Talk:Ryanair Flight 4978/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Reactions" section

Do we need a reactions section? Several very strong statements are in this BBC article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I just created this section. This is likely to become quite a large incident so I believe this is needed. Mellk (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I generally hate reaction sections because they accumulate useless information, but I agree it's needed. I'll probably trim some of the less-important reactions in 6 hours or so. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

be careful

Off-topic, closed by Ahunt (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I just realized that if Belarus can force down a plane, we little people should be scared. Therefore, I strongly support the peace loving government of Belarus and hope the world will understand their friendship. I will not edit this article anymore. Ryanboat (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"Missing" people

There are various claims about "missing" people. What is actually known here? I have seen some suggestions that Pratasevich, his girlfriend, and 4 Belarusian security agents did not re-embark in Minsk, but have not seen sourcing that suggests they are all "missing". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

According to one of witnesses, "Then when the plane had entered Belarus airspace, the KGB officers initiated a fight with the Ryanair crew insisting there’s an IED onboard,” [1]. So this whole thing was a special operation by the Belarusian KGB from the very beginning. Sure, the agents are not missing. They had to disembark as not to be arrested in Vilnus for their role in this. My very best wishes (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

They also arrested his girlfriend [2]. This is right from old Soviet textbooks. Perhaps they want him to appear on TV openly admitting his "guilt". My very best wishes (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

References

I've expanded all foreign language web references. There are some tweets that need attention. {{Cite tweet}} is the correct template to use for those, if anyone is feeling generous. I'm signing off for the night. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll look to improve/format the tweet references after 0000GMT if nobody has beaten me to it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I've tweaked the Twitter references so that the date format displaid is consistent with the rest of the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

International relations categories

The article is currently in Category:Belarus–Lithuania relations. Opening for discussion as to whether it should be in further categories, some of which may need to be created. We have possibilities of Belarus–European Union relations, Belarus–Greece relations, and Greece–Lithuania relations. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Explosives reported on board?

I'm struggling to reliably verify this statement: "explosives were reported on board the aircraft as it neared Lithuanian airspace". Which part of the prose should I be reading? In the 'Flight' section I found "a false bomb threat was made whilst the aircraft was 45 nautical miles (83 km; 52 mi) south of Vilnius and 90 nautical miles (170 km) west of Minsk", but couldn't find support for that at all in either of its cited sources (currently #4 and #5)?

We should make this an easy job for readers to do, not a chore. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: current ref #19 (abcnews.go.com) mentions a "fake bomb threat", so that could be interpreted as "explosives were reported on board the aircraft as it neared Lithuanian airspace" even though there were no explosives on board. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Current ref #4 states "Belta reported that the plane had been rerouted to Minsk International Airport for an emergency landing due to a bomb scare." Mjroots (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added an additional reference, so ref #19 above is now ref #6. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, thanks for the clarification. I've tweaked the lead to reflect what we know and why this incident is notable. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Reactions section and Twitter sources

I'm tempted to delete any reaction that is sourced to Twitter. Reactions sections have a tendency to get out of control pretty quick. Insisting on secondary sources for these sections is a good way to make sure that only the most weighty and important reactions are included. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Any objections? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Done for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: - Some of those reactions, including Raab's, carry weight. That said, these should be sourcable to other RS's. I've fixed your removal of identification of Tugendhat. Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree that quotes from verified, official Twitter accounts of government officials/organizations should be removed. The Twitter source policy even includes verified accounts as a reason why a tweet should be cited. The reactions of the officials/organizations behind those accounts are also generally weighty. Rainclaw7 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I also disagree. Twitter accounts in question are verified. It is increasingly common for the politicians and institutions to use "official"/verified social media accounts to make announcements or statements. This trend is unlikely to go away, so I think Wikipedia should just adapt to the new realities. --Mindaur (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

this is the edit that removed all but one of the tweets. Are there any that are not from verified official accounts? Otherwise, I'd say they shoud be restored. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

They should not be restored. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. If the tweet reactions are due weight, they can easily be readded sourced to secondary sources. If they aren't able to be sourced to secondary sources, it means that reliable sources aren't giving weight to those tweets, and we shouldn't either. Keep in mind that this can also happen because perhaps there has been an "official" press release or statement that reliable sources are covering in lieu of the first tweet they made. This is an opportunity to improve the content and ensure it is all due, and primary sourced information shouldn't be readded here without a good reason that overrides the tenet of due weight requiring coverage in secondary sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not disqualify verified Twitter accounts as valid sources, which is what this discussion is primarily about. So, triming might be a good idea, but it does not neceesarily have to be at the cost of Twitter sources. --Mindaur (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to link it in my first post, but I'd say my main point is that good Wikipedia articles use mostly WP:SECONDARY sources. This is important to get the WP:WEIGHT right. WP:PRIMARY sources leave too much editorial judgment to the Wikipedian. If tweets are suddenly OK to include, we could cherry pick any tweet, and suddenly a bunch of WP:SELFPUBLISH ends up in the encyclopedia. See also WP:RSPTWITTER. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between our tweets and the tweets by the head of states, ministers, etc. However, I think we are generally in agreement regarding WP:SECONDARY. --Mindaur (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Mindaur, yeah I tried to make it clear but I went back and forth so re-reading my comment I can see how it reads confusingly. I don't think anyone's saying they're not reliable for the opinions/reactions contained within - especially Twitter verified accounts. I think it's an INDISCRIMINATE and due weight issue - there's a ton of reactions by "somewhat notable people" that can be sourced to twitter - the truly due weight ones will have been covered by other reliable sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

confusing airline name

Aircraft

The aircraft involved was a four-year-old Boeing 737-800, registered in Poland, registration SP-RSM.[14] The aircraft, entered service with Ryanair in May 2017 registered EI-FZX in Ireland, and was transferred to Ryanair Sun on the Polish aircraft registry as SP-RSM in November 2019.[48] Bold text

Wikipedia link to Ryanair Sun says it's Buzz now. Would that mean it's Buzz Flight 4978? Or is the Buzz plane being used by Ryanair? Ryanboat (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Although the airline is registered in Poland it operates flights for Ryanair mainline with RYR codes. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Per MilborneOne, it's a Ryanair flight, also per WP:COMMOMNAME, no sources are calling it Buzz Flight 4798. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep. In the EU, differing rules between countries closely related to but not associated with completely (ex: UK, nordic countries which have their own free border agreements, etc) lead to airlines like RyanAir and others having multiple "subsidiaries" simply for staffing, labor, and legal requirements/benefits. It's a Ryanair flight, operated by a company that only (to my knowledge) operates Ryanair flights, and the exact name of the subsidiary isn't super important. As an example, we don't say it's a "CityFlyer" flight without saying it's a BA CityFlyer flight, even though the name of the company doesn't include British Airways at all - because they're a subsidiary that only operates for BA. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"Aircraft" Section

Is this section needed? All the information is already contained in the infobox and it's not really important to know the specific model or registration of the plane. StSeanSpicer (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

StSeanSpicer WP:AVILAYOUT-ACC says that the "Aircraft" section should be "A description of the aircraft to include the make and model and registration. Other information on the aircraft should only be included if related to the accident." - ZLEA _T\^C 22:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Aircraft information can be important, also Pilot's names and nationalities should be included - this may have some significance to the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.59.191 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Information on the pilots should be included in the "Crew" section. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, based off WP:AVILAYOUT-ACC, the aircraft information should be included are part of the article and in its own section. Though I am not sure what significance the name of the pilots and nationality has to the article, it is part of the narrative and should be included in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've expanded the section. We don't need to name the pilots or cabin crew. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wikipedian231: re this removal, engine numbers are not important. What you removed was relevant information that identifies the actual aircraft involved. Registrations change over time, as demonstrated, but msn's are fixed. IMvHO, the information should be included. Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Information about the aircraft needs to be somewhere in the article (not just the infobox), and while I'm not thrilled with the current article structure for this, it works for now. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ryanair

Right now there is a plain of Ryanair Flight Tallinn-Pafos ower Belarus. Can anyone upload picture from Flightradar? Why Ryanair would not ban all flights over Belarus? Samogitia (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No reason to stop Ryanair flights unless sanctions come into play, Ryanairs involvement was just incidental to the event. Dont think a FR24 image from today is relevant either. MilborneOne (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

How about reputation of the airline? Samogitia (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Still not relevant it could have been any airline. MilborneOne (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to the article. More interesting question: are there any copyright constraints preventing us from uploading the Flightradar24 image showing how the 4978 flight route and how was it diverted? That would be directly relevant to this article. --Mindaur (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, FR24 images would be copyrighted. However, there is nothing stopping an editor creating a diagram showing the flight's route and releasing it under a compatible licence. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A flight path map has already been added to the article. The details of how overflights of Belarus are impacted will be covered as secondary sources discuss it, we shouldn't be going to Flightradar for that type of thing. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Why do editors keep removing the coordinates of Minsk National Airport from the article? The main reason for the event, the arrest of Protasevich, took place at the airport. Therefore the coordinates are appliccable to this article. Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the coordinates are applicable or necessary. There was quite a lot of note that happened in-flight. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ryanair press statement

Ryanair tweeted a statement about the flight. IMvHO, we should present the statement in full in the article. Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Number of passengers?

There seems to be some confusion over this. In the second paragraph of the 'Incident' section the article says "The flight was carrying 6 crew and 121 passengers", citing this ref (#2). The article infobox says 127 passengers and 6 crew. The ref (#2) says of the flight from Athens: "A Ryanair Sun Boeing 737-800... from Athens (Greece) to Vilnius (Lithuania) with 126 passengers and 6 crew" and "According to the Greek Foreign Ministry 171 passengers departed Athens" and "Lithuania's Authorities reported that 126 passengers and 6 crew were on board". Similar confusion exists over how many passengers re-boarded at Minsk to continue the journey to Vilnius with ref #2 saying "continued the flight with 5 passengers less than had arrived in Minsk", and the article saying 2 detained plus 4 others (=6). -- DeFacto (talk). 07:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Aviation Herald is quoting Lithuanian authorites on this. "On May 24th 2021 Lithuania's Authorities reported that 126 passengers and 6 crew were on board of the aircraft, when it departed Athens, but 121 passengers and 6 crew were on board when the aircraft arrived in Vilnius.". 171 is likely a misreading of a handwritten 121. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox corrected to 126 & 6. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

International reactions

I am restoring the international reactions from other countries, because the event is unprecedented and has considerable international implications. The event also involves EU and therefore its member states. --Mindaur (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the WP:FLAGCRUFT. Mjroots (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, although not sure if it's applicable here. Is there a consensus somewhere on this? It is certainly not used consistently because many (if not most?) sections on international reactions in other articles do have the flags. Unlike the example in WP:FLAGCRUFT, I don't see a group/list of flags embracing "nationalistic pride" since it's collective list. I just find the flags convenient as it's easy to find a particular country. Anyway, this is offtopic, but it would be good to keep this consistent among the articles. --Mindaur (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Somebody concatenated the whole section into one big paragraph which is difficult to read. Please don't do that. It's inconsistent with most other articles. Regarding WP:FLAGCRUFT -- can somebody please point to prior art (discussions) or any consensus on this? I find the flags helpful when presented with a list of countries, since it is easy to recognize them. --Mindaur (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's part of the manual of style, and while I can't point to the exact discussions that included that, it shouldn't be violated without very good reason. There is generally a consensus that in prose, flags are not used. Please don't keep adding them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It does not seem consistent with other pages, just try a search: [3] For example, a very recent page on Israel-Palestine conflict: International_reactions_to_the_2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis. Many other e.g. Philippines_v._China#International_reactions and so on.

Note that this is not inline use in prose / regular paragraphs. It's a list (bullet points, but might as well be a table).

