Talk:Smolensk air disaster/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

ILS/NDB/GPS etc

Its about the degree of precision.

An NDB "let down" is not as precise see:

http://stoenworks.com/Tutorials/IFR,%20NDB%20%28ADF%29%20Approaches.html

They flew into a tree, not into the NDB tower. 24.23.197.43 (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

They first hit an antenna, and afterwards -- the plane was too low and off balance -- they hit the trees. See the graphic here.

(red dotted line is actual flight, black solid line the correct flight path) (for non-Poles: Gazeta Wyborcza is one of the two most relaible newspapers in Poland, apart from Rzeczpospolita www.rp.pl)

Number of landing attempts

According to an interview with one of the airport's dispatcher, who was working at the time of the crash, the plane only attempted to land once. [1] _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 08:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, apparently the aircraft circled the aerodrome three times, and crashed on the first attempt to land. It did not make four approaches and abort three times. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

See this section. --Illythr (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And also this animation from Gazeta Wyborcza, which says the same thing. Physchim62 (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Display of aircraft type

I did change the display of the aircraft type from Tupolev Tu-154M to Tupolev Tu-154M, which I think looks neater. The change has been reverted. So, in the spirit of WP:BRD, I'd like to ask which is the preferred method of display here? Obviously I prefer the latter. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Tupolev Tu-154M is clearly better, having the M in black looks silly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Airfield terrain

The western approach to the Smolensk airfield is interesting in that the ground along it slopes rather sharply upward. Along the 3 km straight line from the edge of the airfield the elevation goes through from 211 m to 255 m. (if you take 4.5 km distance, it goes down to 183 m). In other words, the airfield is on a 44 m high hill (or even 73 m, depending on how far from the airfield you measure), from the pilot's standpoint. If the pilots were not keeping track of this and did not climb sufficiently, they could have been too low on approach, and thus clipped the trees and crashed. Various Polish sources are reporting that the landing path was perfect in alignment with the runway, but 10-15 m lower than it should have been.

This data is from Google Earth. I wonder if it would fit within Wikipedia original research restrictions to make a graph of the terrain profile using Google Earth elevation data and upload it to Commons. Any thoughts? Sourcelat0r (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Such graph has been posted here, not sure if this qualified as a good source though: http://www.radioscanner.ru/forum/topic38398-38.html

Thanks. This animation is another way to look at this. It would seem that indeed the slope before the runway was not taken into account by the pilot for some reason. animation. I guess we can wait until reliable sources confirm this theory before making the graph to illustrate. Sourcelat0r (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Polish pilot knew excellent Russian and landed on the airfield three days before

Article: The interview with the air traffic controller suggested that at some point during the flight the Polish pilots stopped responding to the flight communication, allegedly due to their insufficient command of Russian, and the demanding landing conditions Response: Polish Plz correct. Pilot Tu-154M government, which crashed near Smolensk, knew well the Russian language. He knew very well the airport - so the captain Arkady Ivanovich Protasiuku say his superiors and colleagues of the 36th specpułku.

This is a response to suggestions from Smolensk flight controller, which appeared in Russian media. He said that the captain Protasiuk did not deal with the Russian language. Controller itself also had a pilot deal, due to bad weather landing at another airport.

Here one of the pilots 154, Col. Bartosz Stroiński, denies the information about inadequate language skills of the master Protasiuka. He died along with pilot flew to Smolensk three days before the disaster, Prime Minister Donald Tusk.

- Arek spoke perfect Russian. Ideally, both maintained correspondence in Polish, Russian and English. April 7, when we flew there, no one reported any comments - added Colonel Stroiński. --KrysiaSt (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article not include a section to cover the pursuit of potential alternate explanations of the incident?

There are many different opinions out there on what might have happened, and it saddens me to see Wiki limiting itself to just whatever has been approved by the government censors who control the AP wire news service.

Does anyone even question why Putin would head the investigation? What does he know about plane crashes?

Also, the plane in question had recently been repaired in Russia, this DEFINITELY deserves prominent mention.

There are a lot of important details that are being LEFT out or MINIMIZED.

I just think this article needs some balance, thats all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.160.245 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia only includes information from reliable sources: speculation and conspiracy theories have no place here. Physchim62 (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• The media (and certainly this wiki article) make it seem like it's solely the pilot's fault. There was also misinformation that the pilot attempted four landings which has since been proven to be false. At this point, it's easiest to put the blame on the pilots, so that's what the media and editors of this article are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.120.234 (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear 88.16.160.245,

since you are probably the same person whose IP addresses have so far been blocked 3 times (i.e. 83.38.88.209, 83.38.89.237, 79.147.82.3), and a fourth time (83.38.90.51) resulted in this page being "protected" - all because of your vandalism - allow me to tell you that within hours of the incident, in the POLISH media, POLISH aviation experts (e.g. Tomasz Hypki, well known outside Poland, and Tomasz Szulc) came out drawing parallels to the 2008 Mirosławiec incident and pointing out that it was in all likelihood pilot error, and even giving reasons why this error may have occured (should you have any interest in the matter, "The Naked Pilot" is a very good book, and, believe you me, real PILOTS do read it). Instead you chose to bombard us with your demented conspiracy theories (alternative views, my @) for which the only support you might possibly produce comes from, not authoritative sources like experts or serious journalists, but readers' comments in on-line media, where, as we all know, the Twat-O-Tron is in full force the moment anything happens. Now get yourself a bottle of vino tinto ('coz we know where you live) and stop pestering us. G'nite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.164.234 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• This article is now under KGB control. Move along. --Illythr (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL Major lulz! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jros83 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Shhh, don't forget your instructions! Physchim62 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

KGB is the acronym of the Swedish tv journalist Karl Gunnar Bergström. He hasn't commented yet, so he is most likely quite implicated.Strausszek (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exremely suspicious. Those initials couldn't possibly be a coincidence could they? Look out for the initials NKVD-OGPU-NKGB-MGB-KI-MVD-KGB-SVR-FSB-GRU too, and that 'NDB' they talk about, what does that stand for in Russian?, ('Non Directional Beacon'? yeh sure ! ) ;-). --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Russia has NDB beacons that are the same as NDBs in the rest of the world. It's a nondirectional radio beacon. (N419BH (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Threatened Termination of Pilot

Not a bad article. However, one sentence really seems out of place. The article right now states that: "In August 2008, the pilot of Kaczyński's plane was threatened with dismissal when he refused to land in Tbilisi during the South Ossetian war between Georgia and Russia." The source of this is a Russian news website and NOBODY else. The fact that this is coming from a Russian source should be indicated. Also, this makes it seem like he was flying into a war zone. He was there to meet with the presidents of Ukraine, Lithuania, and Estonia, as well as the prime minister of Latvia. Not exactly some outrageous and dangerous visit. At the time of the visit, it was not reported as some heroic act.

Even if true, it is not entirely relevant unless it is shown that the president forced the crew to try something dangerous in THIS case. Right now it's just another attempt to shift the blame to the pilot before everything is known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.178.189 (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to lock this so that no one could add any 'conspiracy theories' bullshit ?? as a Pole I feel ashamed that there are some retarded anit-russian loonies who have to post such crap... oh and if possible restrain from posting speculations about the cause of the accident, while I personally belive that the pilot felt compelled to land there (knowing what happened to the pilot who refused to land in Tibilisin in 2008) there is no need to post information that has not been confirmed --83.20.26.12 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait...is there a source for the statement regarding "what happened to the pilot who refused to land in Tbilisi" or NOT? You may FEEL that he was pressured, but this isn't an article for your feelings. So far all there is one reference in a SINGLE Russian news agency with no independent source. If it happened, why wasn't it reported in any Polish media, which wasn't exactly friendly to Kaczynski? It's not a "conspiracy" theory to ask that the pilot/president not be blamed prematurely.

