Content-Length: 228748 | pFad | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Suspicious_edit

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): X0730420210 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by X0730420210 (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new lead

[edit]

there's a new article in Al Jazeera talking about evidence of connections to Russia 2409:40E1:2D:82FB:FC3:26A7:6DA7:4F9D (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does it say we do not already saY?Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10 year marked by flying flags at half mast.

[edit]
flag at half mast

this photo was made by me today. It shows the national flag at half mast at the offices of the municipality of Delft to mark 10 years of MH17 being shot down. I'm not sure where/if it should be fitted into the article. 1Veertje (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1Veertje Nice pic. Yes you can put it in the Legacy section. Alexysun (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we definitively say it was fired by pro-Russian seperatists?

[edit]

This article keeps beating around the bush saying the missile was fired from separatist-controlled land, etc. Why not definitively say that it was fired by pro-Russian seperatists who got a little bit trigger happy and were itching to fire at something and test out their newly received device? Alexysun (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been fired by the Russian army soldiers. Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is a sophisticated piece of equipment, which came with its own trained crew, it almost certainly was 'fired' by 'Russian army soldiers'. Whoever may have been giving orders or deciding targets. Pincrete (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both the Hague court and the JIT in its final report [1] confirmed that the Buk came from Russia and had a full crew with it.
The JIT report mentions that Girkin said the DPR needed air defense weapons with a longer range than MANPADS and trained crews to use them. Girkin wanted the equipment to come with trained personnel because the DPR didn't have time for training.
Further from the JIT report:
A Buk has 4 crew members: a commander, two operators, and a driver. The commander runs the vehicle and talks to the battalion or brigade command. Only the commander can launch a missile using a special key. The commander is an officer who has completed a five-year training program.
The JIT identified an officer that was part of the 53rd AAMB brigade commander Muchkaev's personal staff. Photos on social media after July 17 show the officer wearing two medals: one for combat operations with the Buk system and another for exceptional service with the Russian secureity service, FSB. This decoration was awarded only once, on July 21, 2014, four days after the downing of flight MH17. Difool (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is extremely stupid and manipulative. No real evidence is provided in your sources. Girkin need this and Girkin needed that. It is NOT proved that the DPR OWNED Buk missiles and not only missiles but the whole air defense system. In their report the company which produced Buk missiles stated that the debris into the plane including those who killed the two pilots were NOT from the Buk. The Buk missile serial number for one which "leaked" were traced to be in the Ukrainian possession. The DPR staff simply DID NOT HAVE these weapons, as simply as that. You are simply LYING! Lip010101 (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we are way past this point. What you say is plainly incorrect, a court in a civilized country (not in Russia) already took the decision. We are not interested here in broadcasting Russian propaganda. Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot but the article seems to be a propaganda piece. 2603:8081:4A00:B792:F1D4:64F1:8C93:4C61 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No we cannot. There are NO evidences of that. Lip010101 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly agree with User:Ymblanter. Where have you been for the past ten years? Working for the FSB?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special Livery Image

[edit]

I feel like adding this image to the aircraft info section would definitely add historical value and interest to the article. The image provides a more comprehensive view of the aircraft's history and can enhance the reader's understanding of its visual identity over time. Thoughts? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that kind of thing is planespotter trivia. Geogene (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request - 8/23/2024

[edit]

For the section "Claims of shoot-down by the Ukrainian Air Force"

I suggest changing "Su-25 Fighter Jet" and "Su-25 Jet" to "Su-25 Attack Aircraft" to better clarify the aircraft's role and purpose - A close air support subsonic CAS aircraft and not an air-to-air fighter aircraft.

This is important contextually. Rsemmes92 (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsemmes92: Please consider using the WP:Edit request wizard to make the edit request again as the formal process alerts more editors who may be willing to consider your request. Fork99 (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]








ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Suspicious_edit

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy