, there really isn't that much about "international reactions" in the article currently. Volunteer Marek  20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

In the "Reactions" section, I think that some material can be moved to the spin-off article. This article should only mention reactions that have some practical consequences, as opposed to being little more than the expression of a sentiment. Things like flags being flown at half mast and musical events being canceled should be moved. So should the whole paragraph on the Australian response. What the Americans and British are quoted as saying is also of little consequence, especially since they are not members of the Joint Investigation Team, so I think that material should be moved as well. That the mention of a poem being written about MH17 should be moved is a no-brainer.

So, I'd say that about half of the material can be moved. There being an article about "International reactions" gives us an easy way of making this article a little more concise. – Herzen (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The stuff about flags being flown at half-mast refers to Netherlands and Malaysia. I think it's fine and relevant. It's not like it takes up a lot of space. It's just a mention and it's perfectly fine in this article. I'm not sure what you mean by "expression of a sentiment" - you'd have to be specific with this. The Australian response is also relevant although it does rely too much on direct quotes rather than an encyclopedic paraphrasing of such. There is actually very little from the US and Britain so I'm not exactly clear on what you think it should be moved. The Russian poem is noteworthy for obvious reasons, so it stays. Volunteer Marek  02:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Your dictatorial manner is not appreciated. And please don't place your comments in the middle of my comments. You freak out when other editors do things like that, so you should take care that you don't. – Herzen (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If I somehow put my comment into the middle of your comment then I apologize, but I don't think that's the case. I might have put it in between two different comments by you but that's to make it clear what I was replying to, and it's how discussions work. Anyway. Can you be clear on what parts about US and Britain and what "expressions of sentiment" are you referring to?  Volunteer Marek  06:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Some would want to use this as an invitation to delete or move content they want out of here but we keep notable reactions not just reactions directly involved. Tlsandy (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

MH17

Soap/Forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
why did the Russian shoot it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.4.58 (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

NYRB article

Useful: [6].  Volunteer Marek  14:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"...arguably the most egregious act of aggression in the entire Ukrainian conflict thus far." But I think most people believe it was actually a mistake, the result of incompetance on the part of those operating the BUK launcher. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It can be both an act of aggression and a mistake. Volunteer Marek  16:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. But a deliberate act of aggression is very different to a mistaken act of aggression. There have been have quite a few examples of airliners shot down in circumstances far less volatile than this. I'm not sure what extra that NYRB article can provide in terms of this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That article is a russophobic rant. This passage stands out in its absurdity:

The BUK (Russian for beech) is a complicated anti-aircraft missile system devised by the Soviets in the seventies and modernized by the Russians.

This is the first time I have seen Russians distinguished from Soviets. By almost everyone, Russians and Soviets are treated as the same people. During the Cold War, in the US, the opponent was usually referred to as Russians (or "Russkies"), not Soviets. Just have a look at the Dr Strangelove script. "Russian" is used interchangeably with "Soviet", and the word "Russian" is used more often. – Herzen (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, I would expect that the distinction between Soviets and Russians is being made there to denote the change in regimes from the USSR when the Buk was developed, to its modern form, which has obviously be modified by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. I don't think that distinction makes the article absurd or a "rant".--64.253.142.26 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is clearly a russophobic rant. Just consider the title: "Flight MH17: Will Russia Get Away With It?" Our MH17 article notes that the Bundesnachrichtendienst has explained that Russia had nothing to do with the downing of MH17, but the author of this piece continues to circulate that claim anyway. The change in "regimes" was inconsequential as far as military technology is concerned. (And you call the Russian government a "regime", a word that is reserved for governments that the US intends to topple, as it has done with Iraq and Libya.) The distinction between Russians and Soviets was made to reinforce the meme that after the collapse of the USSR, Russia stopped being a superpower. The USG position is that Russia lost the Cold War, so it should submit, like Germany and Japan did. This NY Review piece is just more propaganda pushing that line. – Herzen (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I've met (both in rl and here on Wikipedia) quite a number of Russians who *insist* on the distinction between "Russian" and "Soviet", mostly because they don't feel like they should be blamed for what the commies did. And rightly so. So the article has it right. No, the distinction was not "invented" to "reinforce a meme" (wtf?) that Russia stopped being a superpower (that's a... "meme"? Really?). The distinction was made simply because Russia ain't the Soviet Union. Remember that part? And no, there's nothing "Russophobic" about it, and neither is it a rant. You do realize that it's written by one of the top experts on the history of Russia and the Soviet Union? Perhaps you should reconsider what you believe to be "Russophobic". Criticism of Russian government actions DOES NOT make one "Russophobic" anymore than criticism of American government actions makes one "Anti-American". I'll incorporate some info from the source into the article shortly. Volunteer Marek  05:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And oh yeah, the Bundesnachrichtendienst isn't the omniscient final authority on the question, especially when you consider that that report was severely toned down for political reasons. The Bellingcat analysis, and common sense, suggest that Russian government had plenty to do with it. Volunteer Marek  05:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in your conspiracy theory Web sites. And "common sense" indicates that Kiev did it. The Ukrainian government is officially Nazi now. Shooting down airliners is standard Nazi behavior. – Herzen (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You are getting progressively more ridiculous and extreme, Herzen. Canada is "officially Nazi" as well if that's your evidence that Ukraine is Nazi since the two countries voted the same way against that Russian-sponsored UN resolution. With respect to what German and Russian sources are saying, you cannot have it both ways. RT reports that the German foreign ministry more or less disowned the Spiegel's reporting on BND report, calling it "incomplete and arbitrarily taken out of context." If you are going to accept RT's reliability here, then you should be dialling down everything in that Spiegel report as dubious. But because there's one thing in it you like, you demand that that Spiegel report be assigned maximum credibility. Which do you want to us to believe, Herzen, RT or Der Spiegel? Because RT is telling us the German govt, who knows what it's own position is on MH17, considers Der Spiegel a poor source on this particular report.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? Are you saying the New York Review of Books is a conspiracy website? Or Bellingcat is a conspiracy website? Which is cited by authoritative sources. And please, spare us the links to idiots' blogs. Volunteer Marek  19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe when you were referring to "conspiracy theory Web sites" you were ... foreshadowing the link you were about to provide? I don't get it. "Shooting down airliners is standard Nazi behavior" - honestly, Herzen, I'm almost concerned that your account has been compromised. Volunteer Marek  19:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that was Russia Today? It tells this plane was shoot down by NATO and a lot more about Polish aggression against Russia [7], [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Re NY Book review. Sums up one POV nicely. Nothing new. Tempted to Soap/Forum this thread. SaintAviator lets talk 23:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuits Again

