Talk:Death flights

Scilingo

The references say that Scilingo recanted his confession, but I'm not sure whether he recanted the statement that death flights took place or just recanted the statement of his own guilt. In either case, this information should be in the article. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reason

What I miss in this article is the actual REASON WHY they took the effort (and cost) to execute people by throwing them out of planes? I'm quite sure lots of bodies would also turn up afterwards? As stated in the article, other prisoners were simply shot and burned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.174.74 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason is quite inflamatory, I don't know how to phrase it to avoid a flame/edit war. Here's the original quote from Scilingo: "[...] Explicó que en la Armada no se fusilarían subversivos ya que no se quería tener los problemas sufridos por Franco en España y Pinochet en Chile. Tampoco se "podía ir contra el Papa" pero se consultó a la jerarquía eclesiástica y se adoptó un método que la Iglesia consideraba cristiano, o sea gente que despega en un vuelo y no llega a destino. Ante las dudas de algunos marinos, se aclaró que "se tiraría a los subversivos en pleno vuelo". Después de los vuelos, los capellanes nos trataban de consolar recordando un precepto bíblico que habla de "separar la hierba mala del trigal"." That is, the higher ups from the Argentinian Church itself recommended this method, as it was seen as more 'Christian'. 125.71.229.77 (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not 'the' reason. It is just one claim, among several. In fact, the Church-based justification seems to have been an ad-hoc way of getting the Christians carrying it out to feel better about themselves. Other, more likely and commonly state reasons: over-crowded detention facilities and limited resources to create new ones (especially given international attention), a more effective way of 'disappearing' the dead, historical lessons - this happened in Algeria by the French, and French soldiers were heavily involved in training Latin American forces. On the return of bodies to the shore: it appears this did happen, at first - or, rather, they actually washed up outside Argentine waters most frequently. Apparently the Navy then made certain 'studies' of the currents in the ocean to determine the 'best' place to dump the bodies to ensure they would not float back to shore. 2.111.56.154 (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Death flights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070517040206/http://news.scotsman.com:80/topics.cfm?tid=76&id=65872005 to http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=76&id=65872005

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Mention of extraordinary rendition

Extraordinary Rendition is extra-judicial & uses planes - but it has nothing to do with death flights as it lacks the "death" part. Death flights are a form of execution - hence Extraordinary Rendition has no place here since, even if it sometimes results in death in detention, isn't a form of execution.

As a result, I deleted the section mentioning Extraordinary Rendition - but my edit got reverted... What do you think ? --Jean-Marc Liotier (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The original edit of this, I agree, is quite poorly done. However, if you read the article that is cited, then it is clear that there is a reason this is being discussed. The claim is not that 'death flights' are identical to 'extraordinary rendition' but that there are quite a lot of similarities in terms of the political structures that see them happen. The article argues, in fact, that the Death Flights were not necessarily a form of execution but more a logistical matter. Now, I don't know if I agree with that. But it seems to me that it provides a different historical and sociological perspective on the issue. However, as it is currently written it does not explain this properly. I thus propose that I rewrite it to make the connection clearer to the reader? Best. 2A02:1205:C69A:A50:FC26:9D95:2922:676F (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death flights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181518/http://www.ldh-toulon.net/spip.php?article1778 to http://www.ldh-toulon.net/spip.php?article1778

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Reference 24 & 25

An opinion piece should not be used as a source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.84.161 (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The articles are not being used to validate an opinion. They are being used simply to establish the comparisons are being made. So there's nothing wrong with them in that light. MartinezMD (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"In Internet Culture" Section

This section is just badly written. Really just not good English. And it reads like it's biased in favor of the right wing with phrases like "Trump detractors" and "Anti-Communists." I'm not alone in thinking this, am I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.25.142 (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Late reply, but I've rewritten this line, as it was repetitive and not very neutral. The sources refer to the 'alt-right' rather than 'anti-Communists', and I've changed 'joke' to 'refer to' since it's not necessarily clear that they're joking. Also, 'killing' is more neutral than 'execution', which implies a lawful judicial process. Robofish (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

About "free helicopter rides"

Should it be changed to include not just alt-righters, but also right-wingers in general? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarsath3 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed that section today in 'popular culture and it was put back. Why? 'Vice' is not a RSS. I cant even open it due to my security. The daily beast is not a RSS. Its wiki article even quotes its own editor: "We seek out scoops, scandals, and stories about secret worlds; we love confronting bullies, bigots, and hypocrites." Newsweek quotes a t-shirt, making it not referenced by that RSS. The wp sentence is made up by up, ie opinion. CJG, you are using your opinion of what a 'frede helicopter ride' means. That whole sub=section is trash nonsense. A section on popular culture does not mean we can ignore basic wikipedia rules, including that of 'weighting - we might just as well put in anything we find on any social media platform. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendition

The section titled "Extraordinary rendition" is clearly a political editorial designed to discredit the US. The source is a political editorial written by one man not "scholars." This exaggeration appears to be intended to make the source seem more credible. The use of the term "US-led" here is political spin. There is no logical reason why a Wikipedia article about death flights should have a section on extraordinary rendition. Someone with a grudge against the US is trying to conflate the two for political reasons. Citizen127 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Guatemala

Struggling to find sources for alleged death flights in Guatemala - I managed to find an Amnesty International source for an abduction of 30 men in Ixcán by paratroopers - however, this source does not reference helicopters or planes. I'm thinking this section should be removed from this article for lack of supporting sources/evidence. V3ganf3lix (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

USA seem to be missing from the country list

Once at a party, a former classmate boasted of throwing an old woman from a helicopter while he was serving in Vietnam. 2A01:E0A:38E:D5F0:6390:DF57:44B0:5A65 (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

So what? How does this prove a wide-spread-policy?Dimadick (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)