Jump to content

Talk:Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.111.26.55 (talk) at 22:22, 9 January 2020 (→Sputnik news). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Find sources notice


Aircraft on fire before crash

As there are claims that the aircraft may have been shot down, it is worth discussing the issue.

What is known, is that the aircraft was on fire before it crashed. A tweet from Ali Hashem shows this clearly. I think the article should at least state that the aircraft was filmed on fire shortly before crashing, referenced to the tweet. If reliable sources repeat the claim that the aircraft was shot down, then we should also mention that "it was claimed by (source) that the aircraft was shot down". If the claim is disproved then we should say so. Discuss. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post 24 in the Pprune thread shows wreckage with damage indicative of a surface-to-air missil explosion. Not saying this means it was shot down, but the possibility needs to be considered and evaluated as more info comes to light. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream media is still not mentioning that quite yet, and Wikipedia does not accept forums (or tweets) as sources after all. Juxlos (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Juxlos: the tweet has some credibility. Ali Hashem is a BBC Arabic correspondent. The tweet has been picked up by some mainstream media. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm looking at the wrong tweet, the BBC correspondent is only saying that the plane was on fire before it crashed, but not saying anything about it being shot down. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the evidence for the shootdown is in post 24 of the Pprune thread I linked to above, and other images. I accept that said images may also be evidence of an uncontained engine failure. Time will tell. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just those sharp holes in the aircraft skin, of course. It's the apparent speed of the aircraft failure and the lack of any emergency call? Here's the latest from NYT. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Higher resolution images in the thread show the "shrapnel holes" are actually just pebbles and debris. There is no current evidence that the plane was shot down. 195.89.171.5 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be conducting an investigation ourselves on what brought down this aircraft. See WP:NOTFORUM. I'm particularly concerned on how eager some of the contributors here are to declare this a shoot-down. We should report the investigation's findings when they are published. This talk page is not intended to discuss the accident itself, but to discuss improvements to the article.Tvx1 16:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or before the investigation's findings are published, we might want to consider theories that are published in such sources as The New York Times? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: we are not conducting our own investigation. We are discussing what has been reported elsewhere, and assessing the credibility of such reports. Better it is discussed here and a consensus reached, than crap appearing in the article. So far, evidence is inconclusive, and such mention that there is in the article is sufficient. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iran will never admit that it accidentally shot down an airliner believing that it was an attack by the US, just as Russia has never admitted shooting down that Malaysian airliner, believing it was a Ukrainian military transport. Several reliable sources have started speculating on if this is what occurred, so we'll have adequate sourcing soon, if we don't have already. It's telling that Iran is refusing to release the Black Box. 146.14.45.36 (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Russia?? Surely you mean "an over-stretched and terribly threatened armed pro-Russian separatist insurgency in Donbass"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 and Iran Air Flight 655 might be better analogs.Zianon (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent interview a raft of experts - [1] - summary - no expert is willing to definitely rule either way, however the OPS group (aviation experts) stated: "We would recommend the starting assumption to be that this was a shootdown event, similar to MH17 – until there is clear evidence to the contrary". Zianon (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The statement by OPS is perhaps the weightiest statement of that kind so far. And I don't see any mention there of "pebbles and debris". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why OPS would be a reliable source in any way. Any can create a blog on which they claim to be "aviation experts" (no that the independent names them "aviation risk-management group", which is something completely different). Their articles are clearly opinionated. And the fact that they recommend having a starting assumption discredits them being experts right from the start. Proper experts do not pre-assume anything. They objectively collect and analyze the evidence and make any conclusion at the end of the investigation.Tvx1 21:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a reliable source, as it's a blog. Pprune is not a reliable source as it's a forum. However, these can be a source of reliable sources and a valuable research tool. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This Fox News source is already used in the article for the damage to the FDR/CVR: It says this: "A strike by a missile, possibly a Tor missile system, is among the main (theories), as information has surfaced on the internet about elements of a missile being found near the site of the crash," Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine's Security Council, told media in the country." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This tweet by Babak Taghvaee, an Iranian aviation author, suggests that the aircraft was shot down in error by the IRGC. Mjroots (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Yes, so the IRGC. Might as well throw those black boxes away now? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Fox News puts. It’s theory circulating on the internet. Also please be more prudent with social media. Anyone can find a picture of missile debris on the internet and it put next to a picture of this plane’s remains and write a tweet around it that they are from the same event. This tweet has no credibility/relaibility whatsoever. Please focus your sourcing on the aviation experts who are actually conducting the official investigating into this crush. And please be patient. It had barely been 24 hours since it happened. There no rush at all to declare the cause.Tvx1 15:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought that was an official statement by "Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine's Security Council", not just a "theory circulating on the internet"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News Online - "Mr Danylov said that the Ukrainian security council was examining various possible causes, including an anti-aircraft missile strike, a mid-air collision, an engine explosion or an explosion inside the plane carried out by a terrorist." (my emphasis) Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: Babak Taghvaee check out as someone who should know what he is talking about. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump says it was shot down. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Study the above image closely at as big a size as you can. I believe this shows a section of fuselage, with what was the interior lying face up. Note the many places where the fuselage skin has been penetrated from outside, forcing the skin inwards (up as viewed). There are many shadows showing the locations of the punctures. This is similar to damage produced by a surface-to-air missile. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots, again you're conducting your own investigation into the cause here. We should not do so at all. Again WP:NOTFORUM. It is not op to us to analyse and synthetisize the debris damage (and for what it's worth read United Airlines Flight 232 and Qantas Flight 32 for, less catasthrophical, examples of what else could cause inward bending holes in a fuselage). As for Taghvaeee, he is not involved with the investigation and thus has no direct access to evidence and thus only provides opinion which is of little value to this article.Tvx1 18:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This CBS News Article says that U.S. Intelligence picked up radar signal and possible missile launches, "U.S. intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on and satellite detected infrared blips of two missile launches, probably SA-15s, followed shortly by another infrared blip of an explosion. Federal officials were briefed on this intelligence Thursday morning. A source who was in the briefing said it appears missile components were found near the crash site, Van Cleave reports." This provides more evidence for the shot-down theory, as well as for the previous comments speculating on this thread.JackTheBestBoss (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On my end, the source link goes to a page not found link, here are two links, [2] [3]JackTheBestBoss (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are officials from six different countries on the site investigating the crash. If any of them had found missile debris they would have released an official statement acknowledging that by now.Tvx1 19:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While true, it seems, in the US case, that US intelligence(officials) has "acknowledged" the missile launch did happen, or more likely indicating evidence that it might have happened. Neither am I sure NTSB is on the scene. There has been news about missile components and even a guidance system found on the crash site, and it seems no pictures have been released to reinforce claims of shoot-down yet. Then again, I cannot really speak for anyone and an actual "official" statement regarding the potential shoot-down has not been released, as you said. JackTheBestBoss (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Iranian missiles were fired at 2am and the Ukrainian airplane took off and crashed at 6am. There is no chance for a missile impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.53.106.133 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respectively say that you are outright wrong in your assessment. The missiles fired by the Iranians on the bases were short-range ballistic missiles, and while yes, the times were different, the missiles allegedly fired at the airliner were anti-air missiles. The missiles fired at the two bases in Iraq have nothing to do with the airliner, in regards to missile impact by the ballistic missiles. The anti-air missiles the Iranians allegedly fired at the airliner were shot after the base attack. JackTheBestBoss (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is saying that the plane was shot down with a ballistic missile, let alone one from the attack against US bases. Vecr (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What has been suggested is the Tor missile system. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As well as the SA-15 system. JackTheBestBoss (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard my above comment, the Tor missile system and the SA-15 are the same thing. JackTheBestBoss (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article from New York Times shows a video seeming to record Iranian anti-air missile hitting airliner. JackTheBestBoss (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Count redundant?

