Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Nhhvhy (talk | contribs)
2 edits
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 126: Line 126:
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2023 ==
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2023 ==


{{edit extended-protected|Malaysia Airlines Flight 17|answered=no}}
{{edit extended-protected|Malaysia Airlines Flight 17|answered=yes}}
This event occurred 9 years and 4 months ago, not 9y 3m as listed in the article. [[User:Nhhvhy|Nhhvhy]] ([[User talk:Nhhvhy|talk]]) 07:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This event occurred 9 years and 4 months ago, not 9y 3m as listed in the article. [[User:Nhhvhy|Nhhvhy]] ([[User talk:Nhhvhy|talk]]) 07:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:date will update automatically [[User:Cannolis|Cannolis]] ([[User talk:Cannolis|talk]]) 08:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:09, 17 November 2023

A Ukrainian Air Force aviation armaments mechanic, who had fled to Russia, later said that he had overheard a visibly shaken pilot ...

The following text was reverted:

A Ukrainian Air Force aviation armaments mechanic, who had fled to Russia, later said that he had overheard a visibly shaken pilot, whose Su-25 plane had returned without its ammunition on the day of the crash, saying that the MH17 "was in the wrong place at the wrong time".

The preferred text of the reverting editor was:

A Ukrainian Air Force deserter later claimed that he had overheard pilots discuss flying close to MH17 when it crashed.

The reason given was:

not an improvement and his status is more important than his trade

Some comments:

  • The reverted text is a more accurate summary of the source, so, in that sense, it is an improvement. In what other way is the original text better than the new text?
  • Does the phrase "his status is more important than his trade" make any sense? The new text included both status and trade: "Ukrainian Air Force aviation armaments mechanic, who had fled to Russia".

Burrobert (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His status as a deserter outside Ukraine is highly relevant, his trade isn't. I don't see how the added info is an improvement. I believe that no credence has ever been given to this story by RS anyhow, so the need to "flesh it out" is questionable AFAI can see. It is one of many mutually contradictory claims released by Russia and found implausible/impossible by investigating authorities. Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection though to replacing "pilots discuss flying close to MH17 when it crashed" with "a pilot, saying that the MH17 had been in "the wrong place at the wrong time" but an unsupported claim doesn't need expansion IMO. Pincrete (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, overheard a visibly shaken pilot mixes the senses. You cannot hear that something is visible. Must have been an audibly shaken pilot, but that would be pretty unconventional wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could say " a"clearly shaken" or "obviously shaken", "evidently", "apparently"2600:6C50:800:2787:2D7F:E79D:A635:DE97 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of "Russian war crimes in Ukraine" category

An editor has added the "Russian war crimes in Ukraine" category. That the shootdown was a crime is established, as is Russian complicity, but do RS describe it as a 'war crime'? Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains two mentions of a 2014 investigation into a possible war crime. There is no mention that the investigation found that a war crime had been committed. An investigation wound up this month after the prosecution of 3 people. The prosecutor said "The investigation has now reached its limit. The findings are insufficient for the prosecution of new suspects". Again there was no mention of any war crime prosecutions. Burrobert (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I have removed the category. - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The conviction heavily depends on the defendants not being considered lawful combatants. It is unlikely that MH17 was targeted intentionally. If the defendants had combat immunity that is normally granted to members of armed forces, they could only be convicted for not exercising due caution while operating the SAM battery, which would have been more difficult. So it appears that the defendants were in fact not convicted for a war crime. --Heptor (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your personal opinions off the TP. The intentions of the Russian Federation in this incident have been discussed by Reliable Sources, and there is no generally agreed view that this was an accident.
HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A crime is not necessarily a war crime. Pincrete (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter introduction