--Mindaur (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Mindaur, perhaps in a table it is appropriate, but I think prose is likely more appropriate here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A list of cherry-picked opinions from a cherry-picked list of countries surely fails WP:OR. Any list we supply should be reliably sourced as a whole and complete list for it to have due weight and verifiability, or where do we stop? How many different politicians do we quote from each selected country? Which countries should we include? I don't see a quote from Australia or New Zealand included - why is that? What about the governments of France, Spain, Switzerland, Malta, Brazil, China, South Africa? Do we stop at government officials or should we include the views of religious leaders, sports personalities, comedians, actors, professors, military chiefs? I propose removing the list entirely and the whole 'reactions' section as WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't see a single part that's unsourced to the source - it's obviously not OR/SYNTH. The proper argument is "which reactions are due weight and which aren't" - which is likely an argument that needs to have its own section here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, the OR is the selection of which subset of supranational bodies, countries, organisations and individuals to quote and which to omit. The list itself needs to be reliably sourced as a whole to have due weight and be verifiable. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not a requirement, nor does it make it OR. Lists on Wikipedia are never sourced to one place in their entirety - in fact most lists consist of individual entries that are reliably sourced with a statement of why they belong in the list. Again, this is a due weight concern as you bring up (correctly) "which" reactions we should include - but if someone's reacting to this event, it can be placed in this article as a reaction - bearing in mind due weight. That's the very reason that we allow primary sources on Wikipedia, in fact. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, there are multiple points here, so let's separate them:

• I don't see how does this have anything to do with WP:OR since we merely quote sources which are all verified. This is pretty much exactly how Wikipedia works.
• This article is about an international event and a major diplomatic incident. It is therefore not only an aviation incident, but also also a subject of international relations and (geo)politics. There are merits in having such sections since they present the views of the international community as well as diplomatic and geopolitical realities. This is also valuable in the historical context for anybody who might be digging such information in the future (e.g. I do often find details of various past incidents interesting, that's one of the merits of Wikipedia).
• Now, you might have a certain point on "cherry-picking". It also has to be balanced with the respect to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We do not have a policy on everything, so perhaps just use WP:COMMONSENSE. I would argue that the countries and organizations involved should certainly be in, as well as the countries with substantial weight or, at least, the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

--Mindaur (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Mindaur, I'm sort of with you on the use of sourced quotes, except that I think that will inevitably lead to the swamping of the article with a meaningless and unnecessarily large collection of predictably stereotypical messages carefully diplomatically and politically aligned between international allies. That is why I think that we should only include reactions where the balance of reliable sources include them in their list of reactions. That way the article content remains fully verifiable and we minimise the likelihood of disputes over what stays in and what gets excluded. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Roman Protasevich

The article would probably benefit from a section about Pratasevich between the Flight and Aircraft sections. A brief biography can be placed there with a link to the main article. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeh, that was basically an act of piracy to arrest an opposition activist. According to news I listened, several other people also "disappeared" from the plane (who they are were not reported), and girlfriend of Pratasevich was also arrested (she was not on the plane). This needs to be better covered in RS though. Here is video of the intercepting fighter jet, Mikoyan MiG-29. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need a heading (certainly not a top-level heading). We have a separate article about him. However, we probably should spell out in more detail what his "role in anti-government protests" was. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely not clear from the article as it is now what the Belorussian government's basis for arresting him was. We don't have to agree that it's a good reason, but there is no reason indicated at all. Holy (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"Hijacking" or "Bomb hoax"

What should be in the infobox? There are sources calling it a hijacking, but it's certainly not one in the traditional sense of the word. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Tricky one this. "Political kidnapping" aslo fits the bill, but we're gonna need a source for that. Possibly it could be seen as an unconventional hijacking, but I think we should stick with bomb hoax for the moment. At least that is verified. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a diversion and forced landing, until enough credible RS can establish a consensus. Moreover, "Hijacking" infers that the plane was taken over by rogue actors, which is not what happened. It was forced to land by national authorities. This happens from time to time, the difference here is that it led to the now-infamous arrest. "Hoax" implies that the action was taken with deliberate malicious intent, which while definitely possible, is yet unproven (though it might be in the future, we will see).WP:WIKIVOICE states that articles should be written in a neutral, disinterested tone, while WP:RECENTISM cautions against rushing to conclusions before RS have had time to state their word and by that time it's probable that more information would have come to light and circumstances could have changed. At present, there are contradictory sources, as some (Lithuania airports spox.) point the blame to a conflict between an unknown passenger and crew members, some (Belarussian media) say there was a credible threat, and others (opposition media) say that this was just a ploy for the arrest from the very beginning. The arrest could have been both planned and done opportunistically. At present, it's just too early to tell. Some time will be needed before we see what RS conclude about the matter. Until then, we stick to just the facts and let RS cover them as the story develops, instead of trying to think up of something "fit the bill" or using loaded language. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This would seem to fit the definition of air piracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.181.158 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it fits exactly such definition. Except that it was hijacked by the state. Do we know other similar incidents? There were cases when a plane was shot down by state like Korean Air Lines Flight 902, but a hijacking with military planes to arrest someone? My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the IP has it correct, "piracy" is more accurate than hijacking. A US+EU joint statement says "piracy" - official statement. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Before anyone adds that to reactions, note that they are members of the government but not the government itself. These are not Secretary of State-level positions, though it is obviously well-coordinated. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is just a standard "condemnation" [4]. Lukashenko could not care less. My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There have been many examples of aircraft being forcefully grounded after flying into another nation's airspace. That is not generally deemed to qualify as "piracy", regardless of the motive behind the grounding. In addition, it would be a breach of NPOV to declare a nation's (or several nation's) position as a fact within wikitext. The plane was not hijacked, hijacking would have entailed somebody entering into the plane and violently taking control of it. In this case, the aircraft was made to land. If that constituted "piracy", then we can safely expand the list of "pirate" nations to include the United States, the United Kingdom and many other nations. In both of those cases, the governments of the US and UK, respectively, forced a passenger aircraft to land, with fighter jet escort, due to an unconfirmed bomb threat. By the way, there was no bomb found in either of those flights, so the situation is quite analogous. In both of those cases, and many more, the forced, military-escorted landings were deemed to be legitimate under Article 1 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. Whether this grounding would be ruled as such depends on whether Belarus can prove it had a legitimate fear for either the flight's safety or their own national security. As I said, this will take some time to work out. Goodposts (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, military jets just escorting a passenger plane is nothing new. And we do not know (yet) if this jet issued any threats to the passenger plane. But at the very least, this is an illegitimate landing of the plane by state authorities using an intentional disinformation and a fake threat of the bomb only to unlawfully arrest a passenger. Did any other countries did such things? Your links cover rather different cases. The only similar case I know was the recent alleged operation by Ukrainian special services to entrap a group of Russian "Wagner soldiers" by landing a plane with them on the Ukrainian territory, but instead they landed in ... Belorussia because the plot was discovered [5]. Lukashenko took a notice. My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The Greek foreign minister has called it a "state hijacking". Whilst not a hijacking in the conventional sense, that's good enough for me. I've added the relevant category. Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There would need to be a thorough investigation before intentionality can be established, and that's the reason RS aren't calling it a hijacking or act of piracy (at least as of now). Both of those cases were extremely similar, and in both the threat turned out to be false. As for the reactions of other countries - they can be added in the reactions section, so long as they're cited by reliable sources, accurately reflect the official stance of that country's government (as opposed to the individual's personal opinions) and attributed to the nation in question. Goodposts (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we have to see. Simply looking at the definition ("the unlawful seizure of an aircraft"), it was an aircraft hijacking, except that it was done by a government, which only makes it worse (hijacking versus state hijacking, just as terrorism vesus state terrorism). The incident with "Wagner soldiers" I mentioned [6] was actually different. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

But that contradicts the American and British cases I listed above, which I believe (and do correct me if I am mistaken), are not held to have been hijacked. Now, perhaps if the incident with the three Russian passengers develops in a certain way I might be convinced to come around on this, but the ground by itself I am not at all convinced could be labelled a 'hijacking'. I agree that your cited incident is different, I was just referring to the ones I had mentioned. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Goodposts, ok, so in the US case, they didn't force it to land at a different airport, and the jets were only there to provide an escort - not to force a diversion. The airline officials were also in play there and actually had a hand in the decisions made - unlike this instance. These types of things are extremely common around the world - especially in airports near highly populated areas that may be targets for terrorists to hijack a plane into. They are not hijacking at all.

However, forcing a plane to land at an airport farther away from its current position than its destination based on a false threat just to arrest someone you don't like is definitely hijacking. The plane was forced by a group of people (working for a state entity) to divert to a less safe option than its destination, and they did so for political gain (to arrest a dissident). Meets every definition of hijacking out there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez That assumes this was a planned thing and perhaps it was. However, how do we know that it wasn't done the opposite way around - that they ordered the plane be landed in order to appear tough on terrorism, and then opportunistically took advantage of the situation, when it became apparent those wanted for arrest were on board? The men on board that got into a confrontation with staff were alternatively described as random passengers, KGB operatives and Russian citizens - considering the fact that the Belarussian KGB would be unlikely to allow foreign citizens into its ranks, that could be a contradiction. RS aren't calling it yet, but perhaps they will soon. I'm not saying that this wasn't the reason, but merely that time needs to be allowed for facts to surface and for RS to establish a consensus before we go ahead with a controversial label such as that. Perhaps it will be proven correct in the near future, that is a definite possibility. My point is that at this moment in time reasonable doubt still exists and RS appear to generally be holding back from converging around labels for the time being. Goodposts (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, for one, if they were trying to "appear tough on terrorism", the sane thing to do is have it land at the closest/easiest airport to get to - i.e. in this case its destination. To land at Minsk, it had to make two u-turns - the first to turn back towards that city, and the second to line up with the runway. They were already lined up with the runway at their destination which was some tens of miles closer anyway - which means if there truly was a threat, it would've saved up to half an hour for them to just make an expedited descent and landing there. So no, I don't think any rational person believes that. If it turns out to be "legitimate", then they're going to have a lot of answering to other countries as to why they made it land at what objectively was by far the worst airport to let them to. Further, it's already known that there were three people onboard the flight who had something to do with this forced diversion - and they were Russian citizens. One of these people was seen "surveilling" the person who was abducted in the airport prior to boarding the flight. No, the only rational conclusion here is that this was a targeted hijacking of a commercial flight between two other countries to abduct a political enemy - it's absolutely absurd and there's absolutely no "reasonable" doubt - no matter what doubts you yourself may have. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Then it would be dealt with by Lithuanian authorities and Belarus doesn't look tough on terrorism. Just because you might not have any doubt, does not mean nobody has any doubt. This doesn't only include me, it also includes RS, which, I'll remind you, aren't calling it. Ultimately, it's not our job to speculate or do OR. We just cover the sources. If all of this is true, it will soon be confirmed and will enter into RS vocabulary, thus justifying your position. As I've said, I'm not saying this didn't happen. I'm saying is that it is still a very recent, rapidly developing story and we shouldn't rush to apply labels RS aren't converging around. Goodposts (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Goodposts, risking the safety of 100+ humans just to "look tough on terrorism" is also hijacking, FYI. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez - WP:NOR. Goodposts (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not original research when we have multiple reliable sources calling it a hijacking. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

RS are saying that Belarus has been "accused of hijacking", using the term in quotation and with attribution, which is different from themselves taking a position and calling it a hijacking. The former is already well-covered in the reactions section of the article, and I have no objection to it. The latter is not at this point established by RS consensus. Goodposts (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Goodposts: I agree that we CAN'T definitely call it an act of piracy. We can't also reliably claim this is as such based on a bunch of partisan MP's condemnation. This is simply not enough. Though I wouldn't mind adding that such a claims were made. It's notable that high-profile politicians breaking so bad on that. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, adding official statements made, with attributions to the relevant reaction sections, is what is acceptable at this point. The rest we will figure out later, once RS have time to properly cover the story. Once that happens - we just cover what they write about and that's the end of that. Goodposts (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Goodposts: Agree. This would perfectly comply with WP:RSCONTEXT AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Pavel Latushko, Belorussian dispatchers/authorities threatened to shoot down Ryanair's plane if it does not make an emergency landing in Minsk [7]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. "The men on board that got into a confrontation with staff were alternatively described as random passengers, KGB operatives and Russian citizens - considering the fact that the Belarussian KGB would be unlikely to allow foreign citizens into its ranks, that could be a contradiction." Yes, some commentators say that the guys on the board were Russians, the pilot of the MIG was Russian, and the whole operation was approved by Nikolay Patrushev. But they are not RS. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

pilots

Does anyone know who were the pilots? I cant find ANY info about them. Is it still secret???213.87.161.134 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's secret as much as it is that none of the sources care about their names when a famous opposition leader has been arrested. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

They are Capt. Clarence Oveur, Victor Basta and Roger Murdock... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that the crew names are not of major relevance to the story and should probably not be added to the article, per WP:BLPNAME. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, unless reliable sources state that they are of significance. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

map with altitude

"it was noted that the plane did not start to descend over Belarus even though this is usually done in preparation for landing in Vilnius." -> maybe a map with not only the flight path but also the altitude would be instructive (I've found one at [8] - the colors of the path indicate the altitude)----Bancki (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Bancki The FlightRadar24 map is not free. However, if you can find a free map it would probably be a worthy inclusion. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Bancki they provide the data, and information itself is not copyrightable, so you can create your own using that. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

FLAGCRUFT

Right, time to thrash this one out. The WP:FLAGCRUFT is back again. This is completely against MOS. It is made worse by inconsistency, as no flag is shown against the entry for the ICAO. The flags should, no must, go! Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, I agree 100% and per MOS:FLAGCRUFT. This is not an international indignation championship and the flags add nothing other than a distracting clutter. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not super familiar with that guideline, but this does not seem to fall under any of its categories of inappropriate use. Am I missing something?--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yaksar: - It's all part of MOS:FLAG, particularly MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE is violated. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks -- nothing in there seems to indicate this doesn't belong either, and in fact seems like it would fit in with the guidance on responses specifically ascribable to national governments.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yaksar, flags over emphasis nationality. For example:

Australia’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Marise Payne condemned the..." is effectively saying:

"AUSTRALIA: Australia’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Marise Payne condemned the..."

Is there a good reason to doubly emphasise the country in that way? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why it creates any issue, if people find the flags to be a useful tool in quickly discerning reactions. And the section of the guideline in question does seem to address concerns of overemphasizing nationality, with cases where a national government is being represented falling pretty clearly on the side of permitted use.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I support use of flags, as currently in the article. It is literally a list of countries and their responses. The individuals who are quoted are taken to literally speak on behalf of the state. In my view, this is appropriate use under MOS:FLAGS and is helpful and makes the article more clear since a reader may not have an interest in reading a response of ALL the countries, but may be interested in what specific countries had to say. In those cases, flags offer visual cues (almost like better version of dot points).Melmann 09:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I support the use of flags:

1. This a list of countries in the context of international incident and diplomatic conflict; it does not embrace the "nationalistic pride" mentioned in the MOS:FLAGCRUFT policy; the policy itself is not clear, e.g. the example provided does not match this case in spirit; I've looked into the talk section, there are plenty of discussions, but it does not look like there is a clear consensus -- it's a particular interpretation of the policy;
2. It is consistent with many articles on conflicts or incidents which contain the "International reactions" sections;
3. Personally, I find it much easier to find the relevant country; flags are easily recognizable symbols, so why not leverage that?