The fatalities count already says "(all)" and the passenger and crew count total to the fatalities count so it seems like the survivor count doesn't need to be there. --MrMineHeads (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard to have both fields in these articles.Tvx1 16:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelation reason

AFAIK, the missile attack on Iraqi airbase is the reason for the cancelation and rerouting of flights. This article, however, states that "Several airlines reacted to the crash by re-routing flights that flew over Iran, or cancelling flights to Iran". M4DU7 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US airlines were prohibited before (before the missile strike). UIA (and others, I think) stopped after the incident leading to the crash. Zianon (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here's the FAA ban on US airlines over Iran or Iraq issued "just a few hours before" the UIA 752 came down. [4] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is referenced in the article to reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@M4DU7:, I've tweaked the wording to reflect the missile strike as a reason. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: I went through all the references, and for the unreferenced airlines re-routing as well. All re-routes and cancellations happened before the crash. Even with the rewording, "Several airlines reacted to the missile attack and/or the crash", it is ambiguous and potentially controversial. My opinion is that the cancellation and re-routing should not even be mentioned in the article. The backdrop of the current tension in Iran is already covered in the article, and this serves no other purpose except to advance a possible POV that Iranian airspace is so hostile to civilian aircraft. robertsky (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree 2600:1702:2340:9470:38F7:8A34:8243:D13D (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky: NL Times say it was in reponse to the missile attack. Sky News says in response to the escalating tensions. I would argue that the crash is part of that. BBC News just states flights re-routed or suspended withough blaming either attack or crash. CBC just says flights re-routed as a precaution, without blaming either attack or crash. Flight says FAA ban is due to geographical tensions and risk to commercial traffic. My comment re Sky News applies. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: The announcements of rerouting traffic came before the crash. my take is that reports on the crash conflates both crash and the missile attack. it is clear that the reroute is primarily due to the missile attack, not the crash. Be there tension or not, with what's being currently reported, i.e. the crash being due to an engine fault, the crash would have happened anyway. robertsky (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that the crash was due to an engine fault. There's certainly a feeling that it may have been shot down, even if such a theory hasn't been proved yet. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you said it, a feeling. It is speculative, without proof. Yes, conversely Iranian's assertion is also just words without the black box being analysed. But backed by photos and videos in the reports, it is evidenced based than just... feelings. robertsky (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: I decided to boldly rework the reaction section in this manner: 1. background of ongoing tension in the region and what airlines had been doing for safety sake; 2. further industry actions after the crash; 3. blurb on speculations of how the plane went down on both sides; 4. domestic responses; 5. international responses with Ukraine's response first since it is more directly invested than another other countries. There are airlines which have no references to clearly define, or mentioned if their reroute or cancellations are due to either the crash or missile attacks, hence they are tagged as failed verification for now. robertsky (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky: - NO! what you did was removed references from text, and then tagged said text as needing verification. That is not how we do it. I thought that I had reworded it clearly enough to say that these decisions were either a result of the missile attack, or the crash. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: your edit made attribution of airlines actions more ambiguous than anything else. I introduced more references to clearly attribute each airline actions to either the missile attack or the crash. What I tagged, I will find sources to back. robertsky (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik news

