Talk:1978 Finnish Air Force DC-3 crash

WE don't need to be showing off swastikas on a page about a random plane crash

The picture contributes nothing except a thin justification to fly the most detestable symbol of political hatred of the 20th century in article space. Removed. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The aircraft in that image is almost identical to the accident aircraft. Wikipedia is not censored, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. - Samf4u (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The aircraft image contributes nothing to Wikipedia and is a hate symbol. WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS applies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS is an essay. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is WP policy and carries far more weight. Are you calling me a Nazi? - Samf4u (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying that it's a nazi symbol that doesn't benefit the page in any way and as such is better off being absent. As you pointed out it's not an actual image of the actual aircraft that crashed but rather a facsimile which contains a hate symbol. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Guys, c:Category:Douglas C-47 in the Finnish Air Force has several images of DO-4 with the Nazi warplane less prominently displayed or not visible at all. I replaced the previous image with a different one which is a Finnish C-47 but not DO-4, but probably any of those would do. There are also non-free images available of DO-10, the actual plane that crashed, but I don't think we can make a fair use case as they're not images of the crash itself. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That is not the point Ivan. This loony lefty is trying to impose censorship on Wikipedia totally out of context. There is no problem with images of aircraft having swastikas on them as that is how they were marked during the war. The Finnish Swastika (the Latvian one has the same orientation as a Nazi one but is in red) is in the proper orientation in any case so cannot be construed as a Nazi symbol!!--Petebutt (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

But that should be part of the point. All else equal, a photo that requires further explanation for matters unconnected with the the subject is worse than one which does not. All else isn’t equal here, though.

@Ivanvector: the only one of those that is both a focused image and free of controversial markings shows the back end only, unless I am missing one of the pictures. Qwirkle (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The swastika was used by the Finnish Air Force between 1918-1945. It was adopted because a Swedish count called Eric von Rosen donated the first airplane to the Finnish Air Force that featured the symbol in March 1918. Incidentally, von Rosen was later a Nazi sympathizer, but the swastika was adopted two years before the NSDAP was founded and one year before the predecessor DAP was and has nothing to do with Nazism. Here's an article by the Christian Science Monitor that also prominently features a critical view on using it today: Finland used the swastika before the Nazis. Why do they still? It was removed from the official roundel in 1945 because of association with Nazism, but it's still used in some official air force flags (picture). There's no reason not to display it per WP:NOTCENSORED, but I don't hold any strong view whether this particular museum photo should be used. But it's a high quality photo. --Pudeo (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's input on this. Since we don't have an image of the aircraft involved the next best thing would be a high quality image of a similar aircraft. File:Douglas DC-3 (DO-4) Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo 1.JPG is definitely the best of the museum images. Of the 8 museum images all but File:Douglas DC-3 (DO-4) Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo 3.JPG have a swastika visible, but it is just a shot of the empennage. File:Finnish Air Force DC-3 N59NA (16117325886).jpg is poor quality and therefore less desirable. If we can reach a consensus here on File:Douglas DC-3 (DO-4) Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo 1.JPG being used I'll make the change. - Samf4u (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --Pudeo (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that that image is the best of the museum images: the topic aircraft is at the top of frame with significant clutter below, and the contrast is poor. If we are choosing from the museum images then either File:Douglas DC-3 (DO-4) Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo 8.JPG or File:Douglas DC-3 (DO-4) Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo 2.JPG would be preferable. If #8 were cropped then the aircraft could be centered and it's better illuminated already, and the clutter is minimized. #2 has the aircraft already centered and prominent in the frame, and although the swastika is still visible it is much less prominent. All told I do prefer the image of N59NA, which is an equivalent aircraft to DO-4 and shows it in service, prominently centered and highly contrasted, with no clutter of other aircraft except for one which appears to be identical. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

A search for a different image has been unsuccessful. There are some really good ones out there but not for free use. I've studied the museum images again and think File:Douglas DC-3 (DO-4) Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo 7.JPG is best. The quality and contrast are very good and the subject is centered in the image. File:Douglas DC-3 (DO-4) Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo 8.JPG Is a great shot of the museum ceiling but the lighting is glaring through the windows and reflecting badly off the aircraft. File:Douglas DC-3 (DO-4) Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo 2.JPG is not too bad but I preferFile:Douglas DC-3 (DO-4) Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo 7.JPG - Samf4u (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Where is this supposed Nazi Swastika. All I can see is the PROPER NON-Nazi swastika used by the Finnish Air Force. This idiot should get his facts right, as Swastikas have been in use for millennia to symbolise peace and harmony!!!--Petebutt (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't expect random editors to know about the air force roundels unless they are interested in air forces so I wouldn't be so harsh. But yes, problematizing photos taken in aviation museums is a bit silly and the OP's concerns may not be entirely in good faith as there were other events related to the aforementioned essay prior to this thread which may have contributed to this. Ivanvector's comments about the clutter are understandable. --Pudeo (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah because the nazi-supporting Swedish dude who gave Finland the Swastika rondel was, to excuse a pun, as pure as the driven snow. Finland, and in fact most of Scandinavia, has a fair bit of white supremacist baggage to unpack and swastika rondels are part of that. But as even Pudeo points out, this context will not be caught by the usual editor who may not know about the History of Finnish collaboration with the Nazis. They'll just see a straight-up Nazi image. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Notwithstanding this digression into why it'd be perfectly reasonable to expect an ordinary reader to just see the hate symbol that the Swastika now is and not recognize any of the surrounding context, and how that will confuse readers, this image is my preferred choice since it makes it really clear which plane we're supposed to be looking at. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I dont see the Finish Air Force emblem as a hate symbol, if readers are confused we should educate them not encourage ignorance. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that we can presume most Wikipedia readers were not alive 80-or-so years ago when the swastika was co-opted as a universal symbol of hate and genocide, readers ought to be forgiven for reacting in a negative manner to having it displayed with no attempt at context in a completely unrelated article. This discussion demonstrates that your view is not universal, and you should stop pretending that it is; the ignorant view is that displaying a swastika in 2019 is not offensive on the surface. That being said, if there were a way to explain the context alongside this image in a way that's not entirely off-topic then we ought to do that, but as it is, there's just a graphic pretty universally recognized as a hate symbol hanging out there with no explanation, causing not-at-all-undue offense. Wikipedia is not censored, but we also don't do offensive things for no reason. Icewhiz made a pretty reasonable suggestion below, I'm not sure if my GIMP skills are up to the task though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments: aircraft image with swastika