Don't call people retarded. What, are you in grammar school?

To counter your claim that only the Russian news web site has this info - it was also in the National News of the German state TV ARD (the Tagesschau (Germany)) last night, where it was discussed at length between the reporter in Warsaw and the newscaster in Hamburg. And for the same conspiracy loving 24.12.178.189: He was most definitely flying into a war-zone, where Georgian SAM batteries were duking it out with Russian Ground Attack fighters... --noclador (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Another impossible to verify source. What was the name of the reporter? What was the reporter's source? This website? Again, where is ANY mention of this on a real press website. Not everyone that disagrees with you is "conspiracy loving." I just don't blindly trust something that has no verifiable source. Believe me, if this actually happened, the Polish press would have had a field day. The point is the president wasn't there as some lone fanatic. He was meeting other presidents as well. ALL of them would have to want to go into a dangerous war zone? Now that's a conspiracy...and by heads of state to top it off! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.178.189 (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

then feast your eyes on this sources: New York Times: "Mr. Kaczynski got into a dispute with a pilot flying his plane to the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, according to reports at the time. "; SBS Australia: "On a flight to Tbilisi during the war in Georgia, Kaczynski reportedly entered the cockpit after the pilot said it was too dangerous to land."; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: "Kaczynski befahl damals, dennoch in Tiflis zu landen, was der Pilot allerdings verweigerte." (Kaczynski ordered then to land in Tbilisi, which the pilot refused); also NTV, Süddeutsche Zeitung, and and and... enough sources? and now go back into your basement in the US and stop bothering serious editors with your conspiracy bollocks. --noclador (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with these additional sources. However, noclador, you're acting poorly with name calling. Geez, everyone is very grateful to you for your self-appointed role as "vandalism"/"conspiracy theory" preventer. However, you need to learn some social skills. 1. I did not "vandalize" the page by adding anything to it, just opened a discussion on the "talk page" about what I thought was a premature statement with obvious innuendo that the president is responsible for the crash. 2. Asking for some sources is not a "conspiracy theory." I was concerned about one source and voiced my concerns. Apparently, you feel that you're in charge. Well, you might have appointed yourself major domo, but that only means you have a lot more free time than everyone else. This is what makes wikipedia so frustrating. People whose sole credentials are having time to edit articles boss everyone else. Learn to discuss things with adults, please.

(ec) Indeed a look at English-language coverage reveals that the alleged 2008 incident is sourced to Russian press (Times Online: "Russian media reports said he had once become angry with a pilot who refused to land in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, on the grounds that it was unsafe." ). Reuters [2] does not reveal its sources ("Air traffic control told the pilot of Kaczynski's plane to turn back because it was too dangerous to land in Tbilisi, but the president..."). Perhaps the right course of action is to research Polish press, especially media opposed to Kaczynski. The ultimate source, if it existed, had to be on board the Polish plane (the Georgian controllers and anyone listening to the airwaves could not hear the President, could they?). NVO (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only "the media opposed to Kaczynski" covered the case in Poland, it was very loud with all media. I do not know if providing sources in Polish is of great use for anyone, but I can do that, especially that the case was brought up again this weekend (see for example Gazeta Wyborcza) . The pilot of the plane was ordered by Kaczynski to change the flight path and land in Tibilisi, where it was not safe, and there were recordings of the talk (Kaczynski said an officer pilot should not be "fearful and apprehensive"). The presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were ON BOARD of the plane, not to meet Kaczynski in Georgia. The pilot refused to detour into the war zone, and Kaczynski officially wanted to dismiss him for not following his orders. A formal inquiry ensued, it proved the pilot was right not to obey the president (formally head of military in Poland, but on board of the plane the captain is ultimately in charge), and the pilot was awarded a medal.

Excellent work 212.180.168.196 - the more sources we have the easier it is to sent the vandals packing. Most of these conspiracy freaks work always in the same modus: take the article piece by piece and claim each piece is wrong! naturally they have no sources to prove it and as long as serious editors don't start to look for sources to dispute such ridiculous claims, they continue with their nonsense. Well- thanks to your source this one vandal is now done for! "A few weeks after the incident, Captain Pietruczuk was awarded the silver medal for his contribution to national defense by the Chief of Defence Bogdan Klich, for "due process and a sense of responsibility for the safety of the four presidents on board (besides Kaczynski on the plane were the presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania)." (quote from: Gazeta Wyborcza) Anytime you see more vandalism, please help find us a source (preferably Polish) to counter it. thanks, --noclador (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment re please help find us a source (preferably Polish), as this is the English language Wikipedia, English language sources are preferred. However, it is accepted that in these sort of incidents, sources in the relevant language to the incident are more likely to be available. If an English language source can be found to verify the Polish language source, then that should be added (it may be better to add as an additional ref rather than outright replacement). Anyway, as said above, well done, 212! Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Mjroots: I appreciate that life in Kent must be hard with all them foreigners coming in thru the Chunnel an' all that, but this is Wikipedia (i.e. an encyclopaedia), not the Evening Standard, and therefore *original* sources must be given preference over translations or second hand accounts. Maybe this particular article simply lies outside your area of competence. Advice to budding editors: Don't spread yourself too thinly - at scholarpedia they certainly don't. 88.207.166.233 (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. let's all please remember WP:AGF. As the starter of this article, I don't think it is outside my area of competence. I've got quite a bit of experience in editing aircraft accident articles, and would point you to BOAC Flight 712 as an example of that. The political side is outside my area of expertise, and I've not done much work here in that area. You will note that I wasn't advocating the removal of non-English sources in favour of English ones. What I was advocating was the use of English language sources to strengthen the non-English ones where they are available. It is perfectly acceptable to have a complete article with no English-language sources if there are none available in English, as with De Rat, IJlst, which I created today. BTW, please remember to sign your post with four tildes (like this ~~~~) so that the software can convert it into a signature. This enables editors to know who they are replying to. Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

To end the debatte about the flight to Tbilisi: the response by the Polish Defense Minister Bogdan Klich to a inquiry by the speaker of the Sejm regarding the accident and the subsequent awarding of a medal to the pilot of the presidential plane. So much to the above vandals claim that this event is just a Russian fiction! EOD now on this topic! --noclador (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In 2008 the president gave the pilot a direct order as commander of Poland's armed forces to land, according to the pilot's version of the the event. According to Kaczynski's version, he told higher ranking officers on board the plane to order the pilot to land and they gave him a written order. Still, the pilot refused! To my mind this shows that at least at that time the chief pilot of Polish "Air Force One" was not easily susceptible to pressure. Of course we can only speculate what happened in this crash. Nevertheless, to my mind the previous incident is an argument against the idea that pressure on the pilot was a contributing factor to taking the decision to land. [3]Sourcelat0r (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The 2008 pilot is Grzegorz Pietruczuk. The 2010 pilot was Arkadiusz Protasiuk. --Illythr (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be made clear they were different people, so we don't know whether the 2010 pilot had the same strength of character. Still, the 2008 incident was useful in clarifying the procedures, affirmed that the pilot is the ultimate, unquestioned arbiter in any decisions that affect the safety of the plane, and that not following the president's wishes if they impact safety will not negatively affect the pilot's professional career. In short, it made it less likely that the pilot would be negatively affected by the pressure of VIPs on board in the future. Sourcelat0r (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In any case, it seems now that the pilot was making a first attempt to land, rather than being forced into repeated manoeuvres – "having a look" to see what things are like is hardly unusual. Physchim62 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that reference to pressure on the pilot in several sources, including the major U.S. news agencies. Right now it is just a theory and is labeled as such in both news publications and this article. (N419BH (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Katyn Massacre