--Mindaur (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Given that it seems the answer is no, there isn't anything in our flag guidelines that would prohibit this, please don't simply remove citing this policy without discussing on the talk page where the policy says to do so.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional citizens leaving in Minsk

The current article refers to the additional three passengers who left the plane as Russian, but newer reporting from Bloomberg seems to say they were one Greek and two from Belarus. I'm waiting for further coverage to provide confirmation, but this may need updating to reflect newer info.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The Aviation Herald has a good reputation for fact checking and correcting errors. If new facts emerge then we can amend the article. Mjroots (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

But so do Bloomberg and Reuters, who are reporting the Greek/Belarus claim. I imagine we'll get more reporting soon, if we haven't already, that can shed more light.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I've updated with the latest, cited to the NY Times.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

We now have info from Bloomberg that can be used to update the page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"This is not the place to show your illiteracy"

This edit summary appears to be a (misguided?) personal attack. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.15.184 (talk)

The comment is indeed unjust, but the change in question actually falls under WP:NOR and seems like a legitimate revert. --Mindaur (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did not mean anything bad by that and wanted to change it, but accidentally pressed "Save changes". – Sabbatino (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hamas reaction

A sentence in the "Belarus government" section reads "Hamas denied it was in any way connected to the incident, criticising the Belarusian government for "archaic thinking" in a world that "no longer accepts such methods"." While the part about Hamas denying any involvement should probably stay where it is, the criticism should probably be moved to the "Reactions" section. Thoughts? - ZLEA _T\^C 15:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

No. This is not "reaction" to the incident, but rebuttal of the claim by the Belarus government. Hence it should stay in "Belarus government" section. My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with My very best wishes. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is stupid Hamas mentioned here?? They should not poke their nose here, they are no where near Belarus.103.246.39.207 (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

They are menitoned because Belarus accused them. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Transcription of radio conversation published by Belarusian Department of aviation

Transcription (upd: not confirmed yet) of radio conversation between Belarusian air traffic control and FR4978 pilots was published by the Belarusian Department of aviation. Their site is currently unavailable, but several media published a full copy. [9] [10]

Radio conversation between Belarusian air traffic control ("ATC") and FR4978 pilots ("Pilot")

Pilot: 09:28:58 Minsk, Good day, RYR 1TZ, FL390 approaching SOMAT

ATC:09:29:04 RYR 1TZ, Minsk Control, good afternoon, radar contact.

ATC: 09:30:49 RYR 1TZ, Minsk

Pilot: Yes, go ahead.

ATC: RYR 1TZ for your information, we have information from special services that you have bomb on board and it can be activated over Vilnius.

Pilot: 1TZ Standby.

Pilot. 09:31:17: Ok RYR 1TZ could you repeat the message?

ATC: RYR 1TZ, I say again we have information from special services that you have bomb on board. That bomb can be activated over Vilnius.

Pilot: Roger that, standby.

ATC: 09:31:42: RYR 1TZ for security reason we recommend you to land at UMMS.

Pilot: Ok…that.it.understood give us alternate please.

Pilot:09:32:59: RYR 1TZ

ATC: RYR 1TZ

Pilot: The bomb…direct message, where did it come from? Where did you have information about it from?

ATC: RYR 1TZ stanby please.

ATC: 09:33:42: RYR 1TZ

Pilot: Go ahead.

ATC: RYR 1TZ airport security stuff informed they received e-mail.

Pilot: Roger, Vilnius airport security stuff or from Greece?

ATC: RYR 1TZ this e-mail was shared to several airports.

Pilot: Roger, standby.

Pilot:09:34:49: Radar, RYR 1TZ.

ATC: RYR 1TZ.

Pilot: Could you give us frequency for (unreadable) company so that we would be able to (unreadable).

ATC: RYR 1TZ say again what frequency do you need.

Pilot: We just need to quawk with the operation of the company, if there any frequency for that (unreadable).

ATC. Do you need RYR operation frequency?

Pilot: That is correct 1TZ.

ATC: Standby please.

ATC: RYR 1TZ ,Standby please

Pilot: Standing-by.

Pilot:09:39:30: RYR 1TZ Any adverts?

ATC: RYR 1TZ Standby, waiting for the information.

Pilot: Could you say again that I have to call for the airport that authorities … (unreadable) to divert to.

ATC: RYR 1TZ I read you THREE, say again please.

Pilot:09:39:57: Radar, RYR 1TZ .

ATC : RYR 1TZ ,Go.

Pilot: Can you say again the IATA code of the airport that authorities recommended us to divert to?

ATC: RYR 1TZ roger, standby please.

Pilot: OK, I give you (unreadable) can you say again IATA code of the airport that authorities have recommended us to divert to?

ATC: RYR 1TZ Standby.

Pilot: Standby, Roger.

ATC :09:41:00: RYR 1TZ .

Pilot: Go ahead.

ATC: IATA code is MSQ.

Pilot: can you say again please?

ATC:IATA code MSQ.

Pilot: MSQ, thanks.

Pilot: 09:41:58: RYR 1TZ Again, this recommendation to divert to Minsk where did it come from?Where did it come from?Company? Did it come from departure airport authorities or arrival airport authorities?

ATC: RYR 1TZ this is our recommendations.

Pilot: can you say again?

ATC: RYR 1TZ this is our recommendations.

Pilot : unreadable.

Pilot:Did you say that your recommendation?

ATC: RYR 1TZ , Charlie-Charlie.

ATC: 09.42.49: RYR 1TZ we have ground stuff frequency for Vilnius 131.750

Pilot. 131.75 and we have contact… (unreadable).

ATC:09:44:38 RYR 1TZ advise your decision please?

Pilot: Radar ,RYR 1TZ

ATC:RYR 1TZ advise your decision please.

Pilot; 09:44:52: I need answer the question what is the code of the (unreadable) green, yellow or amber red.

ATC: Standby.

ATC:09:45:09 RYR 1TZ they say code is red.

Pilot: Roger that, in that case we request holding at present position.

ATC: RYR 1TZ Roger, hold over your position, mantain FL390 turns at own discretion.

Pilot; Ok holding at our discretion at present position mantaining FL390 RYR 1TZ.

Pilot:09:47:12: RYR 1TZ we are declaring an emergency MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY RYR 1TZ. our intentions would be to divert to Minsk airport

ATC: RYR 1TZ MAYDAY, Roger.Standby for vectors.

Pilot: Standby RYR 1TZ .

Pilot: 09:48:10 RYR 1TZ request descent to 10000 feet.

ATC: RYR 1TZ , descend FL100.

Pilot: descend (unreadable) RYR 1TZ .

ATC:RYR 1TZ from present position cleared direct point KOLOS : Kilo Oscar Lima Oskar Sierra.

Pilot: Direct to KOLOS RYR 1TZ.

ATC:09:50:15 RYR 1TZ how do you read me?

Pilot: I read you 5 RYR 1TZ .

ATC: Roger.

ATC:09:50:24: RYR 1TZ do you need any aerodrome details and weather information?

Pilot : We can (unreadable)ATIS from Minsk …enough.

ATC: RYR 1TZ do you need ATIS frequency?

Pilot: We got it.09:It is 128.850, 1 TZ.

ATC:09:51:50: RYR 1TZ

Pilot: 1TZ , go ahead.

ATC: RYR 1TZ KOLOS 2H arrival, RW in use 31R and if you need vectors advise.

Pilot: Ok, KOLOS. could you say the (unreadable).

ATC: KOLOS 2H arrival.

Pilot: KOLOS 2H arrival, RW 31R, RYR 1TZ

ATC: And ATIS frequency is 128.850

Pilot: 28.85.

ATC:09:52:29: RYR 1TZ and advise passengers on board and if any dangerous goods on board.

Pilot: No dangerous goods, standby…and we need 130 to avoid.

Pilot:09:53:00 RYR 1TZ turning heading 130 to avoid.

ATC: RYR 1TZ roger heading 130 report clear of weather.

Pilot: WILCO.

Pilot :09:54:45: RYR 1TZ persons on board is 133.

ATC: Persons on board 133 copied thank you.

ATC:09:55:33 RYR 1TZ when ready report estimating time of arrival.

Pilot: 09:56:48: RYR 1TZ request descend 9000 feet.

ATC: RYR 1TZ descend FL90.

Pilot. Descend FL90, RYR 1TZ .

ATC: 09:57:12: RYR 1TZ now contact Minsk approach on 125.9.

Pilot: 125.9, RYR 1TZ

— Homoatrox (talk). 12:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Given that the Belarusian Department of aviation intentionally mislead the pilots about the non-existent threat, this transcript (or any other "info" from Lukashenko government) should be treated as a potential piece of disinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I totally agree that the Belarusian propagandist media should be used extremely carefully, so I added a note to be cautious about this transcript. But it's worthy to note that this transcript disproves several reports previously made by Belarusian state-controlled media. For example, they originally (before the global coverage of the event) claimed that it was the FR4978 crew who asked to reroute the plane to Minsk. This transcript also indirectly confirms the deliberate misleading of pilots on two crucial topics. First of all, it's the source of the threat: the pilots asked was the message sent to Vilnius or Athens but they got the answer beside the point ("several airports"). Secondly, the pilots were told that the danger class of the threat was "red", i.e. very serious. And the pseudo-Hamas-signed letter was ridiculous because of the ceasefire between them and Israel, so the threat wasn't "red". And there's a suspiciously deficient transcript when it came to the decision making. — Homoatrox (talk). 18:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Question: Did the Belarusian authorities confiscate and/or erase the cockpit voice recorder? If not, did Ryanair, Lithuanian, EU, and/or ICAO authorities were able to analyze the information contain on the voice and flight data recorders after the aircraft's delayed arrival in Vilnius? -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably not, as an aircraft cannot fly without the black boxes. Hopefully the Lithuanian accident investigation authority are investigating this one, although no official announcement has been made that they are AFAIK. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Very delicate for it would explain why they choose to land in Minsk instead of Vilnius. Why not ask the pilots to say what is true? -92.116.159.63 (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: It is true that a commercial aircraft cannot legally fly without functional black boxes and it is also against the law in most nations for the flight crew and/or aircraft owner to tamper with the black boxes. However, is it not against international rules for the aircraft in question to fly from Minsk to Vilnius with a different flight recorder than the one it had when it flew from Athens to Minsk as long it is a governmental aviation authority (and not the aircraft operator) that does the swap and the new flight recorder is functioning properly? It is very strange for either the Lithuanian and/or European aviation authorities to not release copies of the recorded radio transmission from the flight recorder yet unless there is some problems with the data on the flight recorders themselves. -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• The aircraft is stationed in Vilnius hence local Ryanair operations will have pulled the data immediately. However it is unclear, if the crew remained on baord in Minsk (which would be normal) thus if the Belarussian forces did have access to the the CVR/FDR (aka Black Box) and could destroy them. Tempering is very difficult, even in abt 7 hrs grounding time. However, if the CVR/FDR data were gone, Ryanair _must_report this and it woul dbe likely public knowledge. FoxBravoFly (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Icons for organisation logos

There is disagreement as to whether icons of the logos of organisations whose reacations have been added (not to be confused with national flags alongside national government reactions and which are the subject of another discussion above) should be used alongside their remarks. I would suggest that the addition of these is totally unnecessary and conflicts with the advice given in MOS:ICON, particularly MOS:LOGO and MOS:DECOR. What do we think - should they stay, or should they go? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Which part of the MOS:ICON guideline discourages this use? In the discussion above, you insisted that this guideline prohibits the use of national flags as used here, which was clearly not the case, although I will assume good faith confusion. Given that the guideline does also discuss supranational organizations, and none of the cases where it suggests not to use them seem to be involved here, I am a bit confused. While I can't say I feel incredibly strongly about it, it does seem to make sense that if we have flags in this section for something like Belgium we would also have for something like the EU.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yaksar, you are confusing national flags with logos. The remark from, say, Belgium, is currently accompanied by an icon of the national flag of that country. The use of national flags is a separate issue, and the subject of a discussion above. On the other hand, the International Civil Aviation Organization, say, is not a country, so does not have a national flag. It does have a logo though, and an icon of that is currently displayed next to its remark in the article, and that is where the MOS:LOGO section (which I referred to) of the guideline comes into play, and there is says: "The insertion of logos as icons into articles is strongly discouraged: While illustration of a logo may be appropriate at the main article on the topic to which the logo pertains, use of logos as icons is not useful to our readers, and often presents legal problems". -- DeFacto (talk). 08:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not correct. The section on flags very clearly discusses supranational organization flags, whereas the section you are citing is very clearly about logos. If we start adding Coca-Cola or Nissan's views into the article, I will be the first to agree with you. But given we are discussing supranational organization flags, that is the relevant section. The European Union flag, one of the ones in question here, is literally used as an example.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:DECOR tells us that Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function. The NATO and ICAO flags in particular do not serve as visual cues or improve comprehension; almost nobody will recognise them. The EU flag, along with the national flags in the list above, are perhaps less clear-cut but my opinion is that they serve no useful purpose and are mere FLAGCRUFT. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think NATO and EU flags are very much commonly recognizable, at least in this part of the world. I agree that ICAO flag is not, but it fits in consistent representation. Recognizability is somewhat subjective matter anyway: I might not be very familiar with the flags in Polynesia and I suspect populations there might also be less familiar with some European flags; in this case, it's just a part of regional differences. --Mindaur (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