One of the lawsuits previously discussed here has progressed one more stage to the filing (read more). Notable? I think not: same thing as last time. Also read about the other lawsuits here, here, here, here. Stickee (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

They look like dragging on. SaintAviator lets talk 07:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "same thing as last time". Last time, there was only talk of filing a lawsuit; this time, a lawsuit has been filed. I don't see how you can claim that that is not notable. Before, I said that this was not notable, because I did not think it would go anywhere, but now we see that is going somewhere. It is impossible to avoid the impression that some editors of Ukraine related articles are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to avoid any mention in articles of anything that puts Ukraine in a bad light, and to insert anything into them that puts the rebels or Russia in a bad light. Editors are not even trying to maintain any appearance of being interested in trying to maintain NPOV. – Herzen (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Herzen. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Herzen WP is like that. Most of us know it right? WP is not some sacrosanct place where its all explained. Of course that case is relevant. But getting relevant material 'in' is a war by numbers with some occasional reviews and decisions by other outside editors. SaintAviator lets talk 23:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit war, again

I would like to remind everyone this article is still under sanctions. There was a BRD process interrupted by this edit [9] from User:Volunteer Marek who is obviously edit warring. Would you like to discuss now? And self revert? USchick (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "interrupt" any BRD process. I didn't see you discussing anything either. You reverted someone else. You are the one who made a simple revert into an edit war. You are the one who is "obviously edit warring". You are the one who should've followed BRD. You didn't, then you come here and post a typically false summary of the situation. As you have on many previous occasions.

As to the merits, it's simple and already discussed. The main conclusion of the German report is that the flight was shot down by the separatists. The details about how the US justice system are WP:UNDUE and unneeded. What are these supposed to add to the article anyway? Volunteer Marek 16:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This was a bold edit [10] by User:Stickee. I reverted it. According to WP:BRD the next step is to discuss, not to gang up and revert again. Please self revert and allow for a discussion to happen. USchick (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

On topic, what does a sentence about US legal systems have to do with the core of this article? There are many other, much more serious problems with gathering evidence (for example the ongoing war) and this seems to be much less relevant. So I agree this problem seems somewhat undue to me. Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If there was any evidence against Russia, it would have already been presented, since everyone is pointing fingers at Russia for being responsible. The US is in a great position to present actual evidence from satellite data. If this information is classified, it will be almost impossible to show what happened, especially if the evidence is not pointing at Russia, since the US is blaming Russia. This is why the US legal system is so important in this case. It's much easier to launch a propaganda campaign than to present actual satellite evidence, apparently. USchick (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Various evidence has been presented. Anyway, your original research is irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Spiegel article outlines the evidence presented. It has been in the article ever since Der Spiegel came out. Volunteer Marek can not unilaterally determine that "Stickee is right" and delete sourced information. Please put it back. USchick (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Stickee made the edit makes it not unilateral (by definition). Also, responsible is not the same as guilty of pulling the trigger. The Russian destabilizing politics in former Soviet Republics makes them at least to some extent responsible for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine, without which the plane would never have been shot down. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That is one of the most non-NPOV, bad faith edits I have seen here for some time. Feel free to hate Russia and Stickee privately, but you have no right to shove that opinion in front of everyone here. HiLo48 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Were you addressing me HiLo48? In fact I agree with Stickee's removal of this text; so why would you think I hate them? And I do not hate Russia but you cannot deny they have annexed the Crimea, or fought a minor war with Georgia a few years ago which is hardly a sign of a stable relationship with your neigbbours (or is it in your view? - in which please explain). Arnoutf (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing about the edit that is non-NPOV nor bad faith. Stop scare mongering. And STOP. ACCUSING. EDITORS. OF "Hating Russia". One more outburst like that and off to WP:AE we go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that, even without the capitals, whenever you post anything here, I get the impression you're shouting at us? HiLo48 (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason why you think that anyone here "hates Russia". I.e. the problem is with *you* and your perception of reality, not the reality itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps because throwing insulting abbreviations in all caps at people makes people somewhat unhappy with you? Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok do we want to discuss the inclusion of the line? In my view it is undue, as it is only part of the evidence, and minor part at that. So I am not sure we need to add this Arnoutf (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the results of investigations must be added, however, text in question [11] only tells that investigators do not have results (yet). Hence this text does not add anything important and can be omitted. However, I believe this discussion (see above) is highly problematic, because the initial statement by Uschick accuses a contributor, instead of discussing improvement of the article. HiLo48 does the same [12]. Remember, this page is only for debating improvement of content. If you have complaints about users, this should be debated on WP:AE or WP:ANI, not here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that an investigation going from considering four scenarios to considering only two "does not add anything important" is preposterous. It does not matter how many times you make that claim: it will always be preposterous. Repeating a preposterous game ad infinitum is a case of gaming the system. If this development were not important, the Dutch chief prosecutor would not have mentioned it and Spiegel would not have published it. So your claim that this development is "not important" is nothing but original research. Also, your Talk page says that you are "taking a WikiBreak for his academic commitments." So why do you not keep your word, instead of engaging in unrestrained battleground behavior and personal attacks? – Herzen (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am accusing one editor of breaking BRD and edit warring instead. Just like the title if this thread states. I have taken the same editor to ANI previously for disruptive editing. So here we are witnessing the same disruptive behavior. Again. USchick (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The disruptive behavior is debating other people instead of content on article talk pages, even after your complaint on ANI was not supported by any admins. My very best wishes (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I'm pointing out to the edit warrior that they are engaged in an edit war (which they deny). I'm doing it out of courtesy, to give the edit warrior an opportunity to revert. I believe this is the courteous thing to do. USchick (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Drop the name calling, especially since you're the one who initiated the edit warring. Or should I start writing things like "I'm just pointing out to the troll that they are engaged in trolling (which they deny). I'm doing it out of courtesy (hahahahaha!) to give the troll an opportunity to stop. I believe this is the courteous thing to do"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Where would you prefer to continue this discussion? The sanctions noticeboard or the edit war noticeboard? USchick (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at past history, perhaps the "giant waste of time and 13000 words noticeboard"? Stickee (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Spinoff discussion about definition of "who's responsible"