The See also link Katyn massacre is way off topic. Suggest its removal. --Haruth (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The crash happened while they were inbound to a commemoration of the event. EVERY single media story that discusses the crash, mentions this fact, either directly or not. Here's the latest BBC story: "...their jet crashed en route to a war memorial service in Russia" from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8614685.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.178.189 (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

removed the link to Katyn in the "See also" section, as it is already linked within the article itself and the "See also" section is for similar, but not directly related articles. --noclador (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal from the see also section. Such sections frequently include links to articles that are relevant to all or a significant part of the article, even if they are not directly related and even if they have been linked in the text. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The see also section is intended to harbor links that are relevant somehow, but not included into article text. However, the Katyn massacre is linked to from the first paragraph of the article - it's really hard to miss. Therefore, a link in the see also section is not needed. --Illythr (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

leave the link there. that was the reason why they travel there at the first place. so yes, it is important!

Katyn masacre and this are VERY related. 71.99.95.93 (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, "see also" is for similar topics. The Katyn Massacre is already linked in the article; placing it in "see also" is redundant and unnecessary (N419BH (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Agree it shouldn't be there for the same reasons as the above editor. RutgerH (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

MISTAKE uncorrected

as already discussed on the talk page and already corrected in the introduction, "четвёртый разворот" (literally "fourth turn"), means "final turn" in English terminology. the Russian technical term has consequently been mistranslated by several media outlets.

The article, despite having gotten rid of the mistake in the introduction, repeats it in the body text ("Russian state television reported that the jet crashed about 200 metres (660 ft) short of the runway on its FOURTH ATTEMP TO LAND in heavy fog.") [emphasis added]. All Russian sources that I've read and / or heard / watched spoke of the "четвёртый разворот" (again, literally "fourth turn" but being properly translated as "final turn"). And then all the English-language media speak of a "fourth attempt". It's obviously, as already discusses above (look at a previous talk point), a widely disseminated translation mistake.

So it should be corrected. (Because here it's obviously a 'false friend')

Seems to have been fixed now. Physchim62 (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's because I fixed it . Mjroots (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

One more if I could be so bold...

• Paragraph 2 states after the pilots attempted a go-around
• Paragraph 3 states ... he decided to attempt one landing... The plane crashed in this attempt...

Which one is now accepted as accurate? --Haruth (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Para 3 is correct. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Fixed Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There's also the problem of the distance from the runway: the crash site "varies" from 200 to 1500 metres from the end of the runway. The animation from Gazeta Wyborcza seems to but ground impact about 1000 metres from the runway, which fits with the satellite pictures which show a wooded area there, but it would be touching on WP:OR to stick that in the article without asking for comments. Physchim62 (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong - at 1 minute in the video the Polish text reads that the "airplane wreckage falls 200m in front of the airport" - the 1000m mark is where the plane hit the antenna! --noclador (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also the video says 0:19min that "Before the landing approach the pilot performed three laps of the airport at an altitude of several hundred meters," (the rest of the sentence I do not get) so the plane circled the airport 3 times before attempting to land. --noclador (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ooops, sorry, yes, that's my mistake, the Gazeta Wyborcza animation shows the plane flying over the road to Smolensk and crashing on the airbase side, which makes it 200–300 m based on the animation. As GW have real live journalists on site, I'm inclined to believe their geography! Physchim62 (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Distance information still unclear.

• Paragraph 2 of the lead section states "fell into the trees 1.5 kilometres (0.9 mi) from the airfield"
• Paragraph 2 of the accident section states "The plane crashed in this attempt 200 m (650 feet) short of the runway" and further indicates the NDB mast to be 1km from the end of the runway.

--Haruth (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wreckage is spread over a wide swath. Plane made initial contact with trees 1.5 km away, bulk of the fuselage came to a stop much closer to the runway. Sourcelat0r (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Political disasters

Apart from this plane crash and the 1984 Brighton hotel bombing are there any more examples of incidents involving the deaths of a number of political and other administrative leaders? (Likely to be too few and too disparate in nature to create a WP list). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a list of accidents of this type would be a short list, but the term incidents is vague and might include incidents like the Nuremberg Trials and the Stalin purges. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Should have been 'in a single event.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There was also the 1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash which killed U.S. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Wackywace (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The crash of Zia ul-Haq's plane at Multan, Pakistan in 1988 comes to mind. There were lots of military top brass on board apart from the dictator himself, and under obscure circumstances the plane became instable, flew into a mountain side and exploded - most likely someone had either hijacked the aircraft or fixed something up with the stabilization systems and/or engines - but some inquirers said everyone on board had been made unconscious by gas minutes before ground impact. The crash meant the end of Zia's regime and the first return of Benazir Bhutto.

Also, in 1712, the son and grandson of Louis XIV and their wives died, probably of measles. There was no effective treatment at the time, so France was left with a yawning gap in the succession at a very critical time and an infant boy - the future Louis XV - to succeed the old king three years later. Not a single violent event, but they were near each other and were put to bed by some kind of mutual contagiation.

See also Stockholm Bloodbath - in 1520, the Danish king, Christian the Tyrant, and a previously deposed archbishop had near a hundred men put to death in public over two days in the main city square of Stockholm. Key persons among the killed belonged to the Swedish high nobility and were allies of former de facto kings of Sweden, who had opposed the Danish monarch; two bishops were decapitated too. having been "part of the cabal". Out in the countryside, monks were killed too. At the time, Sweden, Denmark and Norway were united in a derelict personal union so Christian had claims to be the rightful king; he had actually just been crowned king of Sweden and held banquets with some of the people hwho were then ringed, tried for high treason and whose heads were then chopped off.

The article about that here on WP is not great, it sounds 19th century, I'm planning to revise it from modern historical writing, but there's not much doubt it was a determined attempt to wipe out a part of the political elite which Christian felt might oppose him. Ironically, it provoked a new surge of resistance and the final coming apart of the union. Strausszek (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

§ § Don't think anyone has brought this one up yet. You guys might be too young to remember it, Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira from April 6, 1994. Which led to or triggered at least the Rwandan Genocide. One 'crash' 2 presidents of neignbouring African countries dead! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's exclude outright coup d'etats, revolutions and events that were directly part of a war or the list would become too long. Any self-respecting military coup kills off a number of leading men from the earlier regime (the Zia crash wasn't foillowed up by anyone stepping forward and grabbing the reins immediately afterwards, so it wasn't a coup although it removed him and fatally weakened his regime). Pinochet and Saddam for instance both had many leading men killed on the day they took power or immediately after. Btw didn't Caligula massacre a lot of senators? Strausszek (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, adding all this into the article about an air crash is not the greatest idea. In fact, I think it's terrible. I suggest we impale it. --Illythr (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the OP's idea was to set the list up here. Seems more like he/she was suggesting to start an article on its own listing this kind of multi-leader/top-ranking-persons fatalities incidents. The idea sounds okay to me. Strausszek (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

More a query as to whether there were any other examples - if there are sufficient to create a WP page (or Wikinfo/other suitable site) do so - and possibly have a few 'notable examples of aftermaths of coups.' The Night of the Long Knives might be included. 'Eliminations over periods of time' (eg the Great Purges) should be excluded. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Error in Cause

Wiki should list cause as undetermined, suspicious.