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus to keep the current image in the absence of a high-quality alternative. While not discussed extensively, obscuring the offending symbol or symbols may be appropriate. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Editors in the discussion above generally agree that this article should display an image of an aircraft similar to the one involved in this accident; no free images are available of the actual aircraft. Should the image used be one of a museum aircraft of the same series which is cluttered with numerous other aircraft, among them an aircraft displaying a swastika, or should the image be of a deregistered aircraft in service with no other aircraft visible? Other opinions (use a different image altogether, or no image) also welcome, of course. (See examples discussed above) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Deregistered aircraft The museum shot is cluttered and unclear. There are multiple very different airframes present, including the one with a swastika, which has nothing to do with the subject of this article as I believe Wikipedia should not randomly display hate symbols without context or purpose, this makes the museum shot problematic even notwithstanding the fact it's a poor quality shot regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• This aircraft, barring an actual particular photo proposed as replacement, and a cogent reason for removing it. Something was mentioned about the most detestable symbol of political hatred of the 20th century, but there don’t actually seem to be any hammers or sickles in it at all. Qwirkle (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This editor's uneducated opinion on socialism has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia should randomly display a symbol most closely associated with Nazis without context and as such should be ignored as an irrelevancy. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Leaving aside the erroneous personal attack, there is absolutely nothing “ random” about this. It’s an attempt to match the aircraft the article is about as closely as possible, which has already been mentioned above. Qwirkle (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If the image were at all clear this would be a reasonable defense. But since the offending hate symbol is on an entirely different plane, and rather draws the eye away from the aircraft which is the subject of the article, as it causes a casual reader to go "why the hell is there a swastika over there" it is in fact not at all good for matching the aircraft in the article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• This aircraft Of all the images available on commons I believe File:Douglas DC-3 (DO-4) Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo 7.JPG is best. The deregistered aircraft image is of poor quality. - Samf4u (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• No reason to remove the image just because a non-nazi swastika was in the background. This would also apply if the picture included a nazi swastika in historical or museum like context. Sorry, this seems silly. Would we expect editors to refuse to use pictures of tanks or other aircraft in WW2 museums just because that same museum had a German artifact in the same exhibit? When shown in a historical context and not as a symbol to promote hate I see no issues with it. This is even more true when the context isn't Nazi Germany (say maps in Japan [[1]]). In general context, this shouldn't be justification for using an otherwise inferior picture (I'm offering no opinion on which picture is best for this article) Springee (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. There is no reason that an image with the correct symbol for the period in question should not be used. If someone was advocating using an image of a Nazi Germany aircraft here, I'd be the first to stamp on it. We do not rewrite history, whether we like what went on in the past or not. The only consideration should be picture quality, not what symbols are displayed in the image used. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• File:Douglas DC-3 (DO-4) Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo 7.JPG -- seems to be the best shot (of a sister aircraft to the one that crashed). It is clear it is a museum, and the swastika shot really is not an endorsement of anything - however - should an editor feel like cropping the image or cutting out (blanking) the other aircraft (or part of them) - I would support that (it's about 1-2 minutes of work in an image editor, and the work is in the public domain - no issue in creating a derivative work). Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Current (Museum) image. The swastika objection raised to this is dismissed by WP:NOTCENSORED. The clutter objection raised is ridiculous, as the "other planes" are much smaller and way off center; absolutely no one will think that any of these other planes are the subject of the picture. Further, both of these weak objections can be fixed per Icewhiz -- modifying the image by blanking or blurring the other aircraft, with much less effort than taken up by this RFC. The alternative (deregistered) image suggested is not good quality, which is a far worse objection, and cannot be fixed. Leave the current image, allow for improvement, and let's get on to useful editing instead of wasting time on this non-issue. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article title: aircraft model

While we're talking about things here, should this article be retitled to reflect the fact that the aircraft was a C-47, technically a DC-3 but modified for military use? This model has its own article, Douglas C-47 Skytrain. And what about the use of "crash" instead of "disaster" (as in the lede) or "accident" (as is common in our other articles on aviation incidents)? I'm not posting a requested move just yet, just looking for opinions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Disaster is a bit of a loaded phrase. A more neutral term like Crash would be preferable. I am not certain about Accident. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The D0-10 airplane was originally a Douglas C-47A-1-DK[2], built in Oklahoma City in 1943 and used by the USAF. After the war it was converted into civilian use, and it was used first by Finnair both as a passenger and cargo plane (as OH-LCK), and only after that used by the Finnish Air Force. Since it was being used as a passenger plane at the time of the crash, it should probably be called just a DC-3 and not a C-47 since it was modified away from pure military use. These planes are called "DC-3"s in Finnish sources. While we're at it, we could solve the question about the Ship of Theseus! --Pudeo (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You mislept grandpa’s axe. Qwirkle (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that might be the story. So it's originally a C-47, which is a modified civilian DC-3, but itself modified back towards civilian service. Happy to go with what's prominent in Finnish sources. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)