"responsible is not the same as guilty of pulling the trigger" This is an interesting concept. It may be the reason for all this arguing, since we all have different ideas what "responsible" means. Would anyone like to elaborate? When it comes to "destabilizing force in the region" it's not clear to me that Russia is responsible for that. Everything has been stable for 20 years, and the only new event is the government change in Ukraine. So it appears to me (as an outsider) that the destabilizing force is the new government in Ukraine. Russia is just as stable as it ever was for the past 20 years. This is why I'm asking people to elaborate, because obviously, we all have very divergent opinions, and simply quoting sources hasn't gotten us anywhere. USchick (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, people waiting for the results of this investigation, will be extremely disappointed, because the investigation was set up from the beginning to come up "inconclusive" at the end. People who understand the US legal system, understand that no other conclusion is possible in this particular case. This is why the investigation is a lot more important than the result. The US is holding evidence that will never come to light due to the US legal system, which is set up to produce a certain outcome. USchick (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but WP:NOTAFORUM and most of us here are not particularly interested in your speculations/theorizing/original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Several people brought up these issues, (see above) so "most of us" are in fact interested. USchick (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@USchick: I changed the title to something slightly more specific. Is this okay? Stickee (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. :) USchick (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• @USchick. The banner above tells: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.", but this is not even something about the subject of this article, just as your accusations with respect to other contributors. Is'not it clear? My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious edit

Here. Looking at English language sources, I only found this, a suspicious source. It refers to this, but info is not there. I think this should be reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and most of those are 2 or 3 months old (press release is from July). Now that Malaysia has joined the JIT, most of that is irrelevant now. Stickee (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition, this is a common practice not to disclose results of ungoing criminal investigations. Let's not present this as a conspiracy. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Watch out. There are other similar accounts. My very best wishes (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Before we start removing sourced content, would anyone like to discredit the sources first? Nederlandse Omroep Stichting NOS is one of those sources. What makes it unreliable? USchick (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Second question: the agreement is not simply to not disclose information during an ongoing investigation, it's to "veto the publication of results of the investigation." For someone to say this is common practice, let's have a source please. Otherwise, it's OR. USchick (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. To "veto the publication of results of the investigation" implies international conspiracy by several countries, an extraordinary claim that must be sourced better.My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The third and most important question is the Dutch government's refusal (on 19 November) to disclose the documents which constitute the agreement.--Antonioptg (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, what makes it unreliable? USchick (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And De Telegraaf "is the largest Dutch daily morning newspaper"--Antonioptg (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole edit involves trying to suggest some conspiracy to hide info wheras in fact what's happening is standard procedure in international investigations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a standard procedure the right of veto to the publication of results of the investigation and the secrecy about the terms of the agreement.--Antonioptg (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

From the source "Dergelijke afspraken worden vaker gemaakt in internationale onderzoeken waarin gevoelige informatie van bijvoorbeeld inlichtingendiensten wordt gedeeld.". You've basically tried to cram into the articles two whole paragraph on what is essentially a conspiracy theory. No.Volunteer Marek (talk)

That such agreements are common practice (and I'm not sure whether that's true) does not mean that members of the Dutch parliament have a right to see the agreement. Also, for all we know, some provisions of the agreement may not be common practice. – Herzen (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You and My very best wishes continue to engage in deception and making stuff up. At 01:39, Mvbw wrote "this is a common practice not to disclose results of ungoing criminal investigation." Mvbw is also an expert at insulting other editors' intelligence. What members of the Dutch parliament were asking was not the "disclos[ure of] results of [an] ungoing criminal investigation, but "to make public all the documents of the secret treaty." When some editors do virtually nothing but engage in distortion and misrepresentation to game the system, it is very difficult for editors who want to introduce some semblance of NPOV into the article to make any progress. And you repeat the distortion made by your tag-teaming buddy. Finally the title of this Talk section is a personal attack. – Herzen (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Source says it's common practice. Stop making personal attacks. The article is mostly NPOV now, it's SPA's such as the newest one, Antonioptg who continuously make bad faithed efforts to try and slant this article in a POV direction. And you've been trying to enable them throughout.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's common practice has nothing to do with the fact that you and Mvbw misrepresented what the parliamentarians asked for, so I did not engage in any personal attacks, but accurately described what you and Mvbw did. You continue to engage in obfuscation, bringing up the "common practice" point here. – Herzen (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop making personal attacks accusing me of bad faith! "deelnemende landen het recht houden om onderzoeksresultaten geheim te houden" = "paertecipaten country retain the right to keep secret research results (onderzoeksresultaten)" De Telegraaf De Telegraaf--Antonioptg (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes and "Dergelijke afspraken worden vaker gemaakt in internationale onderzoeken waarin gevoelige informatie van bijvoorbeeld inlichtingendiensten wordt gedeeld.". Herzen, nobody misrepresented anything, except possibly Antonioptg who's cherry picked info from a source (in another edit).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's common practice to have secret agreements during an investigation, just like it's common practice to withhold evidence, like the US is doing. It's very common to manipulate an investigation when you want a certain outcome at the end. Reliable sources are reporting that this is happening in this investigation. What's the problem with saying it in the article? This is not a theory, it's happening. USchick (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, stop soapboxing, the source says it's common practice. Your comments make it very very clear that you are here to pursue a personal POV agenda rather than contribute constructively to improving the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the problem with including it and saying that it's common practice? USchick (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is conspiracy mongering. Tlsandy (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a personal opinion not at all supported by sources. USchick (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's conspiracy mongering and WP:UNDUE. We're already tolerating your, and some others, soapboxing on the talk page of the article, no way the article gets to turn into that kind of mess too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's take a vote about who is being tolerated here. USchick (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably the person who makes odious and false accusations of racism against other users when they disagree with them. Or the person who lies about another user supposedly threatening an admin's children. Or... you get the idea. I have no idea why you are still allowed to edit Wikipedia at all, much less this contentious area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I would be willing to take a vote to find out for sure. Would you? USchick (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop playing stupid, immature, games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This "news" appeared on the conspiracy website globalresearch then soon after it popped up right here. It's pushing a conspiracy POV, plain and simple.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources have been named and not refuted yet. A lot of personal attacks are flying around, but no one is bothering to discredit the two sources. USchick (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources are being misrepresented and it's WP:UNDUE. It's folks from a conspiracy website coming over here to turn Wikipedia into the same piece of junk that their website is, and you and Herzen enabling them. Herzen for POV reasons, you probably just for lulz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you claim the sources are being misrepresented, please explain how. What exactly is being misrepresented? USchick (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In my view it is undue; not necessarily misrepresented. It is clear that countries only want to hand over military secrets if they are promised it will be kept secret. Hardly surprising; suggesting that has something to do with deliberate intention to direct the investigation in a specific direction is speculation at best. For the report, it was a fairly minor and short note in a newspaper. It received no notable follow up, so I would think it is undue to put it in. Arnoutf (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

According to policy, the neutral thing to do, is to present minor and major opinions with corresponding weight. It's not happening right now. The person who claims that sources are being misrepresented should explain what they mean, especially if the rest of us are expected to listen to them. USchick (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"According to policy, the neutral thing to do, is to present minor and major opinions with corresponding weight. It's not happening right now. " - nope, that's exactly what we have right now. The conspiracy crap gets the weight it deserves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with point of view. The source does not state any point of view, although Uschick's personal (unsourced) statements above interpret it as such. The source factually reports on the agreement that the countries involved in the investigation agree to share intelligence information under the condition it will not be made public without their explicit agreement. That is fairly trivial and hence mentioning it would be undue considering the many reports on this disaster out there. Arnoutf (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems like the fair of the misinterpretation. There are three sources, not one, and two of them (De Telegraaf and Elsevier) states not only about the right of veto to the publication of the data provided by each country, but also to the publication of results of the investigation and the secrecy of the terms of the whole agreement.--Antonioptg (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, intelligence services are somewhat paranoia - so they do not only want that the information is not shared, but also they do not want the fact that they agreed to share information; or any report/investigation that may suggest they shared information to be public. Still nothing out of the ordinary for intelligence services (or as they used to be called secret services). Not particularly relevant nor notable in the larger context, and hardly an indication of potential foul play. Arnoutf (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing out of the ordinary? And what will happen if the results of the investigations will focus on one of the countries involved in the secret deal? In Italy we are still waiting to know the truth about Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870!--Antonioptg (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What does 870 have to do with this? And thank you for confirming with that comment that your interest here is to spread conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What intelligence is being shared and why is it a secret? Russian forces that aren't present in Ukraine? There are certainly no US forces in Ukraine, so what's left? Ukrainian forces? USchick (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ever heard of satellite images, phone taps. And how do you know there are no Russian forces on Ukraine and how comes some were arrested inside the Ukraine earlier this year? But perhaps you have access to the full deployment records and inventory of the Russian army? Arnoutf (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Putin is the one asking for this information to go public and the rest of the world is hiding it. [13] Why is that? USchick (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Russia is definitely not making the information public how Russian soldiers with heavy weapons could be arrested inside Ukraine earlier this year, and neither does it give full insight into its troop deployment and weapons inventory. Arnoutf (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so if all sides are throwing the investigators off balance in their own propaganda war, shouldn't that be reflected in the article? USchick (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, also WP:NOTAFORUM and oh yeah, WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have trouble understanding that, there's also WP:NOT#FORUM. Consider also consulting WP:NOTESSAY or reading WP:NOT#ESSAY. WP:NOT#CHAT is also relevant. If all that fails to get through you might also want to look at WP:FORUM. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And thanks Volunteer Marek to confirm in any comments that you are not interested in writing an article NPOV but only to prevent anyone from adding information which could call into question the preconceived thesis underpinning this article. So no one can mention the existence of a secret agreement on the disclosure of the result of the investigation, nor that the Dutch Government also considers the option of "an attack from the air" and, if there is the official Russian version of the facts, that must be presented as "Russia's Conspiracy Theory". Congratulations! Good job!--Antonioptg (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the facts. The Dutch government has ruled out mechanical failure and human error. That leaves alternatives of foreign objects entering the plane. The images are consistent with many small high speed foreign objects, that are either cannon fire or missile shrapnel. The Dutch government investigation is now trying to rule out one of those and will conclude the other must have happened. That does not mean they consider the attack from the sky idea as equally likely as the SAM theory, only that they have not sufficient evidence to rule that out at the moment. Also there is no official Russian version, only a lot of rumormongering and speculation oh yeah and some faked images. Arnoutf (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So I'm misrepresenting this: "Nu een ongeluk en een terroristische aanslag vanuit het vliegtuig onwaarschijnlijk worden geacht, blijven er twee mogelijke oorzaken over: "een aanslag vanaf de grond dan wel een aanslag vanuit de lucht", schrijven de ministers Opstelten, Koenders en Hennis."; and I must have dreamed this: Special Briefing by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in the Ukrainian air space, July 21, 2014.--Antonioptg (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually Yes - and your own sources confirm that. The quote above fits my post exactly, but does not claim that the attack from the air is considered even closely similarly likely. The Russian statement (from 3 days after the disaster and since not substantiated by Russian officials) does not explicitly claim that it was a fighter. In fact their last para opens with the very speculative " Is it coincidence or not?". So again, it fits my post, but not yours. They never present their theory only speculate on possible alternatives. Arnoutf (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