To go along with the MSM lies is not exactly encyclopedic.

Vote?

88.16.183.146 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The cause remains as under investigation until such time as an official report is released. Expect this to be a minimum of a month before we can reasonably expect a preliminary report. It could be 2 years or more before a final report is released. There is WP:NORUSH. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the same troll who has already been blocked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No ' vote', wp:consensus ! This was not even 3 days ago (≈66 hours). Investigation is barely started. Cause Unknown , so far. Conspiracy theories in the article? No thanks! Concur 100% with Mjroots--220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Pechyorsk or Smolensk?

Does anyone know whether the site where the crash occured belongs to Pechyorsk or to Smolensk? I was unable to find a political map showing the borders between cities of the region around Smolensk. 92.231.208.12 (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that Pechyorsk even has official boundaries. According to our article on the subject, the Smolensk district (Смоленский район), outside of the city of Smolensk, is divided into 19 rural okrugs (сельские округа), and Pechyorsk is far from being the 19th largest settlement in the Smolensk district. It's not clear whether the crash site is administratively in the city of Smolensk or the surrounding district, but it is very close to the city in either case. Personally, I wouldn't even bother including Pechyorsk at all: assuming that OpenStreetMap is accurate, the crash site is at least as near to the city of Smolensk as it is to Pechyorsk (Печёрск). Physchim62 (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bradtaylor, 13 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} It might be better to change "Pilot ignoring advice from air traffic control" to something like "Air traffic control advice ignored by pilot" to sound more like a paragraph title.

Bradtaylor (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sound good to me.

 Done and thanks! ^Avicenna_sis @ 05:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Photos from crash place

Here. Thanks to Stauffenberg. Kobac (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Language issue in crash

See "Air traffic control advice ignored by pilot" section. The language could not have been much of an issue. Polish government planes have been flying to Russia for years, including to Smolensk, and no complaints about communication difficulties between pilots and ground have been heard. Same crew flew the Tu-154 to Smolensk with Tusk on April 7 and there was no problem with communication then (though the weather was better, admittedly). Anyway, if the official investigation reveals this to be a problem, then we can say more about it, until then we don't need a separate section for this issue. (quote of Sourcelat0r from User talk:Chumchum7)

Thankyou very much for your reply. I think that WP:Verifiability says the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not what editors think true. I've found a verifiable source which seems relevant. Language misunderstanding is very different to 'Air traffic control advice ignored by pilot'. Is it really WP:NPOV to have a big section blaming the pilot and highlighting the wisdom of air traffic control? Surely, language issues are dangerous and one of several plausible theories - why should we omit that possibility? -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the section am proposing, with sub-head 'Language barrier': The Wall Street Journal reported: "Language barriers may have contributed to the crash, it emerged Monday. One of the controllers at the airfield said in a verbatim interview published in Russian daily Komsomolskaya Pravda that the pilots and controllers had trouble communicating in a mix of broken English—the global standard for air-traffic controllers—and broken Russian." -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

All we have is "may have contributed". Do we really need a new section for this issue, instead of adding relevant information to existing ones? In a few days flight recorder data will be released and then we will have the full picture. Why not wait until then? Sourcelat0r (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree if there was no section on theories at all, or if you wanted to remove them all. All I'm saying is they seem to come down pretty hard on the pilot (which the black box may or may not prove to be an accurate hypothesis) while omitting another perfectly legitimate verifiable theory. I have WP:NPOV concerns. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If communication was the problem then the pilot is at fault as well, unfortunately, because in that case he should have diverted to Moscow where controllers speak English. Landing in fog is tricky, and if he thought he is having trouble receiving vital information from the ground, he should have aborted the landing.

Anyway, feel free to add the section if you see the need for it. Sourcelat0r (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right that it is the pilots fault, and I'm certainly not attempting to exonerate him. Its just a verifiable theory to add to the list. Thanks for reaching agreement in this courteous manner. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

I've added 2 days auto-archiving to this page, remove it from the top of the page if you object and then discuss below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

96 or 97?

Was it 96 or 97 people on the plane? Different medias say different things. Karbuncle (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Official lists (refs 3 and 4) say 96. --Illythr (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Proposal

I am proposing this article for deletion. The plane crash is not notable, but the death of the president is. So all the information should be on the page about the polish president. This article is not notable and therefore not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.123.67 (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

— 98.158.123.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A formal proposal for deletion should be made at WP:AFD. However, since the air crash is a major news event, it appears to satisfy WP:GNG as a standalone article. It would be off WP:TOPIC to include too much detail in the biography of Lech Kaczyński, who was one of a number of people to die in the crash.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think so. Rather most of this article is about the death of the polish president, so should all be part of his page. There is no need for this article as its not notable, and delete as per norm. All the other politicians are minor politicians, and a breif mention on their page should be enough.98.158.123.67 (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.26.4 (talk)

Feel free to go to AFD with it, and brace for all the speedy keeps that will follow. --Illythr (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And brace yourself for being banned from this site for disruption. Physchim62 (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Major air crashes usually have articles looking in detail at the events. A deletion proposal is likely to risk WP:SNOW rejection.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering this for deletion is ridiculous. This article contains lots of information completely irrelevant to the president. Not NOTABLE? Don't forget that 96 other people died. This definitely deserves its own article. Icedragz (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add any more food. --Illythr (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the world might first off notice the death of the president, but actually the chopping down of much of the top command of the military, of several MPs and church dignitaries and so on, makes it much more than the death fo a single man. It's unparalleled in peacetime in any western country for I don't know how far back, but at least for 150 years. Strausszek (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and nominate it for deletion if you must, but your AFD nomination result will be "speedy keep" because every airliner crash is deemed notable enough for Wikipedia. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about 'every airliner crash' is notable. Presuming you mean any airplane (since this was a military plane, not a regularly scheduled airline) then there are plenty of small single person planes that crash and if they don't involve notable people or have anything else ususual we don't tend to end up with articles, even coverage in RS may be rather limited. However a crash which kills 96 people, the highest for the year so far and including quite a few of the important people of a country like the already mentioned President but also 6/7 of the top military commanders or something et al, with allthe associated mourning, political ramifications etc well yes there's no dispute that that's notable. Nil Einne (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The notability guidelines for air accidents and incidents are at WP:AIRCRASH. This incident definitely meets criteria: L3 (Smolensk Oblast) and P1. It also arguably meets A1 (most significant Tu-154 accident) and C1 (most significant crash of a flight carrying national leaders); possibly M1 and M3 (although I don't think it meets the spirit of M3) and potentially M2 (although that's speculation at this point). So it's clear that it is more than notable enough for it's own article (the guidelines are in beta testing, but the only discussion is that they're not lenient enough in some specific areas for some people). Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean "airliner", though I was very vague about the term "crash". I meant a hull loss. (There's talk about hull-loss crashes being automatically notable over on the WP:AIRCRASH talk page; I thought that was already the guideline.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comet Tuttle, that is the main area where consensus has not been established (hull losses). If nothing else, the death toll alone would be more than sufficient to establish notability (i.e. even if no Wikinotable people had been involved, it would still have sustained an article). Mjroots (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not that familiar with that word, according airliner and what I believe is the common definition of the word, it doesn't seem particularly relevant since this isn't operated by an airline so isn't an airliner even if the the plane may be called an airliner if it were. However, I don't know if the definition use among plane enthusiast differs. In any case, as I've stated this crash is clearly notable even if it didn't involve an airliner. P.S. I also agree about the crash point, I was thinking of adding an example of a potentially non notable incident involving a large commercial aeroplane and something that could be called a crash but decided not to bother to avoid discussion over what could be called a crash. Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Poland's" should be a Wikilink