FLAGCRUFT seems to refer to flag usage where the nationality/citizenship/membership is being improperly highlighted, which certainly is not the case here when we are referring to the official organization/country's response. But again, given that the guideline provides info on the use of supranational organization flags, I find it hard to understand why it should be interpreted to essentially read "supranational flags are not permissible."--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not that supranational flags are not permissible, it's that all icons/flags should serve a useful purpose as set out in MOS:DECOR – and in this case the supranational ones in particular do not. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure. But given that the national ones very clearly fit the bill, there doesn't seem to be a sound reason why the international orgs, with official flags and NOT brand logos, would not. And if we are saying an org as prominent as NATO is not recognizable enough to ever have a flag used, that is in essence saying only a couple supranational flags are allowed, which is very clearly not what the guidelines indicate--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Since it was asked about in edit summaries -- since this section was initially created in this format, there seems to be a bit of an edit war going on, with multiple editors (GreenRunner Mindaur, Extended Cut and myself, among others, reverting removals of the flags in this and the national section. Let's try not to edit war and keep at the initial version until there can be some sort of consensus, which I am happy to be one I disagree with.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, I actually can't say with certainty those folks actually agree here -- pinging in case I have misrepresented your views @Mindaur: @GreenRunner0: @Extended Cut: -- and to avoid the appearance of canvassing, also pinging the others from the relevant flag section above who have expressed views on both sides but have not weighed in here @Mjroots: @Melmann: .--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• For context, as far as I was able to figure out, the section was first created without icons in this edit and expanded to include multinational organisations (the subject of this talk section), still without icons, in this edit. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Yaksar: given that the section started without flags or icons (as described above), perhaps you would self-revert this edit to restore the status quo and wait to see what consensus develops here. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the context -- international incident and diplomatic conflict -- I would argue that the same reasoning as for the national flags applies to the symbols (be it logos, flags, emblems or whatever) of major international organizations which are directly involved or have a considerable weight. In this case:

1. ICAO is an agency under the United Nations; it has authority in the aviation incidents and is directly relevant here.
2. NATO is an international military alliance which is involved in the diplomatic conflict, since this event involves its member states.
3. EU is directly involved supranational organization which also has many characteristics of a state (in fact, it could already be called a confederation, at the very least, even if such word is taboo among the European politicians -- but that is another story/topic).

With the exception of ICAO, I think the EU and NATO flags are also quite widely recognizable. However, I think NGOs and other organizations belong to another section (or perhaps should even be trimmed as not significant) without the icons/symbols.--Mindaur (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

ICAO is an agency of the UN, but yes I otherwise agree that NGOs, trade unions and organizations that wouldn't really normally be considered "multinational organizations" don't really fit in this section, and probably should not have icons.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

To editor Yaksar: I'm going to assume good faith, and assume you did not read what I wrote where I pinged you above about this, but it appears that the original addition of this section did not have the icons. Bearing that in mind, perhaps you would revert your edit here which wrongly implies to opposite to be the case, while the discussion is still ongoing. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• per DeFacto. I agree that flags in the reactions section, although frequent, are unnecessary and not appropriate. The section itself is incidentally annoyingly full of hollow sound bites. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Reference to Evo Morales grounding incident

A section called "Precedent" was added and removed, about the Evo Morales grounding incident(diff). Right now the only reference to the incident is in the Russian Foreign Ministry's statement. I think that something more may be due, though I'm not sure what. There is a comment discouraging a duplicate link in the "External links" section, which was my first instinct. (@Yaksar and NYCJosh: for comment) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Definitely think it should be mentioned where a notable reaction, such as the Russian ministry response & likely others to come, but I definitely think we need to avoid having a section that essentially comes across as "opinion pieces of why incident is justified." Granted, the section removed was largely OR, so I agree there is probably more due, but I'm not sure a "precedent" section is the right move - I also worry about the can of worms that basically opens for every article about a legal, criminal, or military incident.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, looking closer, the section in question seems to have just been "Glenn Greenwald's view, + OR."--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ideally the "reactions" section would be structured so the more important responses get more prominence. The question of whether this is "unprecedented" is one the article should answer, and the answers to that right now seem to be dependent on geopolitics. We certainly don't need a full history of aircraft hijacking here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No need for "precedent" section. Maybe just include it in see also section. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yeh, I saw that argument by Zakharova and read this nice article [11]. There were other more or less similar incidents, but it matters who intercepts/redirects the planes and for what purpose. If someone does it to murder his personal critics, just like before [12], [13]... A policemen and a criminal are not the same.My very best wishes (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Eeh, pardon us, but Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and many other 'Western' 'civilized' leaders have been quoted saying they'd rather see Edward Snowden and Julian Assange dead. And the *only* reason the bolivian plane was forced to land in Vienna was because they had heard Snowden would be on that plane. Seriously, the hypocrisy regarding this event is, once again, staggeringly obvious, very anti-Russian and pro-American. If anything, the US has shown a very nice example on how to get someone politically unwelcomed to their national policies from a foreign plane, and Belarus is follwing exactly *that* example. Again, note how Julian Assange is *still* in jail, and for what exactly? Being a good journalist. Right? RIGHT?

They are when they break the law. Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• WRONG. Sorry, but I do not buy such generalization fallacy (when very different things are treated as the same). To put it simple, Hillary Clinton=/=Lukashenko, Protusevich=/=Snowden, and so on. Just as Hamas=/=Israel, etc. Also, why "anti-Russian"? Do you mean that Putin had a hand in this? My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, any of OUR views on what should or shouldn't be justified based on precedent, or is right or wrong, mean nothing here. I'd ask that those seeking to argue those points please take the discussion of this aspect to another forum.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the link/ref to WaPO I included above might be used on the page, but I would rather not because this is probably an "opinion". My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There are several precedents (Sources, mostly MSM, at https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/05/lukashenkos-revenge-served-cold.html#more). We should have a list article):

In 1954 Israel forced a Syrian passenger plane to land to gain hostages which it hoped to exchange for captured Israeli soldiers.

In 1957 French authorities diverted a Morocco-Spain Air Maroc flight to Algiers. Algerian independence leader Ahmed Ben Bella (based in MA) was on board. Air Maroc was mostly French-owned. ABB was jailed in Algiers but became the first President of Algeria 5 years later.

In 2010 the U.S. wanted to arrest a man who was on a flight from France to Mexico. On U.S. instigation the plane was diverted to Canada where the man was arrested and later transferred to the U.S.

In 2012 Turkey forced down a Syrian passenger plane flying from Moscow to Damascus to search it for weapons. None were found.

In 2013 U.S. allies shut down their airspace for a flight carrying the Bolivian President Evo Morales from Moscow. The plane had to divert to Austria where the authorities insisted on searching the plane for the "fugitive" Edward Snowden before letting it fly again. Snowden was not on board.

In 2016 the Ukraine sent military jets to force a plane flying from Kiev to Minsk to return to Kiev. The authorities were looking for a certain passenger on board who was later found to have be the wrong man. Keith McClary (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, such a list would be a legit page I think. Interesting. This link includes a comment by Christo Grozev of Bellingcat. We need to have a page about him too. My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The October 21, 2016, Belavia flight V2-840 was directed to return to its origin at Zhuliany airport. Belarus said that ATC threatened to use “combat aircraft for interception,” publishing a transcript but no recording, but the Ukrainian SBU denied it. No one alleges fighters were scrambled. The flight left again in 90 minutes with passenger of interest Armen Martirosyan aboard (I believe it was not mistaken identity but a document search, but can’t find a source for this at the moment). Ukraine later settled with Belavia for costs incurred. —Michael Z. 15:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Lithuanian airspace

Off-topic, closed by Ahunt (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Was Lithuanian air force near the border? They could have helped chase away the Belarusian air force jets if it tried to enter the airspace.103.246.39.207 (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC) That would be a war crime agaiinst Belarus

"Second forced grounding" claim

User Daikido added (and reverted my removal) of the claim that Ryanair Flight 4978 was the second forced grounding of an airplane in the last decade following the 2013 incident with Evo Morales. The WaPo source, to which it is sourced, however, does not say it, as I've noted in my comment to that revert.

Just not to be appearing to be participating in the edit war, please decide if the claim has any merit. Pinging @Daikido: to inform about the discussion so that they could explain their motives behind adding the info. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it because it is unsupported. Mellk (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not the only one. There was also B2-840, that was forced to landing in Kyiv (21 October 2016). However, it wasn't recognized that much by international news agencies.--A09090091 (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Although proponents argue that the current title does not satisfy WP:AT, specifically recognizability and naturalness, the majority presently oppose a move citing common practice for aviation article titles. There is not presently a consensus to move to Arrest of Roman Protasevich, although there might be in the future. Alternately, it's proposed to split an article about the arrest from this article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Ryanair Flight 4978 → Forced grounding of Ryanair Flight 4978 – More descriptive, more precise and consistent with WP:RS usage in regards to only aspect of the flight that is notable. Melmann 09:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:AVINAME and WP:COMMOMNAME, the article is at its correct title. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The incident is not an aviation safety incident or accident, but a political incident (the aircraft was never in any danger aside from ordinary dangers of commercial flight). WP:AVINAME does not apply as it does not cover this type of incident (case in point, Evo Morales grounding incident does not follow it). Melmann 09:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"The aircraft was never in any danger" - What about the two MIG21's that the BBC said were "armed to the teeth"? It's pretty clear that had the captain of FR4978 failed to comply they would have been shot down. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. The ramifications of such an act would be enormous, possibly leading to war. They were a threat - an intimidation - and it worked.104.169.31.99 (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The aircraft was only 6 miles from the border when it changed course; unlikely it would have been shot down before reaching the border. There seems to have been agents on the plane that were tailing the arrested man. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Belarusian Air Force were clearly threatening them to force them to fly to Minsk, even if they wouldn't have shot the plane down. Jim Michael (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, the Morales flight could have gone down when their fuel ran out. It does not make it an aviation safety incident (no more then this one, at least).Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There is consensus that this flight was a hijacking. Hijacking is included under AVINAME, while Evo Morales grounding incident was not a hijacking and does not meet any of the criteria for AVINAME. Legolover26 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Legolover26 Could you clarify on what you base your conclusion that there is a consensus that this was a hijacking? Sources I've seen mention hijacking only in scarequotes, if at all. Melmann 19:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: It seems to be inconsistent with the current practice, consider the cases when shootdowns actually occurred: Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, List of airliner shootdown incidents. There are some inconsistencies, e.g. when it comes to crashes, but overall it seems to be a minority: List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft#2020. --Mindaur (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Articles on air incidents are always named after the flight.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the standard is simply the flight number, which avoids any WP:OR around wording such as "forced grounding", "deliberate crash" "shoot-down", etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Mausebru (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most aviation incidents are named after the flight number where the incident occurred in, per WP:AVINAME. Exceptions to this rule are usually if there are two or more airplanes involved. In this case, "Ryanair Flight 4978" would suffice. JaventheAldericky (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Exceptions to this rule are usually if there are two or more airplanes involved. In this case, there were three. ——Serial 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That usually applies to accidents, not interceptions with no shots fired. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I assume you are replying to JaventheAlderick, who belives the opposite to you. Hey ho! ——Serial

Actually, I was replying to you. Exceptions to this rule are usually if there are two or more airplanes involved usually applies to accidents, not interceptions. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I expected a Houdiniesque contortion to get out of that one. Interception != incident, accident, schmaccident indeed. 20:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:@ZLEA: It appears my stand has proven to be confusing. To clarify, my justification was that when there is an aviation incident that only involves one aircraft (e.g Sriwijaya Air Flight 182), the article for that incident uses the flight number of the aircraft involved. However, when an aviation incident involves two aircraft (e.g 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident), the article title for that incident does not use flight numbers (since it would be too lengthy to meet WP:CONCISE); instead typically using a characteristic common to both aircraft involved (such as where the incident occurred, or in the example above, the common ownership of both aircraft under Japan Airlines). My apologies for the confusion. JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

In the context of this article's title, it would thus follow the former example (as "Ryanair Flight 4978") since that one aircraft (and how it was forced to divert) is the primary subject of the article, not the fighter jet that was sent to escort it to Minsk Airport. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with Mjroots, Amakuru and JaventheAldericky. Aviator006 (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: rename would be a break from our normal practice and, as noted, leads to POV titling. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per WP:AVINAME. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• It is not viable for me to individually respond, so I will address common threads of criticism in this expanded description.
  WP:AVINAME is not policy. As the page clearly states, it is an essay documenting, at most, local consensus. But, consensus can change (which is policy).
  This is not an aviation safety incident, but primarily a political incident. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation does not own this article.
  Ryanair Flight 4978 is meaningless to a lay reader. When a lay person reads this name, they know nothing useful, aside from the fact that Ryanair operates the flight (which would make me think this happened in UK, but it's a Polish plane?). WP:TITLE says article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. Responses here only seem to care about 'consistent', but refuse to engage with my concerns regarding how the title fails to meet 'recognizable, concise, natural [and] precise' aspects. Melmann 14:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I see what's happening here, but why is this article exempt from the normal naming rules as set out in WP:TITLE? The current name fails three of the five characteristics given as required for a good Wikipedia article title, namely: recognisability – it is just the name of a flight that occurs every day; naturalness – I can't see anyone ever guessing this name when looking for the article about a Ryanair plane being forced to land in Belarus to allow a passenger to be arrested; precision – the title is far from unambiguous, it is positively extremely ambiguous. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto Because it's following standard naming conventions for aviation accidents and incidents. Go look through Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners and you'll see that, when the flight number is known, it is almost always used as the title. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

ZLEA But why does this local consensus get to overrule actual article naming policy? Melmann 14:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Melmann If you have a problem with the naming convention for aviation accidents and incidents, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

ZLEA, is it the case then that the aviation naming convention (is that documented somewhere?) trumps Wikipedia policy? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto Take a look at WP:5P5 and WP:NOTBURO. Rules are not set in stone and may be broken when there is consensus to do so. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

ZLEAThat's exactly what we are saying (or at least me, I don't want to presume to speak on behalf of User:DeFacto). Melmann 15:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Melmann I know, but consensus so far seems to be in favor of following the WP:AVINAME convention. What I got out of DeFacto's comment is that AVINAME should not trump Wikipedia's standard naming convention even with consensus to do so. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

ZLEA, you misunderstood my post. It was basically two questions:

1. Where is the aviation naming convention for articles about planes being asked to land to allow passengers to be arrested?
2. Does that naming convention trump WP:TITLE?