New edit war

[14] Another attempt to gang up and interrupt a BRD process. I'm just documenting it, so it's easy to find during a sanctions request. Keep going, this is great! USchick (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"a BRD process": actually it's a B R R R D R R D process. Also, how does this section you've created help at all? If it's just for "documenting it, so it's easy to find", perhaps saving on your computer or in your own userspace would be better. Stickee (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not documenting for my own benefit, this is for anyone who wishes to file at any time. I'm simply providing a community service. USchick (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do you guys insist on reverting each other then talking about it? "BRD" is not Wikipedia policy. How about when someone takes the time to add information to the article, if you object, discuss it first before removing it? Wouldn't that be a little nicer way of treating each other? Cla68 (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Just kiss already, you two. Seriously, this has gone so far past the point of needing mediation and/or arbitration that it's just wasting everyone's time at this point. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• [15] Edit warring by User:Tlsandy Ganging up with no discussion. USchick (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop this. It's outright harassment at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You stop your edit warring, tag teaming, continual misrepresentation, lawyering, civil POV-pushing, BATTTLEGRUND, and OWN. You don't actually people to put up with all that, do you? Your editing is extremely disruptive. – Herzen (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with my editing. Stop casting baseless aspersions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I am always hugely amused when editors call upon WP:lawyering, as that call in itself is a clear case of WP:lawyering. But to be honest, there seems no purpose in this post other than accuse editors of improper behavior which is not going to improve the article. Can we close this? Arnoutf (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be closed. The purpose of this Talk section is indeed to improve the article, by trying to get some editors to stop their disruptive behavior. Volunteer Marek has been asked to stop his disruptive editing, but he never shows any inclination to restrain himself even a little. "There's nothing wrong with" VM's editing? Then why has he been blocked six times, for edit warring, personal attacks, and harassment? VM's behavior does not seem to have improved at all; his civil POV-pushing has just gotten more refined, and he now uses tag-teaming to avoid being sanctioned for edit warring. – Herzen (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Will you please stop trying to blacken me? "Has been asked to stop his disruptive editing" - by whom? By the editor that goes around falsely accusing others of racism, or who insinuates that I've threatened someone's children? Or the editor who ascribes any disagreement as "Russophobia" and accuses anyone who's critical of Russian government of "hating Russia"? My editing is just fine, thank you very much. I got one block for edit warring way back when I was unclear on the rules (six freakin' years ago). The other block from 2012, the one supposedly for "incivility and harassment" was done by an admin who's either been or is about to be desysopped by the ArbCom for making bullshit blocks (I objected to *him* harassing another user and he blocked me in response. Probably could've gotten him desyssopped back then but I decided it wasn't worth the trouble. To me. Obviously it was worth a lot of trouble to Wikipedia in general, as now we've got a huge ArbCom case about their behavior). Rest is nonsense blocks over an unclear IBan. Given that I've been here almost ten years, I've got my block log is "just right" (as someone once said, "never trust anyone with a clean block log"). I have not been engaged in "Civil POV-pushing" (in the same comment you accuse me of making personal attacks, so which is it, civil or uncivil?), or any kind of POV-pushing. I've merely objected to you, and some of your buddies, slanting this article to push a particular POV. Nor do I engage in any tag-teaming. Quite simply, most editors disagree with you, and the few others that are working hard to turn this article into a piece of POV conspiracy theory crap.

I'm trying really hard to have some respect for you as an editor. You're making that effort hard. How about you tone it down a little? Or next time you get reported for edit warring or making false accusations and casting WP:ASPERSIONS, I'm not gonna defend you anymore.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this article Volunteer Marek. I agree Kudzu1, this long standing dispute needs to be resolved and we need to tone down the rhetoric here. There has been a distinct lack of constructive dialogue for sometime. Some editors are clearly more responsible for this decline than others. Unfounded accusations against editors, and admins need to stop now. Those who have made them need to take a step back and apologize.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my earlier comment. Talk pages are only for suggesting concrete and actionable changes to the article. Discussing editor behavior can never result directly in a concrete change to the article. Hence this thread is not relevant for this talk page and should be closed. (PS @ Volunteer Marek yes I am one of these Russia haters as I do not thank Putin on my bare knees every knight for the umbrella of peace, freedom of speech and general well being that Russia is spreading in the region. But I have given up on trying to argue with Russia lovers, because anything else than blind worship of the Russian leadership is an obvious sign of hatred - (how must I hate my own government.....)).Arnoutf (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The concrete and actionable change requested is for people to stop edit warring and discuss changes. Since people refuse to do that, this is a place to document edit warring diffs. Any other arguments belong in a separate thread. USchick (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No threads on editor behavior should be on an article talk page. We have a range of other fora to discuss editor behavior. Article talk is just not one of them. Arnoutf (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a policy to support that statement? This is a sanctioned article, where disruptive behavior is not tolerated supposedly. USchick (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:TPYES.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please point to something specific? I don't see where logging disruptive edits is against policy. USchick (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You are not "logging disruptive edits". You're being an obnoxious jerk, creating a battleground atmosphere on the talk page and acting disruptively yourself. The guideline is pretty clear, I can't read it for you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I did see a policy against personal attacks. You seem to be in violation, so you may want to consider striking through your statement. USchick (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