The word "Poland's" in the 1st sentence of the lead should be a Wikilink leading to the Poland article as not everyone knows what and where Poland is.--162.83.224.243 (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. President and Lech Kaczyński are linked, which is enough for the lead to avoid ambiguity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your personal opinion does not matter (see WP:NPV), so just do it instead of wasting time.--162.83.224.243 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your request is hearby ignored as a consequence of WP:CIVIL. Physchim62 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not our problem some people failed basic geography and history. 130.56.93.135 (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's done. Let's all move on ... WWGB (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Poland's President would be better than Polish, because Polish may also pertain to any institution in Poland, e.g. an association of gum chewing. Shorter sentences would be better, e.g.: "...including Poland's President Lech Kaczyński and 42 other officials en route to the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre nearby. The crash also took lives of... . Katyn is located...". Physchim62, you do not want to make the correction for feeling offended? That is a good one... .--162.83.224.243 (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Poland's President --Kslotte (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And so the sourced conspiracy theories begin...

In March, Georgian Imedi TV broadcast a hoax report on a Russian invasion of Georgia; the report of which included the scenario of Lech's aircraft being blown up, and killing him. It should be noted that the hoax report is believed by the Georgian opposition to be the handy work of Saakashvili. This has led the usual suspects in Russia to come out and claim that this crash was an assassination, and pointed to the Georgian propaganda broadcast as evidence of some Nostradamus-like vision. Here's an article by Valeria Novodvorskaya, one of the usual conspiracy theorists; she doesn't really have anything to say, except claiming that every Russo-Polish dispute in the past is evidence that the Russian state is behind this. She also called the screening of Katyn on Russian TV, "a piece of cheese in a mousetrap". What's the saying about opinions and everyone having one? Expect more insightful theories such as this in the coming days and weeks -- how many of them get included in the article, well that is up to editorial discretion I guess. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? Hobartimus (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories should only be mentioned if they are reported by a WP:RS other than the source that gave the theory in the first place. Otherwise, they should be kept off the article. Available evidence so far indicates pilot error, nothing more. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I despise conspiracy theories such as this as much as the next person; particularly when they come from the fringes of political society, as this has. But Grani.ru is a reliable source, in so far as it is reliable for reporting the opinion of the person who offered it; who is actually notable (usually for her polemical statements). Grani.ru used to be owned by Boris Berezovsky (anti-Kremlin guru), and is now owned by Leonid Nevzlin‎ (Yukos-connected, and is now a fugitive from Russia living in Israel); and it tends to report much anti-Kremlin opinion and reports. I would expect this to be discussed on Echo Moskvy at some point. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I bet the next thing they say (if questioned along those lines) would be that Amelia Earhart had been shot down by Japanese Zeros and held prisoner in a cave on some desert island, and then sent back to the US in 1945 under another name! Any media owned (even formerly) by Berezovsky is not to be trusted in the absense of corroborating evidence, period! 24.23.197.43 (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Eurgh! Who gives a rats...!! Conspiracy theories? Go start the page at Conspiracies surrounding the 2010 Polish air force crash. Let's try to stick to the known, recorded, verifiable facts here, please. --Haruth (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This section has no place here: who can possibly believe that a fictional television programme is a reliable source! I have removed this section twice now, but Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on reinserting it: this is disruptive editing. Physchim62 (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, this section is discussing whether or not conspiracy theories should or should not be in the article. It is here to garner consensus on the question. Thus it is in accordance with talk page guidelines as it is aimed at improving the article by either a) including sourced info or b) keeping conspiracycruft out of the article, per consensus. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Russavia means to warn us that speculation has started in notable media (in Russia, at least), which is going to help the vandals/fringe POV-pushers here. --Illythr (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No-one one has claimed here that a fictional programme is a reliable source. However, a reliable source has printed opinion from a notable person, in which the claim is made that the depiction of the blowing up of the P.P.s aircraft in a hoax report is the "first sign" that the Russian state is behind this crash, and hence L.K.'s assassination. Therein lies the difference. Get it? I think that Mjroots and Illythr do. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have left a message at User_talk:Physchim62#Don.27t_remove_other_people.27s_comments_from_article_talk_pages to advise against the removal of comments from talk pages. Let me make it perfectly clear, I am not arguing for the inclusion of this conspiracy theory into the article; far from it. But as has been evidenced on this talk page already, there have been unsourced editorial opinions on what/who may or may not be behind the crash. These comments have been removed from the talk page (and rightly so). But here is a sourced opinion (as whacked out as it is to an objective person) from a notable person in what is a reliable source. It is only early days, but one can only expect other's to jump on the bandwagon. Welcome to Russian-topics on Wikipedia! From my own editing history, I have encountered, the failure to clean one's car being construed by some Russian and lots of Western media as a State-backed assassination attempt, a kiss on a boy's belly in a photo-op being used to accuse that person of paedophilia, pilot error in a plane crash being construed as an assassination because the subject apparently knew that Putin's real parents were Georgian; and it isn't restricted to those who one would usually pass off as being kooky, but even Pete Souza (White House photographer) claims this is Putin. The world is full of conspiracy theories, and the conspiracy theorists know that anything to do with Russia is good business sense (sells print!). I am not in the least bit surprised that Novodvorskaya is the first to really make her conspiracy theory known - note in her article she claims that everyone from Putin to Aviakor is to blame for the crash; everyone but the pilot. And more will follow, and they will get exposure in the media. And people will come to insert such things into the article, and they will use valid arguments such as WP:CENSOR, WP:NOT, WP:V, etc in order to include the theories into the article, and may even note (and perhaps rightly so) that it was pilot error, or whatever, is still but a theory. And even if, and when, the investigation is complete, some will still not believe anything which has the words "official" and "Russian" in the same sentence. At the moment, Novodvorskaya's opinion is WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE for the article, but given time, conspiracy theories such as that are going to be more notable. Now do people get what is being said? :) --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is still early days, and none of the proposed conspiracy theories has picked up the same iconic status as the grassy knoll. It was inevitable that some conspiracy theories would emerge, but there is a need for caution unless they receive coverage in a range of reliable sources. Otherwise, there could be issues with WP:UNDUE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

From the information available in the medial it seems that it was a combination of 'bad weather, trees getting in the way, human error, and possibly an intervention to get the plane down and the ceremony going' (and possibly some negative emotions given the context). And - who would benefit from such an action, if deliberate ('creating a scandal'/'revealing inappropriate activity' would have less negative impact if a connection were revealed. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A specific example

A Polish MP has claimed that the crash was engineered by Russia. This was reported in the Daily Mail in the UK. The addition of that info was reverted with the claim that the Daily Mail is not a WP:RS.