-- DeFacto (talk). 15:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto The answers are (1) the naming convention applies to aviation accidents and incidents (this definitely counts as an incident) and (2) WP:AVINAME trumps WP:TITLE when there is consensus to so do. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

ZLEA, is it WP:AVINAME? That has five sections: accidents, aircraft, airlines, airports, and biographies. It has nothing covering or mentioning events such as this one though. So it probably doesn't actually apply to this article anyway. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"Accidents" is generally taken to include incidents, so it's covered there. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I would add that you are free to create any redirects to the article from any reasonable search terms readers might use. We are not trying to make it hard to find. - Ahunt (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots We might speak different varieties of English, but in Australian English that I speak nobody would assume that term 'accident' also includes all 'incidents'. If anything, 'accident' is part of the set of 'incidents', but not vice versa. WP:AVINAME talks about accidents specifically, I don't think we get to change meaning of common English words to bolster our arguments. Melmann 19:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Melmann: - It's an established principle and not specific to aviation. The shipwreck in year navboxes are split into shipwrecks and other incidents, such as {{2021 shipwrecks}}. Rail accident navboxes are not split, but incidents are included. The {{railway accidents and incidents in 2015}} navbox includes the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident. The aviation accident navboxes include those articles which cover a notable incident, such as FR4978, as well as aviation accidents. Mjroots (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

ZLEA WP:AVINAME trumps WP:TITLE when there is consensus to so do. — That statement is a bit cavalier. A Wikiproject policy is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which can never trump a wikiwide policy (unless, of course, in a particular instance, there is a wikiwide consensus to do so). Wikiprojects can and should fill in the details where the wikiwide policy is silent or vague; they can't grant themselves an exception to the wikiwide policy any more than an individual editor can. (FWIW I don't suppport the proposed rename or think WP:AVINAME contradicts WP:TITLE in this instance.) jnestorius^(talk) 12:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose this particular proposal, but I still support renaming. I do not think the current title meets WP:CRITERIA (specifically, "recognizability" and "naturalness"). The arrest is more notable than the flight itself, therefore the article should be renamed to "Arrest of Roman Protasevich", which would be consistent with other articles covering arrests of individuals. (e.g. Arrest of Meng Wanzhou, Arrest of Matthew Hedges, Arrest of Rozina Islam) Although aviation articles have their own naming convention, it is not necessary to follow them when arrest-related articles also have their own naming convention. Edge3 (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, now we have a battle of naming conventions. I'm not married to this particular title, and would support 'Arrest of Roman Protasevich'. The only concern is that this arrest is illegal under international law, so perhaps 'Kidnapping of Roman Protasevich' or 'Extraordinary rendition of Roman Protasevich' is called for? Melmann 14:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Arrest of Roman Protasevich created as a redirect. It's a plausible search term. Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant sidebar

Melmann May I remind you that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. No matter how we feel about the arrest/kidnapping of Protasevich, the title must be neutral (i.e. not calling it a kidnapping unless a majority of reliable sources call it such). - ZLEA _T\^C 14:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

ZLEA I would appreciate if you assumed good faith and did not accuse me of WP:DISRUPT (which WP:RGW is a subtype of). I invite you to go through my contribs; you will not find pattern of POV pushing. I am primarily interested in improving Wikipedia, and try to avoid seeing editing as WP:USTHEM. I would like to kindly invite you to grant me the same courtesy. Melmann 15:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Melmann No assumption of bad faith was intended, and I apologize for any percieved ABF. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

ZLEA Noted. Water under the bridge. Let me also reiterate that I am perfectly happy to accept consensus going against my proposal, happened before, and will happen many more times, I'm sure. Such is the nature of Wikipedia. Melmann 15:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a plethora of possible titles for this article. I suggest anyone who has an alternative to create it as a redirect. Right now, the article is linked from the mainpage. In, say 5 or 10 years from now, people would probably search for Ryanair and see it linked in that article and the navigation template. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There are many plausible titles, but WP:AT requires us to pick one. In this case, the arrest is what makes this flight notable. The flight itself would not have been notable if the arrest had not taken place. Therefore, the article should be titled as as arrest. Edge3 (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose to any renaming. This is not about just an arrest. This is a significant event with specific flight, and it will probably affect international rules or practices related to aviation. My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes WP:NOTVOTE. Could you please try to offer a policy based argument instead?Melmann 19:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, you proposed a good descriptive title, but I think it would be best wait and see how this will be described in sources. My very best wishes (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support renaming in principle, this name isn't much better - the flight number is in no risk of retirement, this is going to be an incident because of the forced grounding - nothing to do with the specific flight. As such, it should be not just named after the flight number, as that implies that the flight itself is the topic of the article. I agree that Arrest of Roman Protasevich is likely a better title than this one - the arrest is the notable part, and the forced grounding is only a part of that plan/scheme. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Aircraft accidents and incidents are referred as (airline) Flight (number) Cutlass^Ciera 19:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not the "common name". That's the internal Wikipedia format, which is not even policy, but simply convention. WP Ludicer (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, our flight articles are usually of that format - rather than including crash, hijacking, bombing etc. Jim Michael (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment There seems to be a lot of gatekeeping from aviation project members on this one. As Melmann pointed out, this is primarily a political incident, not an aviation incident. I don't have a better suggestion for the name, but the repetition of the AVINAME argument is not at all conducive to reaching consensus on this particular article. It's only encouraging groupthink and an inflexible adherence to unofficial convention. WP Ludicer (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The same type of thing happens in WPTC articles - one can only hope that the person closing this can read through the cruft and actually realize that there's a decent consensus here that naming it after the arrest is better, or at least adding a descriptor of what happened to the flight. There's a clear consensus among those who are arguing based on actual policy grounds - the arguments that "aviation project articles about flights are always named the airline/flight number" are, to put it bluntly, worth not even the electrons it's taking to store them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Why not Belarus Grounding Incident? It uses the same format as Evo Morales grounding incident. It is neutral, 'recognizable, concise, natural [and] precise'. It is a primarily political incident, not an aviation incident (the fact that an aircraft was involved is incidental).Eni2dad (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't actually disagree, but let me try to steelman this one. Opponents of the name could say it fails WP:NPOV as it is not beyond reasonable doubt that the incident was caused by genuine bomb threat, upon which Belarusian authorities redirected the flight in good faith, and then happened to find on it the individual they had a warrant out for. Melmann 22:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

”Belarus grounding incident” is very vague, as if there has been no other aircraft grounding in the country. I’m not saying that anything would be better, but not much would be worse. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support renaming it to something more specific than just the airline number. The reason why it is enough to refer to crashes with only the airline number is that it is the end of the line for the given airline number after the incident. This one, however, shall still live on, and finding such small facts hidden somewhere inside the history of an otherwise non notable flight number some years from now is counter intuitive. -bkil (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That’s why redirects exist. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose It goes beyond a "forced grounding". Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support renaming to Arrest of Roman Protasevich which is consistent with other high-profile arrests; the event is more notable for his arrest than as an aviation incident per se and thus WP:AVINAME should not apply. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty much all our articles on incidents on scheduled commercial flights use the flight number. I don't see a reason why there should be an exception made here. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Nick-DWP:NOTVOTE. Could you try offering an argument based on policy, in particular with regards to how current title meets WP:CRITERIA? Melmann 13:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's standard for airline incidents to be indicated by its airline and flight number in the title. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 09:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

KyuuA4WP:NOTVOTE. Could you try offering an argument based on policy, in particular with regards to how current title meets WP:CRITERIA? Melmann 13:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Rephrasing. An article title standard is set for all flights involving major airlines. That is a consistency set per WP:TITLECON. Not even the far more notable flights involved in 9/11 are exempt. If you want a "more descriptive" title, then it'll have to involve more than one flight, such as mid air collisions. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 14:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

KyuuA4 WP:CRITERIA are Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency. You got consistency down, no argument. Conciseness is probably a wash, my proposal is 3 words longer, not a major difference. To a lay reader, how is a flight number more recognisable (just a number, meaningless), natural (who would search for the flight name, instead of searching for contextual info such as 'forced grounding') or precise (flight number did not get retired, thus the terms is ambiguous)? Melmann 17:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding, Precision, disambiguation takes care of that problem; plus plenty of non-retired flight numbers with incidents exist. Natural and Recognizability, an above comment pointing to the redirects takes care of that problem. To add onto Recognizability, other flights demonstrate the redirect point. One notable flight is more recognizable by the incident rather than its airline and flight number: Lockerbie bombing. As a counterpoint, there's the Gimli Glider, which is better known for the airplane. So that's two examples: one retaining the standard while the other goes with the common name. Trying to remember other flights, it IS difficult remembering flight numbers, because there are so many of them. However, the airline flight number combination is definitive. With that said, we're better off sticking to the article title standard for the sake of using the official name with redirects pointing to the article. As a note, the common name is preferred over the official name, but we're better off not doing that here. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and Comment It would just make it way more complicated for the average user. Should it remain the same. Also it is very likely that this request will be denied. DXLBandLokiBlaster 13:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support renaming to the proposed title or another one that reflects the nature of the incident, like "2021 Belarusian forced flight landing". The airline flight number nomenclature is typically used for aviation accidents, rather than incidents like this where the airworthiness of the aircraft was not critical to the case. Deryck C. 14:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Deryck's "2021 Belarusian forced flight landing". It is clear and allows for new developments, like confirmation that is was really a bomb threat or confirmation that it was a hijacking.Eni2dad (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and Comment This article is about the aviation aspects of the incident, other pages can be created to discuss further aspects of this complicated series of events. Would love to see a page created about this as an inteligence & state security operation at some point, clear use of a pincer technique to make the plane land. (Agents on board coroborating Minsk ATC.) Awizzarddidit (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per DeFacto. Current naming convention is stupid. How is anyone not an aviation nerd going to find this? In any case, this is a political matter, not an aviation incident. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support We have the obligation to make the article title mean something. The current title does not do this. The whole world does not revolve around aviation enthusasts. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as article creator I'm very much not convinced the current title is a long-term title. However, it is unambiguous and not-controversial. I don't think "forced grounding" is the best way to summarize the incident. Other titles can redirect here; in a month or two, if sources agree this was a "forced grounding" or "hijacking" or "piracy", we can rename the article then. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Redirects exist for a reason. If the article's title is hard to find by someone unfamiliar with the subject, create redirects. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aviation incidents should be named by flight number. What happened to the flight in question should be described by the article, not title. A title uniquely identifies the topic, but should not describe it in detail; that's what the article prose is for. The incident is the only notable "Ryanair Flight 4978" so no further disambiguation is needed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Because this wasn't a crash/disaster, Ryanair Flight 4978 is STILL a regular flight from Athens to Vilnius. As the article isn't actually about Ryanair Flight 4978, but a particular incident it should be named to reflect that. Fashqueen (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Fashqueen Actually it is about the flight itself. Whether the article should be about the flight or the arrest is probably worthy of another discussion, but as currently written, the article is about the flight itself and should have a title that reflects it. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