USchick: I think Volunteer Marek's guideline was fairly specific as the second line states (in bold) Comment on content, not on the contributor. How much more specific do you want it? And if you do not understand something as straightforward as that it might be time to seriously read WP:COMPETENCE Arnoutf (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) There's also WP:SPADE. After a certain point, when courteous discourse has not worked, after the user continuous to indulge in behavior that looks provocative and inflammatory, after the user has wasted tons and tons and tons of other people's time with nonsense, after the user has repeatedly made false allegations against other users in failed attempts at getting them sanctioned, after the user has shown themselves incapable of understanding prior warnings, it's time to call it what it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

My intention is to create a section for logging diffs. This can be done without any commentary. Everything else can be collapsed as far as I'm concerned. USchick (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to keep some kind of a "blacklist", do it on your hard-drive. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This section is for everyone to document disruptive edits. You can even document your own. USchick (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

USchickYour intention is in direct violation of the guideline cited by Volunteer Marek. So DON'T. Also your remarks towards Volunteer Marek are clearly uncivil (at least fitting criteria 1 c,d and 2a). So STOP IT. (Yes I am shouting as you do not seem to be listening. Arnoutf (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see a policy against documenting diffs on a talk page. USchick (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to document diffs if they help you discuss content. But DO NOT accuse other editors of anything (per WP:TPYES). Phrases like "ganging up" do nothing to improve content, but do discuss other editors in violation of WP:TPYES. Arnoutf (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

reward

The issue of the reward, which USchick has tried to re-insert into the article again [16], has been discussed numerous times. Here, here and here and there was no consensus for including it. Yes, that was a different (?) reward, but the issue is the same. To try and sneak in this text after discussion concluded otherwise, *that* is an example of a disruptive edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, an unknown person or organization promsing 38M Euro. At least my Nigerian benefactors have a name. People, let's be serious. A private detective claiming without any evidence, that some guy offers 38 Million. Extraordinary claim, hardly extraordinary evidence of its truth. (and that does not even starts about the whole thing being undue). Arnoutf (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we playing detective now? I wish people would question the investigation with the same amount of scrutiny as the reward. So we're cherry picking sources again to fit the idea already in some editor's heads about a predetermined outcome of what "the truth" is. Again. Sorry, I forgot. You don't need "evidence" of a reward when the sources are reporting about it. Can someone please link to a policy on "evidence" or at least discredit the source? Or present a reasonable argument for excluding it, other than "I don't like it?" USchick (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

USchick, we should not question the investigations with the same amount of scrutiny. The Dutch Safety Board and Dutch Public Prosecution Service both are strong accountable public bodies in a democratic society. They both start with a degree of credibility that the unnamed person(s) offering a reward does not. Furthermore, as you have been told there is a problem with placing undue weight on the issues you have raised, relying on unreliable sources to present them, and doing original research to suss them out. As was recommended by Arnoutf in the conversation above, you may wish to read WP:COMPETENCE carefully.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my competence. The reward is the largest in history and it's reported by reliable sources like USA Today [17]. I'm asking for competent editors to link to a policy about presenting "evidence" before this information can be included in the article. I would also like to see a policy where a series of gatekeepers need to approve a sourced edit before it can be added to the article. Because removing sourced content is against policy. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles where it clearly states: "you should not undo their edits without good reason." My edits have been reverted and I'm still waiting for a good reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. USchick (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks USchick. The USA Today article seems to offer a lot more information, perhaps a short mention of the reward is appropriate. We should discuss. At the same time it seems that the only information we have about this "reward" is what this investigator Josef Resch (of Wifka) can tell us. Based only on the articles, it seems he 'believes' the reward is real, and 'says' that the reward money is in a Swiss bank account, 'but' I think it is fair for us to question the weight to place on the article given that it appears to be reliant on only one source (Resch). I don't know much about his or Wifka's credibility in Germany (perhaps another editor does, or there is mention in a reliable source somewhere). We don't know who is offering this reward, and Resch admits that even he has no idea who his client is. I hate these sort of new stories that just report what one guy says without doing any follow-up. Whatever happened to investigative reporting? Is the money in the bank or not? Is this real or just some publicity stunt? I think the numerous questions and mystery surrounding the reward might make its mention undue, but what do others think?--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the source is not Josef Resch, but USA Today, The Telegraph, [18] and NBC [19]. And according to those sources, "The reward for "information and evidence" was being held in Switzerland." USchick (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The articles use Josef Resch and his firm as the sole source of the information:

"The reward is advertised on Wifka’s website, and the agency says the money is already on deposit in a Swiss bank in Zurich."

"The reward for "information and evidence" was being held in Switzerland, according to the firm's statement."

This is what lawyers call hearsay. The reward may or may not be important enough to keep in this article, but do not pretend that the news sources cited say that the money is there. All they have said is that Wifka/Josef Resch says it is.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's compare that to what Igor Girkin said VKontakte about claiming responsibility for shooting down a different plane. That information is in the lede. Is it more reliable than this reward? USchick (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That is what lawyers call an admission or Declaration against interest. And yes, usually it is considered more reliable than a simple hearsay statement.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Finally, a reasonable explanation! Thank you for that. Thank you very much! :-) USchick (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is just simply undue. Feel free to start an RfC on the matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The reward is "undue" only because it poses a threat to the "accepted" version of events as it points out that: 1. There is no evidence. 2. No one knows what happened. 3. The investigation is not likely to produce a result. (Yes, there was a crash, no one knows what happened, but Russia is blamed for it. The end.) USchick (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How many times now have you been told to cut it out with the WP:SOAPBOXing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about what makes it undue? USchick (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@64.253.142.26 who claims that the investigators are competent. Victims’ families disagree. [20] USchick (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