If we are to have a section in the article, entries would need to be carefully worded to make it clear that it is speculation. In this case, the entry could read something like - The Daily Mail reported that Polish MP Artur Gorski claimed that the crash was engineered by Russia.

Comments on the inclusion or exclusion of this example welcome. Let's try and establish some sort of consensus because this issue is not going to go away. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I should also note that communication difficulties have already been discussed elsewhere in the article, and that is why I removed your the text. Nevertheless, the article itself is rather odious and I was reacting to that. My edit comment should have been more clear in this respect.

Anyway, there are plenty of more reliable Polish and Russian sources giving information about the crash, there is really no need at all to drag Daily Mail in here. Sourcelat0r (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't me that added the text. I merely brought the issue up here for discussion. At the moment, I'm neutral on whether or not such claims should be included. If they are to be included, the wording needs to be clear that these are theories and not fact. It also needs to be clear who said what and where what was said was reported. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by an obscure Polish backbencher are not relevant here. There will be plenty of conspiracy theories about this flight, but it's too early to put them in at this point. We don't have any obligation to put trash in Wikipedia. Sourcelat0r (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If Artur Górski said this, it would be best to find the original Polish quote. Not to put too fine a point on it, Artur Górski appears to be a bit of a fruitcake (every country has them).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

We have no obligation to put in a comment by every fruitcake into this article. Sourcelat0r (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the story in Polish. There are some abusive comments to go with it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I was going to. Sourcelat0r says "Comments by an obscure Polish backbencher are not relevant here." But at the same time, comments by the very same obscure nationalist Polish backbencher also created a diplomatic incident when he referred to Obama as the "black messiah of the left". We have to remember that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL - i.e. Wikipedia is not a memorial, as much as one wants to memorialise the subject/s. However, at the moment, again like the example I presented, it is WP:UNDUE for the article; due to the sheer amount of sources out there, the amount which cover boneheaded comments like the one above and the example I presented, is due to be quite low, so that UNDUE will surely come into play. But hey, the media is the media, and they lap up crap like the two examples that have been presented so far, so there surely will be some notability to comments like those, but at the moment, it doesn't exist; at least not within the confines of the sheer wealth of information which is already out there on the subject. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to wrap this up, on Wednesday Górski apologized for his comments, explaining that he was speaking "in a state of shock", only a few hours after he learned about the crash, when he had no access to any information as to the circumstances in which it occurred. link. Sourcelat0r (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is notable enough to go in Artur Górski, but fails WP:UNDUE for this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) antenna or a tree

What did plane hit antenna or a tree?? Elendal (talk)

The animated reconstruction here has the plane circling the runway several times, then striking the beacon on the landing approach before hitting trees. However, this will need to be confirmed by the official investigation, which may take a while.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Found no official data about antenna. If u see wikimapia, crash site is on left side relative to antenna.--Ll0l00l (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the antenna in question is perfectly intact, as you can see on this collage of photos from the crash site: http://s40.radikal.ru/i089/1004/14/095459e246f5.jpg Dart evader (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh Really?

Large swathes of the talk page have been deleted. Now, I understand there are wacky things tossed around in here, however I was under the impression that wholesale deletion of sections in talk pages was heavily frowned upon...? I also like how my comment about Wikileaks being both unaffiliated with wikipedia.org and also being notoriously agenda oriented and biased has been removed. Hmm. Weird. It was not out of context, as it was in refernce to another editor claiming they were waiting for Wikileaks to release something on the subject. But I digress. Don't delete chunks of talk pages. Jersey John (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The "deleted" material can be found in Talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash/Archive 1. The page was archived because it exceeded 100k and was too large per WP:SIZE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Guess what? They are magically not in the archived section either. But then I didn't expect they would be. You're good at your work, Goebbels. Jersey John (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not archive the talk page, and please assume good faith. The comments may be in the talk page history somewhere, but may have been removed if someone thought that they were comments in breach of WP:NOTAFORUM.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Translation: YOU did not want them there so YOU left them out. I see. Thanks for clearing it up. Jersey John (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks, I have already told you that someone else archived the talk page. Please look in the talk page history for your contributions, as I am busy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee (talk · contribs) removed two sections from this talk page citing WP:NOTFORUM. I did consult with another admin over this and he is of the opinion that the removal was a correct action. It is possible that your edits were amongst the removed sections. I know that some of my comments were. Mjroots2 (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM doesn't apply to discussion pages. Discussion pages are here for a reason, to discuss what to put in the main page. If someone says something wrong or miscategorized, that has to be fixed, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.68.10 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC) [4]

Um did you read what you're discussing? "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance". Talk pages are indeed for discussing what goes in the article. They're not however intended to be a forum. If people start on forumy discussions that don't relate to improving the article, then deletion is always an option particularly on pages like this where it easily gets out of hand Nil Einne (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I did not add that last unsigned line. Jersey John (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone thought you did but anyway I added a signature (was planning to earlier but got distracted) Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Current event

How long should this remain a current event for? Icedragz (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and removed the tag, as the initial flow of news items has slowed down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I thinks it's too early to remove the template, as the event still tops the newsfeeds regularly. Maybe leave it on until the investigation concludes (should be a few more days)? --Illythr (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The "current" template should be used sparingly, and nothing signficantly new has occurred in the last 24 hours. An article can always be updated.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Katyn Massacre (2)

Let's try again... The final sentence of the lead section now states "The site of the massacre is approximately 19 kilometres (12 mi) west of Smolensk."

This article is about an aircraft disaster.

I fully appreciate that the plane was carrying dignitaries to an event at the location of the massacre, a point which is clearly stated in the sentence immediately preceding this one, and which contains an appropriate link. However, the massacre is not in any way, shape or form associated with the content of this article, in anything other than cursorily indicating the purpose of the flight.

As far as the 'location' of the massacre is concerned, it is completely irrelevant and the sentence should be removed. --Haruth (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's irrelevant. It indicates why that particular airfield was used, and why there may have been some pressure to land there. WWGB (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WWGB, it provides context as to why Smolensk was the flight's destination instead of somewhere further away that may have had better facilities. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It also gives the context as to why there were so may important figures on the plane. Physchim62 (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with that. Currently, as a separate sentence, massacre is equated with the event covered in this article.

Suggest merge the two sentences along the lines of: They were en route from Warsaw to attend an event to mark the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre to be held at the site, approximately 19 kilometres (12 mi) west of Smolensk.