The introduction includes a lengthy discussion about who shot down MH17, which I think can be effectively summarized: although both the rebels and the Russian Federation deny involvement, an international investigation determined that MH17 was shot down by the rebels or by Russian armed forces, who likely misidentified it for a Ukrainian military aircraft. How does it sound? Heptor (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a concrete suggestion. I don't find it overlong, but agree in principle that the 'dust has largely settled' around who was responsible. Pincrete (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion below. One simple paragraph.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17) was a scheduled passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that was shot down on 17 July 2014, while flying over eastern Ukraine. All 283 passengers and 15 crew were killed. The shoot-down occurred during the war in Donbas over territory controlled by pro-Russian separatist forces. Although both the separatists and the Russian Federation deny involvement, an international investigation determined that MH17 was shot down by the separatists or by regular Russian armed forces, who likely misidentified it for a Ukrainian military aircraft.
Heptor (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What source will you be using for the 'likely misidentified' claim? The JIT says for example [1]https://www.prosecutionservice.nl/latest/news/2023/02/08/jit-mh17-strong-indications-that-russian-president-decided-on-supplying-buk: "As it is currently not possible to prove the identity of crew members of the Buk TELAR, and other concrete information about this is lacking, it cannot be ascertained why they fired a Buk missile at MH17, what their assignment was and what information they had when they fired." Difool (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Difool: thanks for reviewing the proposal. The statement that the crew of the BUK Telar had likely misidentified MH17 is sourced in [1]. Relevant citation: "The crew appears to have thought the missile was being fired not at a civilian but at a military aircraft." This is further supported by [2], which says that "The decision to altogether reject combatant status for the DPR, based on Russia’s denials that this group is fighting on its behalf is, in this respect, a pragmatic way out of this conundrum. It subsequently allowed the judges to find in the section discussing the criminal responsibility of the four accused that it is legally irrelevant that the direct perpetrators of the missile attack on MH17 – i.e. a DPR unit stationed nearby the town of Pervomaiskyi and under the direct command of Kharchenko (who was in turn subordinate to Dubinskiy) – thought that they were shooting at a Ukrainian aircraft."
My own understanding of the situation is that the crew of the BUK Telar had no discernible reason to target a civilian airliner, and apparently also did some -- obviously insufficient -- effort to avoid it.
Heptor (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would say: "who likely thought it was a Ukrainian military aircraft.", same as your source 1 "appears to have thought" and your source 2 "thought that they were[..]".
Could you clarify "the crew [..] apparently did some effort to avoid it"? Because it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't do that at all and no identification was done. Difool (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I would prefer the wording "who likely thought they fired at a Ukrainian military aircraft". This is more specific and self-contained; both sources say "fired/were shooting".
Due to the circumstances around the shootdown, I think it's plausible that the BUK operators did put some effort into avoiding civilian traffic. Several UAF aircraft were shot down before MH17 was hit, even as hundreds of civilian aircraft passed over the territory. Judging from the sources I could find (e.g. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-flaw-in-the-buk-missile-system-2014-7?r=US&IR=T, https://www.quora.com/How-hard-is-it-to-tell-the-difference-between-a-civilian-and-military-airplane-if-youre-firing-a-Buk-anti-aircraft-weapon), BUK TELAR has some ability to discriminate between civilian and military traffic, but it does not do it reliably. Furthermore, MH17 was re-directed from its intended course, which suggests that the operators of the BUK possibly made the effort to check which civilian aircraft were expected in the area, and managed to avoid those. Also, the shoot-down was a (predictable) political disaster for DPR, so they had every reason to make an effort to avoid civilian aircraft. This is obviously not a watertight argument, so I understand that other editors may hold different opinions. I mentioned it for the sake of disclosure about which point of view I have while editing. Russians do have a reputation, at least in the West, of not giving due regard to safety of others or themselves. Heptor (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other UAF aircrafts were not shot down by an advanced missile system that could reach civilian aircrafts like the BUK.
That MH17 had been redirected out of its flight corridor is a debunked claim of the Russian Ministry of Defence. [2] It is briefly mentioned in the "Conspiracy theories" section here at this page.
It's indeed not a very strong argument: It might have been possible to do it [avoiding civilian traffic], it would have been better if they had done it [political disaster for DPR], so [your conclusion] they did it [put some effort into avoiding civilian traffic]. Meanwhile the BUK crew shot a civilian airline, on their first day, with the only rocket they fired. Difool (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Difool: it's always a good idea to verify one's assumptions. Let's check those you mention:
  • The statement that MH17 deviated from it's intended flight path is stated in Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Cruise. Relevant excerpt: "at 16:00 local time (13:00 UTC), the crew asked for a deviation of 20 nautical miles (37 km) to the left (north) off course, on airway L980, due to weather conditions."
  • According to List_of_aircraft_losses_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War, two UAF aircraft were shot down at altitudes above the reach of MANPADS: an Antonov An-26 on 14 July, and a Su-25 on 16 July.