USchick, grieving families rarely have good things to say about investigators until the perpetrators of a crime are brought to justice. Their opinion of the investigation tells us nothing about whether the investigators are competent or not. If you have any specific evidence from reliable sources which shows that there are flaws in the investigation, I invite you to raise them here. Until such evidence is provided, allegations that the Dutch investigations are incompetent or corrupt have no place in the article: WP:NPOV. Best Regards--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

[21] [22] [23] USchick (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links USchick but all these articles seem to say is that some of the families (and their lawyer) say that the investigation is taking too long and that not all of the materials from the crash site have been recovered. The fact that the investigations are still ongoing after about half a year does not mean anything. The troubles recovering materials has already been well documented in the article. These articles do not establish that the Dutch investigations are corrupt or incompetent as you have suggested. Using them to build such an argument is WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and not WP:NPOV.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply pointing out that reliable sources report the investigators are under scrutiny even though they are strong accountable public bodies in a democratic society. USchick (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That is usually what happens in democratic societies. Well if you are not recommending any changes to the article, we do not need to continue discussing those sources. Cheers--64.253.142.26 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm recommending a mention about the reward. There is no policy to provide "evidence" of a reward. There is no "evidence" of investigators being more credible than the person offering the reward, which is the largest in history, which makes it notable. USchick (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is only the largest ever reward, if there actually is a reward. As we have noted above, the statement of one private investigator (one that doesn't know who his client is) is not sufficient to conclude that there is indeed a reward, never mind the amount. All the sources prove is that some guy says there is a huge reward available. As Volunteer Marek noted its inclusion in the article without any solid reporting that there actually is a reward would certainly be WP:UNDUE.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed it should not be there. Tlsandy (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on what policy related reason? USchick (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, unsubstantiated claims of one person (and his firm) do not warrant inclusion. If an article is published that actually verifies the reward (instead of just taking Josef Resch's word for it) then we can reconsider.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please link to a policy with that requirement. USchick (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been told by several editors that this is WP:UNDUE. I invite you to read the policy and reconsider your position. I am not going to continue beating this dead horse.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a few issues

First of all I'm sorry if I bring up points already made, I can't bother to read several pages of archived content...

I think the section about the remains have contradictory claims and it doesn't even give an account for all the bodies supposedly transported to the Dutch authorities. (If I'm correct, the section suggests that 8 bodies are unaccounted for, but it later gives that all bodies are identified except 6.)

The other issue is that I think the links to sources should be archived before they die. Link rot is a serious problem for far less important topics. Some claims here are sourced by only one online source, and some of they look like they are prone to link rot. An archival bot for links would be very helpful.

Thank you for the attention, keep up the valuable work! --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dutch authorities only announced in the last few days there are now 292 out 298 casualties identified. The mention of 8 unidentified is probably left from an earlier tally. Arnoutf (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, while the authorities have been releasing how many bodies have been identified, they haven't given any updates on how many bodies have been collected. Stickee (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

copyvio edit

Whatever the other merits or demerits, this edit is a copyvio which violates WP:PARAPHRASE. Honestly, I should remove it right away (since I don't see any value added in this info, another WP:UNDUE violation I wouldn't reword it myself).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. See what you think. USchick (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No longer a copyvio, but still undue for much the same reasons as outlined by MVBW a few sections up. Stickee (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Russian, German and Asian sources report that people from all over the world are asking questions. Several lawsuits have already been filed, and now more family members are joining the list of people asking questions. I'm not making this up, it's all reported by RS. What will it take for Wikipedia editors to take them seriously? USchick (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, stop with the soapboxing. It's beyond tiresome. You're abusing Wikipedia article talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, it's UNDUE because at this point it's just a letter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And one more time, the "nationality" of the source is not the issue here, so stop pretending that it is. This has been explained to you a dozen times, you keep on pretending otherwise, that's also disruptive. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will have to be rewritten especially because of you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a letter, it's an article in a newspaper. How does Wikipedia policy compare a letter to a social media post VKontakte when both are reported in a news article? USchick (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears you haven't bothered to actually read the article you yourself added as a source, just copy-pasted some sentences from it. It's a letter.

And I see, this is about the VKontakte stuff again. Please drop it. We've been through it a million of times. The obvious difference to anyone who's not just trying to waste people's time is the extent of coverage and the significance of the phenomenon.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So an actual letter written by an attorney is less significant than a deleted social media post? Here's the extent of news coverage [24] [25] [26] [27] USchick (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the nature of the deleted social media post, obviously. So in this case, yes, very much so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And those are all obviously the same source - Reuters - you're just posting different links to the same story. So the extent of news coverage still looks thin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Who makes the decision about what's "obviously" more important? Is this a good question to ask at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? USchick (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would be, if it hadn't already been discussed to death and if you hadn't WP:FORUMSHOPPED fruitlessly all over the place. You're basically threatening to waste more of our time. Stop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This news story is dated Dec 5. Today is Dec 8. This is the first discussion. USchick (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not about VKontakte, which you are the one who brought it up, and you are well aware of all the previous discussions (since you've initiated them over and over and over and over again) Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Flight path update