ZLEA If you took this page and excised any mention of the Belarus incident, do you really think this article would pass WP:GNG? I don't think so. Ipso facto, this article is about the incident, not the flight itself. Melmann 22:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Melmann The fact that Belarus (I assume by "Belarus incident" you are referring to arrest of Protasevich and not the separate interception by Belarusian MiG) threatened to shoot down the aircraft, no matter their motive, is a very serious aviation incident. Both Ryanair Flight 4978 and the arrest of Protasevich are two related topics that probably would pass GNG on their own. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as the proposal is nearer to a WP:COMMONNAME than the current name is. I'm not convinced that WP:AVINAME trumps WP:COMMONNAME here, especially with the aviation aspect of this incident being of less relevance than the political one. Neither am I convinced that it's okay to expect redirects to compensate for the irregular current name; if we accept that we might as well just have an abstract article number for every article and rely on redirects for all. The flight number can remain as a redirect (if there is a consensus that it is in some way relevant), but I believe that the main title should be meaningful per WP:NAMING. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term "grounding" itself holds no regulatory or official definition, so its meaning is ambiguous in that sense. Commonly "grounding" refers to a maintenance issue that prevents on aircraft from flying, as per the usage of the term in Boeing 737 MAX groundings. If we consider the wikipedia page on "aircraft grounding"—Aircraft on ground—the term "grounding" is once again used to describe a maintenance issue that results in an aircraft being placed out of service. It would be confusing to many readers, especially given the prevalence of the 737 MAX grounding in new reports, to adopt this definition of "grounding" as more synonymous to "hijacking" than maintenance related in an article title. Personnongratia (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as this event may be considered as the first case of governmental forced landing to detain a person from international flight and may be referenced later as such in legal cases. The term "Grounding" is misleading as in aircraft terms it refers to a non-departure condition. The term "Forced landing" is accurate as such term is recognised for exactly what happened - an involuntary landing either by force or deception FoxBravoFly (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @Melmann: while this might be your nomination, you shouldn't be replying as much as you did. I recommend stepping back if you haven't already done so. This comment also goes to others. 71.183.166.81 (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC

You're right. You'll notice I've already disenagaged over last day or two over those concerns. I don't intend to respond further to this RM unless a) I'm pinged directly or b) somebody comes up with a truly novel policy-based counter argument. Melmann 10:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment most sources don't seem to care whether it's a Ryanair flight Paul whether it's 4978. Clearly, the political targeting of Protasevich is the subject of this article.-- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose because for one, airline incidents are, in 99 percent of the cases, named after the airline and flight number unless in an extraordinary case, like the Dominicana DC-9 air disaster, where the flight number is unknown. For two, perhaps we could make a redirect page in case someone does look for Forced landing of Ryanair or Arrest of Raman... etc. Antonio Your Temptation Martin (dime) 10;51, May 29, 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The name of the article should reflect its contents. --Lysy^talk 12:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, although I suggest more specific “forced landing” which is used in news media. The current title is unacceptable as it describes a regular airline route, and not the singular incident that is the subject of this article. —Michael Z. 14:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose nothing wrong with the current name and the flight number is a common name used at the time, also big issues with "forced grounding" it clearly is not the correct term. MilborneOne (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose At WP:TITLE, "naturalness" describes a natural reference for the topic, not a natural description of it. "Forced landing of" interferes with natural references to this article obliging some authors to work around the descriptive portion. Consider "…the pilot in command of [[Ryanair Flight 4978]]…" - a natural reference - versus "…the pilot in command of [[Forced grounding of Ryanair Flight 4978|Ryanair Flight 4978]]…". The proposal may even displace another natural reference as in "…made history with the [[forced grounding of Ryanair flight 4978]]…" versus "…made history with the [[forced landing]] of [[Ryanair Flight 4978]]…". The latter is preferred as it encourages authors to reference, and readers to discover both articles as independent but related topics. The proposed title disrupts these natural references.
  Recognizability is the only criteria that stands to gain from this proposal and it does so at the expense of all the other criteria, including naturalness. There is nothing notable about the regular flights operated under the same number making the existing title precise, concise, and consistent with existing practice. N8 17:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  Good point, but other sentences can be contrived to make any title more natural or require a piped link, no? And must be balanced against another of the WP:CRITERIA, precision: “unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.”

• Oppose per WP:TITLECON and WP:AVINAME. If the aircraft for an incident has a flight number, the title will simply be "X Airlines Flight X." See how Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is not Disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Suggest I'm not sure how strictly WP:AVINAME should be applied here, given that it doesn't fall under the category of "Accident". I would support the title Arrest of Roman Protasevich proposed by a few other editors (Mjroots / Rosbif73 / Melmann / Berchanhimez). I'm opposed any longer variant of "Ryanair Flight 4978" ("Grounding of", "Forced landing of" etc.).-Ich (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2021 (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.

"Hijacking"

Regarding this edit [14], I'm coming to the Talk page per WP:BRD.

Some reliable sources calling this a "hijacking" in plain text:

• The Atlantic
• The New Republic
• The New York Times
• Slate
• The Washington Post
• WBUR

Some reliable sources calling this a "hijacking" with attribution:

• BBC
• CNN
• The Guardian
• NBC News
• The Wall Street Journal

I understand this wasn't a hijacking in the sense of 9/11, for example, but the term has still been applied here; the word "hijack" comes up 18 times in our article alone. As such, I feel further discussion is warranted. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It occurs six times in the body of the article. The rest are in references. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It fits my dictionary’s definition of hijacking—unlawfully seizing an aircraft during transit—which doesn’t explicitly require hijackers to be on board. But technically it doesn’t fit the so-called Hague Hijacking Convention (which doesn’t mention the word). It has been called hijacking by the Ryanair CEO, Poland’s prime minister (aircraft’s place of registration), Greece’s foreign ministry (origin of the flight and home of many hijacked citizens), EU and NATO (representing origin, destination, aircraft, operator, and passengers). Also France’s transport minister, and, of course, many writers and analysts by now. So this article needs to address the question. And readers will be looking for this in the category. I support including it. —Michael Z. 15:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Just because the media use the wrong term hijacking doesnt make it right. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Prevailing use of a term determines its meaning, and also influences readers’ expectations. Labelling it “wrong” without any supporting evidence is not helpful. —Michael Z. 15:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

We need to hear the transcript if it becomes available, reports indicate it was a precautionary landing due to a threat to the aircraft and escort by military aircraft is standard practice. So really what we are saying is the crew hijacked there own aircraft, silly but I will wait for the report. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Reports do not indicate that. The false bomb threat was made by Belarusian authorities, for the purpose of diverting the aircraft from Vilnius to Minsk and taking direct custody of its passengers. We don’t know the exact role of the MiG yet, but it may have been intended to intimidate the Ryanair crew. We can’t need to hear full and corroborated transcript, because it might never appear. —Michael Z. 16:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The false bomb threat may have been made by Belarus, but the pilots were still in full control of the aircraft. Saying that they were complying to ATC and therefore were not truly in control is like saying ATC personnel are constantly hijacking aircraft by doing their job. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? That is fucked up because I’m reasonably sure that ATC making false bomb threats is categorically not doing their job. —Michael Z. 03:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Coming to our own conclusion from the transcript would be original research. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I am modifying my opinion above, about categorization. This should be placed in a hijackings category when RS commonly and consistently call it a hijacking, per WP:CATDEF. —Michael Z. 16:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Commonly used - yes. However, looking at Google search (news or all), "state-sponsored hijacking" seems to be already a WP:common name for the event. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell the news reporting is practically all quoting prominent leaders, using quotation marks or phrasing like “Belarus accused of.” Only opinion and analysis pieces are using headlines like “Other Regimes Will Hijack Planes Too,” “State-sponsored air piracy: Belarus dictator tests the international community,” “The Ryanair Hijacking Pierced the Delusion of Flight,” and “Will Europe Finally Stand Up to Belarus’s Plane-Hijacking Bully?” I do believe we may be somewhere in the both sides transition, and hopefully the media will wake up sooner this time than every other time. —Michael Z. 16:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

See alsos

We seem to have a regular cycling in and out of links in the 'See also' list. Recent additions/removals have included:

• 2020–2021 Belarusian protests
• Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation
• Extraordinary rendition
• Evo Morales grounding incident
• Avion Pirata
• Interception of EgyptAir flight 2843 following the Achille Lauro hijacking
• Arrest of the leaders of the Algerian independence movement
• Arrest of Abdolmalek Rigi

Perhaps, we could discuss the merits of each one here, with reference to MOS:SEEALSO, and try to agree which to feature and achieve some sort of stability. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The links are quite different, so:

• I think 2020–2021 Belarusian protests deserves not only the "See also" entry, but also the creation of "Background" section which describes the political context. It is relevant because this incident is a direct consequence of the events described in the said article and is a continuation of the crackdown on opposition in Belarus.
• Regarding similar incidents: I'd say it is useful to link previous precedents (or, if there aren't any, then perhaps genuinely similar events in their nature), but we should find some way to balance that with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I guess it's a tough one. If there are several of them, then perhaps it's worth to create a new category and link to it?

--Mindaur (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the BBC has an article [15] citing some of these as precedents. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Rigi seem includable on the face of it. The Achille Lauro and Algerian independence incidents probably deserve articles, after which they should be linked. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

To editors AntonioMartin and Ahunt: how about discussing the reasons for, and against, the addition of "Avion Pirata" here, rather that contiuing the adding and removal cycle? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Also Sabbatino per this edit. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Im quitting, since I have better things to do at Wikipedia. I do hope someone else puts it back because, the cases are very similar and whoever doesn't think they are, I think hasn't read the Avion Pirata article. That plane was also intercepted by the local military, causing an international scandal (though obviously not of the magnitude of Ryanair 4978) and leading to arrests. It's not like we are linking all the other articles about airplane forced landings (perhaps if you also read other articles about airline incidents, you can see it's pretty common to list many articles in these pages either way), just one article about a very similar case. Antonio The Material Boy who is Not Like a Virgin Martin (si?) 10;45, May 29, 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand why extraordinary rendition is on of the see-alsos. On the extraordinary rendition pages we already removed any mention of Evo Moralles and Flight 4978 as these cases aren't examples of extraordinary rendition. "Extraordinary rendition, also called irregular rendition or forced rendition, is the government-sponsored abduction and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one country to another with the purpose of circumventing" Extraordinary rendition

• In the case of Evo Moralles, he was never arrested or abducted. His plane landed in Vienna due to lack of fuel so this isn't an example of extraordinary rendition.
• In the case of Flight 4798 the plane was over Belarussian airspace, hence they are within the juristriction of Belarussian authorities so Roman Protasevich was never transfered from one country to another, hence it isn't an example of extraordinary rendition.

See discussion about this on the extraordinary rendition talk page Talk:Extraordinary rendition#Is the Evo Morales incident an example of extraordinary rendition?. Stoyfan (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Three people who left the plane in Minsk

So, three people who left the plane in Minsk were actually not Belorussian, but Russian agents/citizens. See (this article) by Russian service of RFE/RL. There is also this (English). My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Implied classification as extraordinary rendition

Links to Evo Morales grounding incident and Arrest of Abdolmalek Rigi were previously listed in 'See also' indented under the reference to Extraordinary rendition which implies a connection to, if not categorization under that topic. This should be avoided when neither of those articles reference extraordinary rendition from within the article nor does the article on extraordinary rendition reference either incident from its page which includes a list of example cases. Connecting topics in this manner, although very subtle, could still be construed as WP:original research when no reliably sourced statement to the effect is cited from either article. It may also compromise a WP:neutral point of view. However, contributions to the article content which are WP:verifiable are welcome in any relevant article including this one. --N8 13:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I’d tend to agree. The “Morales’s plane” incident dominates one POV in the debate. Meanwhile, journalistic media only observes that it is a Lukashenka/Putin talking point, and also points out how it is not a close precedent. —Michael Z. 23:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Participants in the discussion, on the one hand, argued that the proposed name may be more recognizable than the flight number, but others argued that this article focuses on the aviation aspect rather than the arrest aspect, and that the aviation aspect is integral to the notability of the event. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Ryanair Flight 4978 → Arrest of Roman Protasevich – Following the outcome of the previous move discussion, I now propose renaming this article to "Arrest of Roman Protasevich", as per the "consistency" criterion. (See WP:CRITERIA #5, and also WP:TITLECON.)

This event is more notable as a political incident, not as an airline flight. We have numerous articles that are titled "Arrest of...". See Arrest of Meng Wanzhou, Arrest of Matthew Hedges, and Arrest of Rozina Islam. More relevant to this matter, Arrest of Abdolmalek Rigi likewise concerns the arrest of a person passing over the arresting country's airspace on an international flight.

The previous RM included numerous participants who cited WP:AVINAME to support keeping the current name. However, I note that AVINAME is merely an essay, not policy. Further, AVINAME explicitly refers to "Accidents", and as I explain below, this flight was not an "accident".

Indeed, WP:NCEVENTS#Aviation (a guideline) itself states, Aviation accidents and incidents should generally be titled according to the air carrier and flight number for commercial air transport related events. In aviation, the terms "accident" and "incident" are defined in the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13, and these standards should be followed in naming aviation related events. (Emphasis added.)

As we state in Aviation accidents and incidents, citing Annex 13, an "accident" is an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft, which takes place from the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until all such persons have disembarked, and in which a) a person is fatally or seriously injured, b) the aircraft sustains significant damage or structural failure, or c) the aircraft goes missing or becomes completely inaccessible. An "incident" is an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation.

This flight qualifies neither as an "accident" nor as an "incident". Nobody was injured or killed, and all were able to disembark from the aircraft (though two were forcibly disembarked). The aircraft was not damaged, and there was nothing "associated with the operation" of that aircraft that affected or could have affected its safe operation.