I will be happy to dive deeper into the source material if you think those sections can be improved. I don't think I've seen that claim you mention from RF MD before. And yes, my POV still requires some faith in humanity in order to work, but I think we are allowed to have that as long as we use reliable sources for actual editing. Heptor (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah okay, your wording "was redirected from its intended course" made me assume you were following the claim of the Russian Ministry of Defence, i.e. that Ukrainian air traffic controllers had deliberately redirected the flight to fly over the war zone. So you think, that the BUK operators knew the civilian airline corridors, could detect whether a plane was flying in such corridor, and wrongfully assumed that every civilian plane stays neatly in its corridor, so anything outside the corridors could be shot down? Could be, who knows?
  • The Dutch Safety Board report mentions those planes. The Ukrainian authorities concluded that the planes were shot down by air-to-air missiles, fired from Russia. The Dutch Military Intelligence concluded that the An-26 must have been shot with MANPADS. Whatever the cause, the planes were shot down at an altitude where no civilian air-planes were flying.
Difool (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that throughout the various twists and turns of Russia and its proxies attempting to deflect criticism and deny responsibility, the bottom line has always been that Russia/DPR simply thought that no plane had any right to fly over a 'war zone' and that Ukraine had no right to profit from its own air space. The West has always taken the contrary position, that anyone involved in that dispute had an absolute moral and legal obligation to not harm those who were not party to this 'internal' dispute, and that no airline or aviation agency had any way of knowing, or reason to believe, that 'separatists' had acces to weapons capable of reaching such heights as MH17 was flying at. This doesn't affect our article, but is background info. Pincrete (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose The suggestion is WAY TOO SHORT, the investigations and attempts to evade responsibility by RF and DPR forces are important parts of the narrative, as are the various inquests. The suggestion doesn't begin to cover that and yet finds time to pitch the 'excuse'. Whilst no one thinks the shoot-down of a civilian plane was deliberate, rather than simply criminally negligent, in the absence of acknowlegment of responsibility or access to the crew and their records/orders by investigators - any explanation is inevitably speculative and - in the last resort - relatively unimportant. Pincrete (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC
@Pincrete: perhaps you would like to propose an expansion of my draft with the points you mentioned? The legal matter is very complicated, however the DPR commanders were not convicted or accused of criminal negligence. They were not given the legal status of combatants, so the fact that they intended to kill the occupants of a Ukrainian military aircraft constitutes an intent to kill. Did you have the chance to review message I wrote on your talk page, and references therein? I am glad that we agree that that the shoot-down was unlikely to have been deliberate. Heptor (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I do agree with you that the Russian/ DPR denials of involvement are deeply insensitive. The families who lost their loved ones on that flight have experienced a deep personal tragedy, and the denials compounded an additional and avoidable burden. I agree that this is an important part of the story about MH17, and should be prominently included in the article. The fact that it caused additional suffering should perhaps be stated explicitly. Heptor (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What we have at present is a largely comprehensive and coherent, and largely chronological account. There may be individual parts which are no longer needed or which could be expanded or clarified, but I see no need to "re-invent the wheel". Why not suggest specific cuts or rephrasings? Pincrete (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Summary of the day in court: 17 November 2022 – Judgment". MH17 trial. 2022-11-17. Retrieved 2023-04-09.
  • Yanev, Lachezar (2022-12-07). "The MH17 Judgment: An Interesting Take on the Nature of the Armed Conflict in Eastern Ukraine". EJIL: Talk!. Retrieved 2023-04-09.

References

  1. ^ MH17 trial 2022.
  2. ^ Yanev 2022.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2023

Add in the start of the article about eing the deadliest plane crash in the 21st century Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First this is not comparable with aircraft accidents, as it was an intentional act and also see WP:AVILAYOUT-WW for why we don't do this. - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why no list of victim names with photographs?

Why no list of victim names with photographs? 203.46.132.214 (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2023

Gyunduz Mamedov, Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine in 2019–2022, who headed the relevant international Joint Investigation Team (JIT) from Ukrainian side, said that the ongoing trial in the Netherlands in the case of the downing of flight MH17 will reveal not only the truth about the preparation and attack on a civilian aircraft, but also Russia's true intentions - namely its armed aggression against Ukraine, which has been ongoing since 2014.[1] Joker Ukr (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So? Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: Where do you want to add it? Lightoil (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Гюндуз Мамедов: суд у справі MH17 відкриє й істинні наміри Росії". radiosvoboda.org. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 2021-07-17.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2023

This event occurred 9 years and 4 months ago, not 9y 3m as listed in the article. Nhhvhy (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

date will update automatically Cannolis (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&oldid=1185522893"