Talk:1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disaster management

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Aviation: Accidents

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Africa: Mozambique / South Africa Mid‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Mozambique (assessed as Top-importance).
	South Africa portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (assessed as Mid-importance).

Stirling work

JMK is to be congratulated for the stirling work done on this article.Phase4 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup required

This article is in serious need of a cleanup as it is laced with original research and uncited information. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:NkomatiAccord.jpg

The image Image:NkomatiAccord.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Some references supplied, more to be done. JMK (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me on the straight track Socrates, with well-placed tags. JMK (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject South Africa assessment

I've assessed this article as C-Class. If attention is paid to sorting out the missing references, this can easily become B-Class, and maybe even progress further. Ron2K (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.ecr.co.za/content/view/3557/81/
- In 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash on 2011-05-25 05:18:07, 404 Not Found
- In 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash on 2011-06-07 12:14:43, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://70.84.171.10/~etools/newsbrief/1996/news1018
- In 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash on 2011-05-25 05:18:16, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
- In 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash on 2011-06-07 12:15:33, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.citizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=79767,1,22
- In 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash on 2011-05-25 05:18:16, Long Chain of Redirects: [1] -> [2] -> [3] -> [4] -> [5] -> [6] -> [7] -> [8] -> [9] -> [10] -> [11] -> [12] -> [13] -> [14] -> [15] -> [16] -> [17] -> [18] -> [19] -> [20]
- In 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash on 2011-06-07 12:15:46, Long Chain of Redirects: [21] -> [22] -> [23] -> [24] -> [25] -> [26] -> [27] -> [28] -> [29] -> [30] -> [31] -> [32] -> [33] -> [34] -> [35] -> [36] -> [37] -> [38] -> [39] -> [40]

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to article

1. "The Soviet delegation issued a minority report(...)" is wrong. There was no "minority report"; the ONLY report of this accident was the official RSA one. As parties to the investigation the USSR and Mozambique could, and did, within a 60-day period after a draft had been completed give their comments and propose changes to the draft which the RSA could either incorporate into the draft (which was done for some of Mozambique's submissions), or not and instead just append the comments (in the case of the USSR's) to the final version. The whole Other investigations section should just be shitcanned (weasely and unsourced, except for the rebuttal) and incorporated into the Margo section with the reader given an accurate description of the way these investigations are handled by international treaty. Currently the statement in there is "South Africa was obliged to work in partnership with the state of ownership (Mozambique) and the state of manufacture (Soviet Union).", which is completely inaccurate. LoveUxoxo (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words "minority report" are used in a number of sources to describe the Soviet rebuttal of the South African report.

Chapter 5 of Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention has the responsibilities of the different states. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Even if just one source used for the article referred to the 37 page submission of the USSR as "The Minority Report" that should be reflected in the text. However, in that case I'd prefer the text to read something like "The USSR's submission, commonly (or) sometimes (or) also referred to as the "minority report", ..."

I know I'm acting a bit nitpicky but a true minority report in an official aircraft accident investigation is very rare. Arrow Air Flight 1285 is the best example I can think of, when a bitterly divided (five against four) Canadian investigative board issued two separate reports, now colloquially (officially?) referred to as the majority report and minority report. But in this case, where invited parties to the investigation (but not the ones in charge) submit a different opinion for consideration isn't uncommon. Page one of the report ends with the declaration "Our decision is unanimous", and I think that it is important for the text to be equally definitive.

I do not want to seem to be pleading the "truth" over WP:VERIFY here; while there are reliable secondary sources that use the term "minority report", I think the overall weight of sourcing available, especially those focused on aviation, make it clear that there was only one report, with no "official" dissent. The Aviation Safety Network source doesn't even mention any alternative theory to the official probable cause.

In the context of aviation, which I think the first half of this article should focus on, the USSR's submission should be given much less weight; in fact in that context it is close to WP:FRINGE territory. For the second half (roughly) of the article, in the context of politics, the theory of a conspiracy should be the focus, appropriately. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and when I said dump Other investigations I specifically meant that Soviet report sub-section. It's just so wrong to add four sentences of such controversial text without a cite. I completely lose all WP:AGF when I see that, and it just better to start from scratch. As for the article itself, while my list of grievances is long, the article itself is awesome and I <3 all who worked on it. I had never heard about this before, and its fascinating and so very notable. This could easily be a Wikipedia:Featured articles. Let's do it! LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]