For these reasons, WP:NCEVENTS#Aviation should be ignored, and the article should be renamed to "Arrest of Roman Protasevich" per WP:CRITERIA #5. Edge3 (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support This also better satisfies the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability and precision, as the event continues to generate news while the Lukashenka régime parades Pratasevich on chilling “confession” videos and other states prepare to announce more sanctions that are not directly related to the flight. —Michael Z. 04:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose (weak): The general public ;-) noticed that a Ryanair flight was intercepted by Belarus and an opposition figure was detained. Much less people know his name, let alone how to spell it correctly in the English transcription. Those who can, can easily find the article through Roman Protasevich. Also content-wise, the article is more about the flight and international reactions and further international investigation/legal actions will likely deal with the "hijacking" of the plane and not with Protasevich. WikiHannibal (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This article, while it naturally covers the flight and its diversion, is primarily focused on the arrest and reactions to it. There's no reason to apply WP:AVINAME. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support as I've outlined in length in my failed RM, I think that the current name does not meet at least 3 out of 5 WP:CRITERIA (recognisability, naturalness and precision). The article is also almost entirely about the the arrest and political implications, if this article had everything regarding the arrest moved from it it would not pass WP:GNG. WP:NCEVENTS#Aviation and WP:AVINAME do not apply since this is not an aviation incident, but a political incident that just happens to involve airplanes.Melmann 07:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per talk:Melmann. We obviously have to set many redirects to simplify finding of this article (not many people know Roman Protasevich and even less remeber the exact flight number in question Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support seems to be the best choice, and the most neutral title too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - the article is primarily about the flight details. The arrest and outcome is more extensively covered in his bio. I also think, based on the outcome of the last request to move this, just closed, that another attempt to move this should have waited a month or two until the dust settles and we can all see how the issue looks and where the emphasis is, in the mid-term. - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article is currently written like an aviation accident/incident article. I suggest that you conduct a major rewrite to shift the focus from the flight to the actual arrest so that such a move does not break WP:CONSISTENT. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support as the proposal is nearer to a WP:COMMONNAME than the current name is. I'm not convinced that WP:AVINAME trumps WP:COMMONNAME here, especially with the aviation aspect of this incident being of less relevance than the political one. The flight number name can remain as a redirect (if there is a consensus that it is in some way relevant), but I believe that the main title should be meaningful per WP:NAMING. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The article is mostly about the arrest and reactions to it. AIowA (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this article is really about the mis-direction of the Ryanair flight to land at Minsk, the arrest of Roman Protasevich is a far bigger subject and is already part of Roman Protasevich article which covers the political angle and events far better. Renaming would change the focus of readers by mixing up what happened to the aircraft and the the still ongoing story of Roman Protasevich. If yoiu dont think that the Roman Protasevich provides the political context then create a new article but leave this one to cover the aviation incident. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The Roman Protasevich article naturally covers the background better, but the arrest section of that article is a brief summary beneath Main article: Ryanair Flight 4978 (and not See also)! Of course, if this article is moved as proposed, the opening sentence will need to be rewritten, but IMO most of the rest is already focused on his detention and on the consequences of the method of arrest, rather than the aviation side per se. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment perhaps you make a good case to create a new "arrest" article and leave this to cover the aviation incident the state-lead misdirection of the aircraft to make a precautionary landing, a subject which has been discussed in media and the aviation world and is an noteworthy "act" that would get lost in the political stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Thanks for your input. I noticed that you're referring to this as an "aviation incident", but I'm still contending that this doesn't qualify as an "incident" under the technical definition provided in Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. Edge3 (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention that Wikipedia is not bound by what some aviation authority thinks, and the same aviation authority does not get to redefine the term 'incident' in general English usage. It is not relevant what 'Convention on International Civil Aviation' believes this is, they are not our style guide. Melmann 18:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Melmann: The reason I cite the Convention is that Annex 13's definitions are explicitly incorporated into WP:NCEVENTS#Aviation by reference. You're quite right that normally, we can adopt our own interpretations on Wikipedia, but in this case the community has explicitly declined to set our own definition, and instead refer to an outside source. Edge3 (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Please note that (as discussed at more length below), the naming convention is not a policy. It a guideline, whose header box says that it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The attempts to use it as a straitjacket are unfounded, and the repeated insistence that a hijacking is not an "incident" are a bizarre breach of common sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles literally says: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." We have no higher authority on Wikipedia except WP:ArbCom, Terms of Use and perhaps WP:Appeals to Jimbo. Melmann 12:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Shorter name is better. Moreover, arresting dissidents is commonplace in Belarus; what is extremely unusual and notable here is a state-sponsored diversion/hijacking. Consider that if Protasevich had been arrested in a more conventional way, there almost certainly would not be the same degree of international outcry (and there probably would just be a section in his biographical article about it, not a separate article about the arrest). This is an important moment in civil aviation, international relations, human rights law, etc.; on balance, I would favor the slightly broader title. Note also that Protasevich's girlfriend was also arrested, which is another reason to retain the current title. I also strongly oppose "splitting" the article into one on the arrest and one on the flight. The two matters are inextricably linked, and splitting would create redundancy and confusion. Handle everything here. Neutrality^talk 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Substituting one non-guideline precedent ("Arrest of...") for another is not compelling reason to rename. Just as the flight is notable because of the arrest, so the arrest notable because of the flight.
  

The specific policies that make this a political incident are international treaties governing civil aviation. They aren't specific to charges against Protasevich nor is the impact of their potential breach confined to the parties concerned specifically with his arrest.

Comparison with the article Arrest of Abdolmalek Rigi is false equivalence. That topic covers two conflicting accounts of an arrest; it's not dedicated to the one version involving a flight. The fact that Ryanair 4978 was diverted, and the fact that Roman Protasevich was detained during that diversion are not disputed. What is under scrutiny in this article is the manner of the arrest, which is to say, the events of the flight.

It's too soon to dismiss classification as an "incident" and doing so overlooks key evidence. The flight included a bomb threat, an alleged on-board fight between passengers and crew, an armed military flight escort, and a diversion to an airport farther away than the planned destination. It also receives common treatment as a "hijacking" in media coverage.

This article covers events involving civilian and military aircraft, multiple airports, international treaties on aviation, air safety regulatory bodies, a widely-patronized commercial airline, repercussions for other airlines all over Europe, and pilots and air traffic controllers acting in the course of their professional duties. It is currently written about a whole flight, not just the arrest. The WP:COMMONNAME for that flight is "Ryanair Flight 4978". The arrest of Roman Protasevich might merit a dedicated article but that title isn't representative of all the information covered here.

IMO a WP:SPLIT might be more appropriate. --N8 16:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@N8wilson: Thank you for your thoughtful response. I believe this doesn't qualify as an "incident" because that term has a technical definition outlined in Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. Our guideline, WP:NCEVENTS#Aviation, explicitly incorporates the Annex 13 definition by reference. I'm not even sure if the airline safety regulatory body in Belarus (or elsewhere in Europe) is classifying this flight as an "incident". If they are, then there's a stronger case in favor of the current name. Edge3 (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I would still argue that a bomb threat and a subsequent precautionary landing meets the requirement for an incident "Incident. An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation." But whatever the small print if you ingore the "arrest" the state-sponsored misdirection of the flight is still noteworthy MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, Michael Z., Rosbif73, Melmann, Alex Bakharev, Lugnuts, DeFacto and AIowA. The nomination is detailed and strongly researched. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This page is not about just his arrest. It is about hijacking the plane (full of passengers) by the state of Belarus to illegally arrest one person. That is what makes it notable and causes international condemnation and sanctions. If we had a page Arrest of Roman Protasevich, then such page would have to be merged with page Roman Protasevich. But this is the case when we need two pages. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Your rationale is correct, of course. Let’s rewrite the intro so the first line identifies what the article is about: a specific event during one flight, and not the history of a scheduled air route. This might help reconcile the current title. —Michael Z. 19:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Also, contrary to the claim by the proposer, this is an aviation "incident", i.e. an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation. As noted by many sources, the safety of the passengers was adversely affected, simply because the flight plan has been changed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Flight plans get changed often, and these don't necessarily get classified as "incidents" because they don't always pertain to the operation of an aircraft. For example, a medical emergency or a security threat could force a plane to change course and land at a different airport. Such diversions wouldn't be notable on Wikipedia, but in this case the diversion is notable because it facilitated the arrest of a political dissident. Edge3 (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

While most flight diversions do not qualify to be called incidents, a diversion involving a bomb threat (however real or fake it may be) and a MiG, especially when many sources call it a hijacking, definitely qualifies as an incident. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

An "incident" is defined as "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." This flight was not an aviation "incident", as defined by the Chicago Convention, because there was no real threat to the aircraft's safe operation. Under Wikipedia policy, we can't treat this article as an aviation incident. I think the more appropriate policy is WP:NCE (broadly, not specific to aviation) or our precedent for other arrest articles. Edge3 (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This makes it clear why we have issues as we are mixing up an aircraft event with the the politcal arrest (and I am pretty sure a bomb threat meets the definition you mention as it could effect the safety of aircraft operation, the crew did not know it was a hoax or a contrived act to force the aircraft down) just further supports leaving this alone and spliting off the arrest. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That is making an additional third page Arrest of Roman Protasevich to cover specifically his arrest? That might be an option if more will be known about it, for example about three Russian agents/"citizens" who followed Protasevich on the plane, etc., but I do not think we have enough materials about it right now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Regardless of the outcome of this RM, I would be against splitting this into separate articles about the flight and the arrest. Edge3 (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Strongly agree with My very best wishes --Rsjaffe (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The article is about the broad topic of the events of the flight: the diversion, landing, delay, arrests, and the apparent presence on board of undisclosed security agents. The proposed new title would radically narrow the scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  PS I am surprised by the nominator's closing comment that there was nothing "associated with the operation" of that aircraft that affected or could have affected its safe operation. The article says that FR 4978 had a MiG-29 fighter jet on its tail, which seems to me to be a serious threat to its safe operation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  @BrownHairedGirl: I wouldn't view that as qualifying as an "incident", because the Ryanair aircraft was still able to operate safely, and the fighter jet was merely there to escort the plane to Minsk. Remember, our Wikipedia policy explicitly incorporates the Annex 13 definition of "incident" by reference. Even ICAO itself hasn't referred to this flight as an "incident" in its May 27 press release, and I haven't found any indication that Belarus's civil aviation investigatory agency has decided to investigate this flight as an "aviation incident". Edge3 (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Edge3: your benign view of the fighter jet's presence is, uh, lemme just say interesting and far from universal. As to your point that Belarus's civil aviation investigatory agency is not investigating ... well, of course they aren't. I assume that you write that in good faith, but your comment seems to me to be based on some unusually benign assumptions about the exercise of state power in Belarus.

  And, no it's not true to say that Wikipedia policy explicitly incorporates the Annex 13 definition:

  1. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Aviation is a guideline, not a policy.
  2. I have found no trace of any discussion before the addition of Annex 13 to the guideline, so I see no basis to believe that there is any consensus to apply it rigidly.
  3. The guideline says that "Airline Flight number" should be applied per Annex 13 criteria, but it does not say that "Airline Flight number" may be used only in those circumstances. If you want the guideline to say that, then please open an RFC.
  4. It has the std header for guidelines, noting that it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply
  5. There is no common sense in rigidly applying the guideline in such a way that the scope of the article would be radically and damagingly curtailed.

  So please be much less fundamentalist about the guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Absolutely disagree. Every single notable aspect of this incident was either contrived for the purpose of the arrest, or resulted from it. The arrest is the defining element of the article’s subject. Titling it after that does not narrow the scope beyond including every single one of them in it. —Michael Z. 23:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Mzajac So the MiG "escort" is less notable than the arrest? Let's face it, there is no logical reason for a fighter aircraft to escort an airliner unless it is under threat of attack from a hostile aircraft. A bomb threat should not need a fighter escort, so it was most likely a contingency in case the pilots ignored ATC and continued to Vilnius. I know that it's not what the sources say, but it goes to show that the aviation aspect of the incident is just as relevant, if not greater than the arrest of a few of its passengers. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The shadowing of Pratasevich in Greece, the ATC instructions to divert, the accompanying bomb threat, the fighter intercept, the orders from Lukashenka, the possible KGB passengers who de-boarded in Minsk, the fake stories circulated, the sanctions against Belavia, the French-Russian flights stopped, the Pratasevich hostage interviews, the other things we don’t know about yet—all for the purpose of, or resulting from, one thing: the detention of an independent journalist who reported on Belarus politics. Is it less notable? I’m not sure. But it was not defining, but rather dependent on the other. It was only ordered to facilitate the capture. —Michael Z. 00:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, but is it wise to shift focus away from the 132 occupants on the plane who were possibly in danger of being shot down? To be honest, both the arrest of Protasevich and the flight itself probably deserve their own articles, but if we can only have one or the other (which is what the consensus appears to be), the flight itself is a more broad topic and does the most justice to both aspects of the crisis. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per My very best wishes. Mellk (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the arguments posted in the previous discussion on the matter. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• OpposeMarko8726 (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - per previous RM discussion here. The current title is in accordance with WP:AT and WP:AVIMOS. Other aviation accident and incident articles are hosted at flight number titles, such as those involved in 9/11. There is no good reason that this article should not be housed at its current title. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: WP:AVIMOS isn't part of our MOS or any other guideline, therefore it's inapplicable. As for WP:AT, which you cite, the closer for the previous RM noted that editors claimed the current title doesn't meet the "recognizability and naturalness" criteria. Furthermore, as I explained above, the current title also might not meet the "consistency" criteria in regards to other arrest-related articles on Wikipedia. Edge3 (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Specifically it's WP:AVINAME - just pointing out long-established consensus is that where a flight number is known, the article is generally named in the style "(Airline) (Flight number)". There may be very rare exceptions (usually when more than one flight is involved, e.g. Tenerife disaster), but this article is not one of them. Mjroots (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• WP:CRITERIA is an even longer established consensus and policy, and current title fails at least 3 of the criteria found therein. WP:AVINAME is only WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. WikiProject preference cannot overrule policy. Melmann 11:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that WP:AVINAME, an essay, is inapplicable when it conflicts with a policy or guideline. Edge3 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Melmann May I remind you that WP:CRITERIA also states that "the title [should be] consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." - ZLEA _T\^C 17:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