--Haruth (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep it as is. The site of the massacre is important as it explains why the airfield was being used and why there may have been extra pressure to land there. Combining the two sentences makes it hard to read. (N419BH (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

Antenna theory

I think we can delete the section on the antenna being the reason for the crash. This images shows that the plane hit tree to the right left of the still intact antenna. Also it is obvious now that the plane hit very close to the airfield - so the 200m are the right distance of the impact from the airfield. Shall we remove the Antenna theory section now or leave it there until it is officially discarded? --noclador (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To the left of antenna, not to the right. BTW, there is another good satellite photo of the crash site with the wreckage location clearly seen: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2763/4515204703_07f966c125_o_d.jpg . Perhaps this photo could even be linked from the article itself. Dart evader (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good image - although I do not now from where to link it in the article... as for the crash itself; a German tabloid reported today that "The left wing then hit the antenna mast, before the plane rotated around the mast and twisted up by almost 90 degrees to the ground." it seems now that not the antenna but the tree "6" was the the object hit by the left wing (evidenced by the deviation of the flight path in the image afterwards and also by tree "9", who is slashed diagonally). Does anyone know what the Polish papers write tonight about the crash cause? --noclador (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

2001 Avjet Aspen crash

Would others object to removing 2001 Avjet Aspen crash? From what I can tell, there is only one definitive similarity that is pilots trying to land when they shouldn't have but I presume these aren't that rare a cause of accidents. The other case also involved pressure on the pilots from the (charter in that case) crewpassengers however while there has been speculation there may have been pressure in this case, it remains highly speculatory while with some mention in the article it's IMHO it's a bit earlier to put the see also. The other see also for non Polish crashes all involve the death of leaders or multiple other high ranking officials Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove. Link appears based on earlier speculation and should only be included if the preliminary report from the black boxes confirms similar circumstances here. --Haruth (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Explanation: I added the link to the Aspen crash because of the major similarities involved. Both accidents appear to be related to descent below minimum descent altitude (MDA) without proper runway environment in sight, advice from controllers to divert, warnings from controllers that the aircraft was too low, and possible pressure exerted on the flight crew by influential passengers. I therefore added the link to the Aspen crash as an example of a similar accident. Although I agree the cause of the Polish crash is yet to be officially determined, I believe the link is warranted as an example of a similar incident. Should the official investigation begin to move toward a different cause, I will personally remove the link. In the interim, I can label the Aspen accident as "possible similar incident" or something along those lines should consensus warrant it. Thoughts? (N419BH (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

Keep. I agree with N419BH, major similarities involved. --Kslotte (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed; As I think the link does not improve on the understanding of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash article I removed the Aspen and a second link. My reasoning is that someone coming to this article wants information about the crash in Smolensk, the passenger on board the plane, the events implications for Poland and the worlds reaction to the event. Therefore the first three links (Aircraft crash of Polish prime minister Sikorski, 1943, Mirosławiec air accident, 2003 Polish Air Force Mi-8 crash) merit to be here as they are mentioned in the article (the latter two) and the first is of a similar event (in regards to the Polish Prime Minister dying). Of the next 4 links (1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash, 2001 Avjet Aspen crash, Aircraft crash of Macedonian president Trajkovski, 2004, 2006 Nigerian Air Force Dornier 228 crash) two merit to be left there as in the case of the first and third article it also was a nations president, who died in the plane crash. As for the other two: the 2006 Nigerian Air Force Dornier 228 crash is a stub of no value to anyone, who wishes to follow up with information about the crash in Smolensk and the 2001 Avjet Aspen crash is only connected to the Polish case, because of the probable Controlled flight into terrain. For anyone who comes to this article it is of little value to follow this link. There was not a single person worthy of mentioning on wikipedia on the Aspen flight and just to link it because of the similar end of the plane is a stretch! Therefore removed the link. --noclador (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Objection of removal of link 2006 Nigerian Air Force Dornier 228 crash, link re-added. The accident as such is related even if it is a stub article. Having a see also is a way to get related articles improved. Orphans don't get improved in a wiki environment. --Kslotte (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Does not appear to be anything of relevance to this accident in the Dornier crash. List of fatalities from aviation accidents lists a number of accident that have killed presidents - none of them notable to this accident. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Object:Consensus was not established for removal. The link is relevant because it provides an example of a uniquely similar accident from a circumstances perspective. Just because a president was not onboard does not mean the link is invalid. The Aspen crash, as mentioned above, has almost all of the same elements as the Polish crash. I will wait for consensus to be established before reinstating the link. N419BH (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The same elements are 1) Descent below MDA without sighting the aircraft 2) Advice from the air controllers. As I said, are these really that rare in aircraft crashes? If they are then fine but my guess is the answer is not really. Suggestion of any pressure on the pilots from the passengers is still complete speculation in this case, and therefore should not be considered as relevant. If and when we have better evidence that pressure on the pilots was a factor then fine, but there's no reason we can't wait until we have better evidence Nil Einne (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request, 14 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I think that you could copy and translate the table of the officially mourning countries worldwide:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katastrofa_polskiego_Tu-154_w_Smole%C5%84sku&stable=1#.C5.BBa.C5.82oby_narodowe

and the map of the offcially mourning countries worldwide:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plik:Official_mourning_after_2010_Polish_plane_crash_map.svg&filetimestamp=20100414181550

Musashi miyamoto (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Both can be found at the respective main article: International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. --noclador (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But that article is considered for deletion: "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy."Musashi miyamoto (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there is always someone, who proposes any new highly visible article for deletion - but that will not happen in this case as it is an important event... there is a lot of discussion, then someone will close the discussion and that's it. There was similar deletion attempt at: List of casualties of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash and the article is still here. --noclador (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: As above & The article is being preposed for deletion because it might not be encyclopedic. Therefore, if it doesn't belong there, it doesn't belong here. Besides, it could turnout to be a merge or keep in the end. /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So why is it considered encyclopedic in the Polish wikipedia? Are the rules between the two so different? Are they different at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musashi miyamoto (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing MWOAP's point. You should add the details to International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. (Actually I missed the point above, someone already has.) The fact that the article is being considered for deletion is irrelevant. If the article is deleted which given the state of the AFD is unlikely, that means none of the info is considered suitable for inclusion in the English wikipedia so you can't bring it here. If the outcome is a merge, then the info will be added to this article then. If the result is keep, then it demonstrates an article covering that stuff including the stuff you are proposing adding to this article is better covered in depth in a seperate article. Ultimately, there's no reason why we need to cover such details in depth in this article at the current time when we already have another article covering the same details where the info is a much better fit. I don't know anything about the rules of the Polish wikipedia, but each wikipedia sets its own rules and they are often fairly different. Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The table was removed from this article because it was taking up too much space, to put it bluntly. Instead, the table is in a separate article and this page has summaries of the reactions in the two countries most involved, Poland and Russia. I don't think the map serves any useful purpose: is the whole of Africa to be written off as heartless just because it didn't jump through the hoops to get on the map? And apparently Spain observed official mourning, although I didn't notice it: A minute's silence at the start of the Clásico between Barça and Madrdid doesn't actually count as "official", however much it might seems like it... Physchim62 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