The American Federal Aviation Administration issued restrictions on flights over Crimea, to the south of MH17's route, and advised airlines flying over some other parts of Ukraine to "exercise extreme caution". This warning did not include the MH17 crash region. This information is outdated according to this [28] [29] USchick (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, actually it's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Because? USchick (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the articles you link. I'm starting to think that you're not actually, you know, reading the articles, before you link them here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't read your mind. USchick (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with reading the article. The words "American", "Federal", "Aviation", and "Administration" do not appear in the article you link.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. So for a Malaysian flight, the American Federal Aviation Administration is completely irrelevant and doesn't belong in the article at all. So we can remove it, right? Is there any objection to the sources linked? USchick (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't access the Australian paper, but the first article does not mention the American Federal Aviation Administration even once. So I can't see where this is outdated. The other article is about an advice of the European air traffic control to Kiev, not to airlines. So again, the line you quote is not related to the phrase from the article you are referring to. That makes it unclear where you want to go with this, and hence I cannot comment on possible merits of whatever you propose. Arnoutf (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as how the AFAA is mentioned by reliable sources, it apparently is not "completely irrelevant" and does belong in the article. But feel free to write a letter to Reuters and the Telegraph informing them of the fact that they are writing stories about irrelevancies, I'm sure they'll appreciate it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question. The FAA has no authority over a Malaysian airline in Ukrainian air space. Clearly, this is undue and does not belong in the article. The second part of my question is about the two sources I linked. "European air traffic control regulator urged Kiev to close the south-east of the country for civilian aircraft days before the MH17 flight was downed near Donetsk, but the plea was ignored by the Ukrainian authorities." Is there any objection to this information being in the article? USchick (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not FAA has authority over a Malaysian airline in Ukrainian air space is not something that determines whether the info is undue or not. What determines whether the info is undue or not is determined by how and to what extent it's covered in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think both are more or less equally relevant. FAA warning airlines about flying over parts of Ukraine, Eurocontrol warning Kiev aircontrol to close its airspace -- Both are examples or foreign air traffic controls with no formal authority that warn about the region. So in my view if we remove FAA we should not add Eurocontrol. In my view I think it is best that both go. But if we decide to keep FAA we could rephrase it as something like:

Foreign air traffic control adviced to avoid the air space before the incident. The American Federal Aviation Administration issued restrictions on flights over Crimea, to the south of MH17's route, and advised airlines flying over some other parts of Ukraine to "exercise extreme caution. This warning did not include the MH17 crash region. Eurocontrol adviced Kiev to close its airspace over Eastern Ukraine Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The other very relevant fact is that "Ukrainian authorities ignored the warning." This explains why Ukraine is being blamed for the crash since they are ultimately responsible for providing security over their air space. Russia is not the only country saying this. There is a lawsuit about this exact issue from the mother of one of the victims. Is there any objection to saying this in the article? USchick (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We've been over the lawsuit issue and you know damn well that there are objections, so stop trying to bring up previously discussed issues over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ... again. (Same goes for the Vkontakte stuff).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

In response to the story Eurocontrol has denied giving advice or warnings or recommendations. https://www.eurocontrol.int/press-releases/response-sunday-times-article-7-december-2014 Tlsandy (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a primary source. Are we willing to accept other primary sources? That would be great! USchick (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you at least try and keep up the appearance that you're acting in good faith?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That Eurocontrol press statement sheds serious doubts on the quality of these specific reports; so we need a secondary source rejecting that statement before we can keep the original sources. Probably better to remove FAA and not add Eurocontrol all together. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

How about we just wait a little.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: responsibility that is another topic altogether, which we should discuss in a different thread not to confuse things. Arnoutf (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem considering primary sources, and policy allows it. I urge editors to come to an agreement about whether or not primary sources should be considered or not in this article, all the time, and not only when it supports a predetermined viewpoint. USchick (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to use this as an opportunity for gaming the system and WP:WIKILAWYERING. Under some circumstances it's okay to use some primary sources in some way. Under different circumstances it's not. This has nothing to do with any "predetermined viewpoint". There's no blanket "either we use all primary sources or no primary sources whatsoever" in Wikipedia policy or guidelines because... well, because that'd be a pretty stupid policy for an encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Just like cherry picking sources only when it's convenient is clearly against policy. USchick (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the news story "Eurocontrol experts spoke privately to their Ukrainian colleagues" and according to the press release they have no authority to make an official recommendation. So both are correct. USchick (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Eurocontrol felt strongly enough about this to issue an official statement suggests otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the "report" contradicts this earlier statement from Eurocontrol, from a secondary source (thought not sure about reliability) [30].Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. They talked about it, considered the danger, and decided to raise the minimum height. Just like some airlines decided to reroute their planes, but not Malaysia. And according to chief executive of the International Air Transport Association, Tony Tyler, “It is very similar to driving a car. If the road is open, you assume that it is safe. If it’s closed you find an alternate route.” [31] and that's why there's a lawsuit now. Is there a reason why we can't talk about it in the article? USchick (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We've been over the lawsuit issue and you know damn well that there are objections, so stop trying to bring up previously discussed issues over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ... again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Are there any policy based objections? USchick (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No I didn't hear a policy based reason, that's why I'm asking. USchick (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe you have. Perhaps you should have a look through the archive. The issues that you continue raising have been discussed many times. I have no interest in reading though the archive to rehash this issue again, but I invite you to do so.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

On this whole 'we discussed it previously, so dont discuss it again' argument. This isn't always a correct argument. In fact its false lots of times. Editors change, links change, mistakes are corrected, new things come up, articles evolve. WP is not static. Im tired of this false logic being presented over and over and ... again to block NPOV. SaintAviator lets talk 22:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Flight path discussions, no discussion about lawsuit. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 22#Flight path of MH17 Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 19#No ICAO standards to determine whether a flight path is safe Lawsuit discussion, no discussion, mostly ignored, nothing about flight path Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Lawsuits Again. Lots of stonewalling. USchick (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that a lawsuit is filed means very little. Lawsuits are allegations until a court rules on them. People file lawsuits without any legal merit all the time, sometimes to forward their own version of events, in an attempt to sway public opinion -- a recent example of this would be the Jian Ghomeshi wrongful dismissal lawsuit, which was shown to be without legal merit. Mentioning lawsuits in articles creates a significant risk of WP:UNDUE because the claims in the lawsuits have not yet been tested in Court. Once the trial is over, the decision will be relevant, but before going into detail of allegations amounts to a lot of speculation.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)