As currently written, the article focuses on the aviation side of the incident more than the political side. Therefore it must follow the aviation incident convention. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• @ZLEA: The "consistency" argument also cuts the other way. Recall that in my opening remarks, I referenced multiple "Arrest of..." articles on Wikipedia. Most notably, we have Arrest of Abdolmalek Rigi, which also involves the diversion of an international flight. That article is comparable to this matter at issue. Edge3 (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Edge3 I see what you're saying, but as I said in my comment above, the article is currently written like an aviation incident article. Therefore, a major rewrite to shift the article's focus to the actual arrest would need to happen before an "Arrest of" title would be appropriate. Conduct such a rewrite and I would not be opposed to the proposed move. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Except that such a rewrite would be inappropriate under the existing title. If consensus is reached for a move, then (and only then) would it be appropriate to refocus the article. Rosbif73 (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Since a move would be inappropriate without a rewrite and vice versa, here's an idea to fix the dilemma. If you rewrite the article in a sandbox, you can then copy the text to this article at the same time as the move. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per MilborneOne and My very best wishes above. Rwendland (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Rather than rehashing other viewpoints, here's another perspective - If the proposed move went ahead, the article would have to focus on the events that led to the arrest of Roman Protasevich. This would mean that the flight itself (and its subsequent diversion to Minsk National Airport) would be considered "less notable" than Roman Protasevich being arrested, even though the "Legal experts" section focuses solely on the legality of the flight being diverted to Minsk, not the arrest of Roman Protasevich. This would be one example of what BrownHairedGirl meant by "radically narrow the scope". JaventheAldericky (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2021 (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.

Infobox summary wording

The infobox summary was changed from "Forced landing..." to "Emergency landing..." and now reads "Escorted diversion..."

Many references to "forced landing" are qualified as "apparent forced landing". That frequent qualification might make "forced landing" alone unsuitable or unsupported by sources which may have contributed to the first change to "Emergency landing...". However, the article prose currently has no reference to an emergency landing making the verifiability of this alternative difficult as well. As a lay reader, I'm also concerned that the term "emergency landing" inadvertently obscures the fact that the pilots did not land at the closest airport, but instead followed guidance to use a more distant landing site.

I introduced "escorted diversion" as a temporary solution because both terms are already sufficiently supported in the prose, seem to maintain WP:NPOV, and capture key elements of the flight. If you can improve this, please do so with helpful context here and/or in the edit summary. --N8 17:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. In an emergency, the instructions are normally to land at the "nearest suitable airport. The nearest airport may not be suitable - for example, the aircraft may be too high to divert there. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I still like forced. Emergency does not quite cover what actually went down. The "Emergency" was engineered to get the aircraft to land in order to make an arrest of someone onboard. It wasn't an emergency happened and the plane landed where it was convenient to arrest someone. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I would go with "Instructed to land" and perhaps "and arrest of two passengers", as "instruct" is the word used in the Chicago Convention Annex 2 Appendix 2 which defines the interception procedure used: "instruct it to effect a landing at a designated aerodrome". Rwendland (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That is burying the lede. “Instructed to land along with delivery of a bomb threat,” maybe? —Michael Z. 00:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Of course it was forced landing. As NYT phrased it, "Why did the leader of Belarus force a commercial airplane to land?" Not only the crew of the plane was intentionally misled by the false claim about the bomb, but the communications of the crew were cut off (the captain “repeatedly” asked Minsk ATC to provide an open line of communication back to Ryanair’s operations control centre in Warsaw, but was told: “Ryanair weren’t answering the phone”, which was “completely untrue”.[16]). Do you know other cases when Air traffic control would be feeding disinformation to a plane crew? What comes to my mind is of course Smolensk air disaster, a special operation when the government of Poland was killed [17]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Which sources call it "escorted diversion"? Google search returns almost nothing except "MIG-escorted diversion". Search for forced diversion returns a lot more [18]. For example, [19]. So, it should be named accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

"Escorted" and "diversion" are separate facts independently mentioned and sourced throughout the article. They're used together in this case as a summary of the event, not as a novel concept that needs separate verification. The discussion here isn't an accusation that any previous summary was wrong per se. It was raised because the summary was changed several times which we assume to be good faith attempts to improve it. Since we could go round and round in circles with that however, we find it more advantageous to reach a consensus here and update accordingly.--N8 23:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

“Forced diversion” is the best description that is widely used and concisely embodies the defining elements. The existence of the escort is neither here nor there at this time; we don’t even know whether the aircrew was aware of the Belarusian fighter (certainly its potential and presumed intent could be important). The airliner was going to land, but Minsk ATC delivering a bomb threat and controlling communications was used to force it to land at Lukashenka’s chosen destination. —Michael Z. 04:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

We must use some wording (e.g. "forced diversion") that was frequently used in sources instead of WP:SYN. If professionally written RS use it, then so should we. My very best wishes (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, we need to summarise the known facts and not portray one-sided opinion as fact. If you read our account of the event in the 'Incident' section, you'll see the change of destination variously described as "... was diverted to Minsk...", "... were instructed to land the aircraft in Minsk", "... the pilots were told by Belarusian ATC that there was a bomb on board which would be detonated if the aircraft entered Lithuanian airspace, hence the need to divert to Minsk", "... Alexander Lukashenko personally ordered that the flight be re-directed to Minsk...", "Belarusian government news agency BelTA said that the pilots had asked to land in Minsk". The summary of that does not include the assertion that they were 'forced' to do anything. If that is wrong, then the section needs to be re-written to be correct first, then summarised. It makes a mockery of the article if it says one thing in the referenced prose and another in the infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Are you sure it is MVBW who is trying to portray a one sided POV? It is clear that the references support the fact that the aircraft diverted under some duress - The summary needs to cover the element of force involved - escorted does NOT do this. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC).

Andrewgprout, as I said, the summary should be based on the reliably sourced content of our article. If our article is wrong, then that should be corrected first, and then summarised in the infobox. We should not add a summary that does not accurately and neutrally reflect the article content, should we? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The old/default version was "forced landing". N8 started this discussion to find out if there is a consensus to change. Based on this discussion, there is no such consensus. This is because two most common wordings in sources are "forced landing" and "forced diversion". And no, this wording properly reflect content on the page about the plane forced to land by feeding to the crew intentional disinformation and cutting off their communications. Forced landing is defined as a landing by an aircraft made under factors outside the pilot's control, and that is exactly what had happen here. Actually, due to the lack of consensus, old version, i.e. Forced landing should be restored.My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, this article is only just over three weeks old, and this content has never been stable, probably because there is no definitive conclusion as to what exactly happened yet, and there has been no consensus reached amongst editors. BTW, the old version was "bomb hoax" and there is no default version. Perhaps we should leave it blank until a consensus is achieved. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

N8 said the last/previous version was "forced landing" (same by my count). And no, it was not just "bomb hoax". Another descriptive version that existed for some time was "Flight forced to land on the pretense of a bomb threat.". Yes, that was an OK description, but simply saying forced landing is more precise, shorter and supported by multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, the infobox was originally added in this edit, with "Bomb hoax" as the original value as I said. It has been frequently changed since then, with no value becoming stable. Best, I think, to concentrate on getting the prose up to scratch first, and then the summary for the infobox will be easier to decide. Per the current prose, "forced" anything is simply not supported, so not justified. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Apparently only you have such opinion. It is universally described in sources and on the page as a forced landing. Forced landing is just a landing by an aircraft made under factors outside the pilot's control. There are could different reasons for that, including broken engine or whatever. It does not mean the use of physical force. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto I'm confused how for example Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko personally ordered that the flight be re-directed to Minsk with a Belarusian Air Force MiG-29 fighter escort... does not equal forced - the article isn't wrong it is very clear what happened and the summary should reflect that the best it can. In my view forced is the perfect word. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Andrewgprout, even if that unsubstantiated account was true, it doesn't imply that the plane was forced to land. The pilots may have decided themselves, given what they knew at the time, that the best thing to do was to avoid Lithuania and land at Minsk. We have Ryanair's CEO saying that the pilots were told by Belarusian ATC that there was a bomb on board which would be detonated if the aircraft entered Lithuanian airspace. We cannot jump to our own preferred conclusion, ignoring other possibilities supported by what we know - we need to neutrally summarise the reliably sourced account that we have written in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

yeah right! Andrewgprout (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

“Decided themselves”? Being influenced by a (real or fake) bomb threat is precisely “forced.” No different from having a (real or fake) gun to the head. I have no idea what “preferred conclusion” or “other possibilities” you envision, because Belarus also said they conveyed the bomb threat. —Michael Z. 13:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Pilots deciding to land because of a bomb threat is forced landing by definition.My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, no, they were going to have to land somewhere eventually. They're only decision might have been to avoid entering Lithuanian airspace if they thought, as we are told, that would lead to the bomb being detonated. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

They made an emergency landing in Minsk, did not they? As our page "emergency landing" correctly say, "it is usually a forced diversion to the nearest or most suitable airport or airbase". My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, it could be though, depending on which of the accounts covered in our article we choose to concentrate on, that the landing was not the emergency, it was the avoidance of Lithuanian airspace that was the urgent priority. Having avoided that airspace, the next decision was where to make a normal landing. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The National Reactions section

Most of the time on current events articles, we add an excessive number of national reactions the day after an international incident, and a few weeks later we remove the ones that aren't interesting and wouldn't be worth writing up in prose. I have started this process with [20]. Thoughts on how to prune this? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, easy - don't prune it, like this was an aircraft accident or something where reactions are all "thoughts and prayers stuff" and aren't important. We have a long list of countries considering sanctions or expanding existing sanctions. This list is going to get longer not shorter, just due to the nature of this event. - Ahunt (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

力, I support your removal, and would support removal of the rest too. A paragraph of neutral prose summarising the overall message in the responses would suffice. I cannot see any justification for keeping the current list of flag-waving cherry-picked quotes, predictably aligned with their political allegiances rather than being objective or personal in any way. The sooner we realise the pointlessness of these, the better I think it will be for Wikipedia's reputation. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as particularly excessive or problematic, but rather a relatively short list solely of sourced reactions from national governments fitting in with the section. If they were all "We are monitoring the situation" it would be one thing, but they seem to have substance.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

ICAO Report

The ICAO report will be very useful for expanding the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Have removed the obviously erroneous Mig-29 info, but needs quite a bit of thought of how to correct elsewhere which I won't do tonight. For now have tagged "Update section" until someone has the time to think how this should be done. Bits I thought are interesting is that once pilots were told Ryanair classified incident as RED, pilots looked up Ryanair procedure which told them to "land at the nearest suitable airport as directed by ATC or the National Authorities", hence they went to Minsk following company operating procedure. Another was that the radio frequency listed in the flight plan to contact the Ryanair control centre was only supported at Vilnius with radios with a range of 20-30 miles, so pilots couldn't contact Ryanair for advice except via current ATC. But there is lots more of interest for the article. Rwendland (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

There should be a section on ICAO caveats in that they could not confirm how the Minsk ACC knew the email was sent to multiple airports and the fact that ICAO could not reach the initial ACC that recommended the diversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.11.237 (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 04:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Ryanair Flight 4978 → Arrest of Roman Protasevich – The reason that our WP:READERS would be looking for this article, is the arrest of said journalist. This is not really a technical aviation incident like most articles that are named after flight numbers, but a political incident. By far most sources do not write about this incident with its flight number. It could be compared with Evo Morales grounding incident in the terms of the title to use. PhotographyEdits (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per my argument as well as other users' arguments in the last move request. The article has changed little in terms of scope in the year (exactly 365 days, interestingly) since the last discussion. The article still mainly covers the flight details of Flight 4978, with Protasevich's arrest being covered in the "Passengers" section rather than the main "Incident" section. As I said last year, I suggest that a major rewrite be conducted to shift the scope to the arrest before a move is considered. Otherwise, we are breaking the "precision" part of WP:CRITERIA. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - the article is about the flight, not just his arrest. It is possible that there is enough material for the redirect to be turned into an article, but moving this article is not the way to achieve it. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support after rewrite: I would oppose moving the article as currently written; on the other hand the arrest is the main notable aspect of the incident and a move with rewrite/rescope would be beneficial. The problem is that the rewrite would be inappropriate under the current title, so it is essential to have consensus for the whole process. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: A forcible diversion of a commercial flight seems like a suitable topic for an article focused on the aviation incident to me, even though the objective for the diversion was the arrest. The arrest is also covered in the article about Protasevich, so it is not as if his arrest is treated only as an airline incident on Wikipedia. If there is sufficient source material, perhaps a separate article about the arrest could be created, but I don't see a need to repurpose this one to become that. Also, there were two people arrested, not just Protasevich. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is about a commercial flight, not just the arrest of the subject. We don't have Death of Aaliyah, we have 2001 Marsh Harbour Cessna 402 crash. cookie monster 755 00:25, 15 June 2022 (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.