Why is a literal Russian Propaganda outlet a key citation in this article? I don't care if they say the sky is blue, it's not a good source and should be nowhere near Wikipedia articles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the BBC or the CBC used as key citation sources? They are obvious propaganda outlets for NATO fictions. Such are the hazards of quoting "credible" news sources.
Rubbish. The BBC and CBC are considered RS's for Wikipedia.50.111.26.55 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering who is in line to examine the black boxes (all American allies) it is obvious why the Iranians won't give them the box. We have been here before. These are many of the same participants who 'crafted' the report about the aircraft disaster over Ukraine. 216.113.204.185 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harizotoh9: - I'm not seeing anything of concern here. There is nothing controversial sourced to Sputnik. Is this a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT?
@Mjroots: Take a look at this list: [5]. Sputnik is listed as "generally unreliable." David O. Johnson (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see if there are other sources to use then. That would be preferable to deletion of the material. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crew list — edit or delete?

I noticed that the listing of crew members is oddly formatted/punctuated and also unreferenced, and was going to edit it. Then it occurred to me that a list like this isn't really relevant, nor IMHO appropriate, so thought perhaps it's better to just delete it. Is there a WP policy to inform us on this? Or failing that, does anyone have views? DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. No need to name people who are not notable. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear for other editors: delete it and do not add it. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Germans

Please do not change 3 Germans to 7 Afghans unless 7 Afghans are backed by your source. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible they are dual nationals? Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing what Hannibal means exactly, dual nationality might explain 3 Germans = 3 Afghans confusion, but probably not 3 = 7? DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the sources used by Peter Pano do not state the 3 people discussed were Afghan. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaradhrasAiguo, Swissmade11, please cite where it says people described in official Ukrainian sources as German have Afghan nationality. The sources used so far to support the statement only says there were no Germans. Thanks. And just to be clear, it was me who added the Czech and German source into the text saying they were asylum seekers. I do not care what nationality is in the table but it has to be sourced directly. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

With more and more sources giving credibility to the shoot-down theory, should we now amend the infobox to include "accident or shoot-down"? Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should at least be mentioned in the lead. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree should be mentioned in lead, alongside other main theories/ claims. But not convinced that any cause(s) needs to be added yet to the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. We do not list a cause in the infobox until the official investigation publishes one. I don't think it should be in the lead either. It's one of multiple possibilities that are considered. Why cherry-pick the shoot-down option for the lead? All the sources that propoagate their shoot-down are third-party at best. None have actually come close to accessing the actual physical evidence.Tvx1 18:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added shoot-down claim and Iran's denial to lede. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It looks like the main theory at the moment, reported by all the main news outlets. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's fair, in view of the now reported reconnaissance satellite imagery from US officials. (Trump's personal view is neither here nor there, as far as I'm concerned.) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ICAO reaction

The ICAO published on their site the following information:

Official notification received from Iran on Flight PS-752 accident

This statement is quite important: ICAO continues to call for diminished speculation on the possible causes of the accident until the Annex 13 investigation is permitted to be concluded and its official results are confirmed. SV1XV (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not censored; also the people "speculating" (Trudeau, etc.) have access to intelligence that ICAO doesn't have. Geogene (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's your speculation. I'm afraid Bellingcat and Co. are sending us through the looking glass once more, Douma style. Shtove 21:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Nope, confirmed. A reminder - the TP's are for discussion of Reliable Sources for the improvement of articles, not your personal Soapboxing. 50.111.26.55 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trudeau says....

Trudeau says Canada has intelligence Iran shot down Ukrainian airliner - [6]. 2620:10D:C090:200:0:0:1:2DE1 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's in the lead section of the article, with a similar source. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is also using photos sourced from Bellingcat. Here we go again. Shtove 21:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752&oldid=935010838"