References

The article is well referenced, however, there is a bit of a mish-mash of styles. It may be a little early at the moment, but at some point someone is going to need to go through the refs and use {{cite web}} where appropriate for all refs, and add the |lang= parameter to those non-English sources. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we should wait a week or so for the media hype to die down and a more detailed picture to emerge before embarking on a comprehensive style edit. N419BH (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I have requested and received indefinite semi-protection of this article due to numerous cases of vandalism from IP address users. I will continue to monitor the situation and will request full protection should the situation warrant. N419BH (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

higher levels of vandalism are to be expected all the time the article is on the Main Page. As it has dropped off the main page now, hopefully it will decrease. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that the vandalism level will decrease... there is only a single person doing all the vandalism (with IPs from Telefonica de Espana) and he keeps coming back and back and back with his idiotic edits... therefore I suggest to revert all edits by IPs coming from Telefonica de Espana on sight, with 0 communication with this vandal. --noclador (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Given this is just a talk page why not just let him rant a little and revert/collapse after a day or two? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How would we recognise an IP from Telefonica de Espana? Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the IP address, you will go to their contributions page: at the bottom of the page are links to several services such as WHOIS that allow you to know the registered owner of the IP address, which is usually the ISP. Please remember that there are a lot of editors in Spain with Telefonica IP addresses – I'm one of them! Physchim62 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that we are all forgetting that this incident remains under investigation, and therefore (provided we want Wiki to be perceived as an accurate and impartial source of information) all that this article should state is: 1) The date and time of the incident, 2) Number of casualties, 3) The Plane Involved, 4) The Purpose of its flight, 5) and the fact that It remains under investigation. Everything else on this page thus far remains a speculation. This is not a news reporting and or news analysis website where all sorts of things get tossed into the same bag. Unless this is scaled down, it should be immediately deleted, because it doesn't make anyone of us look to bright. Can we please show some restraint and decency towards the victims and their families please? Doomed Soldiers (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

3 black boxes?

I only know of 2 black boxes on planes (CVR & FDR). Unfortunately, the source is in Russian, so I cannot figure out what the third one is. Could someone please find out? Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The source doesn't say what the third one records. Possibly a duplicate of one of the other two? Physchim62 (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Third one is probably a QAR (Quick Access Recorder). Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the QAR an actual black box? To my knowledge, the QAR does not have any protection like the other two do, and is not made for emergencies. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest news from the same source has it that the 3rd black box was originally installed by Polish specialists as an extra measure and has been sent to Poland today. --Illythr (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, any idea what type of black box? Griffinofwales (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The news report doesn't say what type of black box, merely that it was an "extra" that had been installed by the Polish authorities. I guess it's understandable that a government would want its own record of what goes on in the presidential plane. Our article on Quick Access Recorders implies that they are quite common on commercial aircraft, so I don't see any reason to read too much into it. If it's gone straight back to Poland, that would imply that there's no extra useful info on there that could be used by the crash investigators. Physchim62 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a source in English. It seems it summarizes pretty much everything that is currently known about the third black box - that it's Polish and will be opened and deciphered in Poland. --Illythr (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Antenna Theory and Technical Fault Theory

Both of these theories have been discredited by the authorities. Thoughts? N419BH (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Agree (Antenna Theory) has already been deleted (rightfully I must say) and I think of the Technical Fault Theory I would only leave that the plane was serviced recently and in good working order. Also I propose to delete "Language problems" (as all sources say the pilot spoke perfect Russian) and I suggest to throw out parts of the VIP syndrome section (especially: what has Zhirinovskys comment to do with that section???) --noclador (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Minimize, especially for the antenna theory, assome people might be reading the article after having heard the theory and will want to know why it is discussed. I don't think the idea of a technical fault has ever been seriously considered as a cause for the accident: that is, it was very quickly ruled out. Again, it is useful to say that it was very quickly ruled out, although I don't think we need to keep as many details as we currently have. Physchim62 (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fresh reports

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/world/europe/16poland.html -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/15/polish-plane-crash-lech-kaczynksi -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Pilot Ignored the advice of the ground control to divert

Do we have access to the transcripts of the Voice Data Recorder to confirm this? I believe that until we do have solid and VERIFIABLE information pertaining to this specific issue, we should restrain ourselves from including this in the article. The FACT is, that until information contained in the Voice Data Recorder and/or transcripts are made public, we in FACT, don't know what the content of the communications between the Polish crew and the Russian air traffic controller were. All we know that he (the Russian air-traffic controller) made some statements to the media. And it is not, by any stretch of imagination Holy Gospel. The same air-traffic-controller also claimed that the Polish crew didn't speak Russian, which was questioned by the Polish media. Am I wrong about this? Does it constitute vandalism - you tagged my edit as such Chumchum? May I ask why? I have no problem with the following: "On the final approach the plane was too low, struck some trees in the fog, failed to regain control and fell to the ground 200 metres (660 ft) from the airfield, breaking into pieces across the wooded area". Doomed Soldiers (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

We do not have access to the CVR data. Some of this data has however been released. The controller has stated to investigators he told the airplane to divert. Based on this eyewitness testimony and the fact that a previous aircraft diverted due to weather we can be reasonably certain this warning was given. N419BH (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this report? Has it been confirmed by the investigative teams? As far as I know, they they are still investigating this incident, and no official report has been released to the public as of yet. Can you provide us with the source of this OFFICIAL report? Or is this something that the news media picked up and is reporting? Doomed Soldiers (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If we had access to the transcripts and then interpreted them ourselves, that would be WP:OR! On the other hand, it is not WP:OR to note that the interventions of Robert Warren (talk · contribs) ("Doomed Soldiers" above) are becoming more and more disruptive: there is no reason at all why we should accept this users opinion concerning acceptible sources of information when we have a site-wide policy covering such questions. It will soon be time to get the KGB involved, I think. Physchim62 (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break. I think you can do better than that. Read my original comments please. All I appealed for was restraint. Nothing more, nothing less. I'd love to see where/how my comments became disruptive? By bringing the KGB in to the picture, you are in fact introducing some off-the-wall theories. I have not done anything like that. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"KGB" in this context is a slang term for Wikipedia Administrators. You are being disruptive by insisting that nothing other than the official accident report be used as a source. It will be at least one year before that report is released. In the meantime, reliable, third party publications are being used as sources, which is standard Wikipedia policy. N419BH (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect I have not and do not intend to disrupt this article. I am not insisting, I am suggesting. Big difference. As far as I know, and I am reiterating this again, I appealed for restraint. NONE of the transcripts of the voice data recorders were released by either POLISH or RUSSIAN investigative teams. Until that time we really DON'T KNOW what really happened. Please don't fault me for that, and don't accuse me of DISRUPTING. All we know at this point is that SOMEONE said something to SOMEBODY ELSE, and it gets reported. Wiki is not a tabloid. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The ground controllers have spoken to the press. Officials familiar with the flight recorder tapes have spoken on and off the record to journalists, providing another source of reliable information. Government officials familiar with investigation have provided information. These are all good sources of information which should be included in the article. Nobody is speculating what the pilots said in the cockpit, so I don't see your point. Sourcelat0r (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've said that you will submit the article for deletion "again": fortunately you haven't done so, as it would be an idiotic waste of time and would cause your reporting to the wikiKGB (WP:ANI, the destination of my link, in reference to previous discussions). However,your proposed restrictions on the reporting of secondary sources would prevent us from saying, for example, "Mr. Seremet [Chief Prosecutor of Poland] has said there is no evidence that the pilot flying to the Katyn ceremony was pressed, and an official with Russia’s investigative committee said data from the black box did not reflect that scenario." New York Times. We wouldn't even be able to say that the plane had recently been serviced (less than 150 hours in the air since its service last December). In fact, we couldn't even quote a figure of 96 dead: this has not been "confirmed by accident invesitgators", and not all the bodies have been recovered. Instead of your suggestion, we give a summary of what has been reported in reliable sources (in several languages). That summary is updated as new information comes to light. Physchim62 (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)