Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Crew fatalities

There seems to be a disagreement of facts in the article about the crew fatalities. In some areas we say two died (the pilots), in others we say three (the pilots and a flight attendant). Can this be clarified by reliable sources? RickyCourtney (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Might be a mistyping error. Regardless, just edit it yourself. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

One of the flight attendants survived the accident/crash 178.90.163.134 (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

According to that brief transcription of two flight attendants' interview where told:

"We put on oxygen masks and constantly talk to flight attendant Hyokuma Aliyeva, talk to her until the very end. Two minutes before landing, the connection is lost, the plane descends." and fact she was not interviewed it looks like crew fatalities is 3 - two male pilots and one female flight attendant Hyokuma Aliyeva. I don't think someone will share exact information about who died there (neither crew or passengers), but it is reasonable to assume. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

However still agreed some WP:RS needed telling 39 dead and only 28 survivors, as according to initial reports] where 29 survivors number noted had place there was 3 crew survivors reported right after the crash and all survivors moved to the hospitals with one woman stay unknown and uncautious..

and later it become known one of onboard flight attendant is dead.

It looks like one of the flight attendants meant alive initially (from numerous sources available right after the crash) died in the hospital, but no source confirms that and it's unknown have it be counted as a crash victim or not?

Case is there's disagreement between "Nationalities" table at the Passengers and crew, where provided later factual information about 28 (26 passengers + 2 crew) only survived (and therefore - 39 dead) and lede infobox, where told about 38 Fatalities and 29 Survivors.

One of I'd say doubtful source tells about exactly 28 survivors with no details at "2 days after the crash" news, but is it enough WP:SOURCE to change the lede to right values?

So please change the values at lede infobox from:

"| fatalities = 38

| injuries = 29

| survivors = 29"

to

"| fatalities = 39

| injuries = 28

| survivors = 28"

and add the source provided above if needed to solve the article survivors' number data disagreement. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Phugoid cycle

Just to note, Flight with disabled controls says the aircraft entered a Phugoid cycle (where the aircraft repeatedly climbs and then dives and which requires careful use of the throttle), although this is currently unsourced at that article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Photos of Crash when possible

I would like it if there were photos of the aftermath of the plane crash on the page. I think it would be useful. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I doubt there are freely-licensed photographs of the aftermath available. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I found some images used by the Times that were sourced from a Koreans news agency, however importantly without credit. Would this be enough to upload a pic onto WikiMedia? I can link it for you SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No, they are not. Images must be freely licensed. There is limited non-free content allowed, but "I found it on the Internet" is very rarely a good source - especially for such a recent event. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We probably won't be uploading any drone footage either... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

A reminder...

...that this article falls under both WP:RUSUKR and WP:GS/AA general sanctions. Both of these require a user to be extended confirmed to edit the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If so, why isn't the article isn't under Extended confirmed protection and only under Semi-protection? It seems unnecessarily confusing. Took me a minue to understand the 3 notices when I tried to edit after noticing the grey silver lock. Squeezdakat (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Squeezdakat: Please see my answer to this question on the help desk. Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

TL;DR for the benefit of any subsequent readers, the reason we sometimes do not put ECP on an article that is subject to a 30/500 limitation is that 1) it's not a requirement, particular when lesser administrative measures are working sufficiently, and 2) some articles are only partially covered by the restrictions (for instance, as is noted on the help desk, technical content specific to the Embraer jet would likely fall outside both sets of restrictions here) so it's often better to enforce the restrictions as needed rather than preemptively.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Timeline table

A huge thankyou to @Martinevans123 for a number of recent edits, including some welcome additions to the Timeline Table. I have just now added some tweaks, mainly ensuring that everything is referenced to Azerbaijan Time (AZT) UTC+4, as per the table heading.

There could be an argument for adjusting the whole table to Grozny local time (UTC+3) because that is where the incident took place. But as the whole event spanned three different time zones, what is the protocol here anyway? Any comments?

I also tweaked a few entries for accuracy, based on FR24 ADS-B raw data. The so-called RS newspapers are not always spot-on with their reporting, but if you wish, we can add a whole load of text explaining their errors. Personally I feel it will not add value to the timeline to report that source X had originally reported 09:35 when it was actually 09:25. It is either sloppy reporting or their typo - do we need to say it out loud as part of the article, considering all the other errors that still exist? WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Not sure what the protocol is for three different time zones. But I guess many aviation accident articles must have this? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123

I racked my brains, and did a search too, and this event is close to unique in terms of a fatal crash event straddling three different time-zones. In most cases a damaged aircraft either returns to the point of take-off (i.e. same time zone), diverts to another airport, usually within the same time zone, or crashes within minutes, possibly in the ocean.

If the event is referenced to the crash itself, and of course the fatalities, we would end up with Central Kazakh time which is standardised at UTC+5, even though Aktau itself lies in the UTC+3 time zone. I don't believe there is much traction for that option.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This hurts brain. Good catch! Keeping the political units straight is difficult enough (and AQTT is nothing if not obscure). Best to stick with one default local time, namely the origin of the situation, and its UTC offset. kencf0618 (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Still the table lacks the exact time of missile hit. Aminabzz (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Aqtau vs. Aktau

Both are written in the article. Although the city's article seems to be called "Aktau", the airport's article is "Aqtau International Airport." Millarur (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That's because the airport's name is in fact called "Aqtau International Airport". Hacked (Talk|Contribs) Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow! We replied to this entry nearly at the same time! Aminabzz (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That's amazing! Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The Cyrillic spelling is Ақтау. қ represents q sound (ق in Arabic and Persian). Aminabzz (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The Cyrillic spelling in Kazakh... There is no 'q' letter in the Russian Cyrillic alphabet. SedimentaryRock (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Like many names in post-Soviet area, it depends on if you are transliterating the Soviet-era Russian spelling or the more recent spelling in the national language of the post-Soviet nation-state. SedimentaryRock (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

In Kazakh language Aktau is pronounced as "Ақтау" but some people type "Aqtau" since "Қ" sounds like "q" 178.90.163.134 (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

We should probably go with Aktay then since its the local language and we dont want to offend anyone. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course, q is misleading. Arabic ق is more precise. Aminabzz (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Expand the reactions page

Aviationwikiflights, I want to understand why you want to go against the norms of wikipedia pages? All I want is an expanded reactions page that doesnt affect you or anyone else but you have to be a pain to deal with. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is it relevant to the article to mention what numerous governments have said? What value would it add to know what the Pakistani Prime Minister or the Serbian government said when all of those condolences could simply be summarized in a few sentences? In addition, your most recent revision is plainly unreferenced. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it's predictable dross. "The Poobar of Foobar sent his condolences" etc. Begone! WWGB (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I’d dare them to fill this up with 196 entries and see if they don’t find this ludicrous. Borgenland (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

They can always start Reactions to the Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 crash. {Yuk). WWGB (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Most editors despise these list-formatted, unencyclopedic "Reactions" sections. Abductive (reasoning) 03:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Well if most editors despise it then why do all of these wikipedia pages have the exact same format as I do?

Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You linked an essay which talks about <Reactions to... [Article name]> articles while we are discussing the contents of a section. The essay states: This page in a nutshell: Not all "Reactions to" articles are going to be treated the same, use your best judgement before creating such an article... Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Haven't Iranian President also said his condolences yet?  Aminabzz (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

We obviously have a consensus here to not include the laundry list of reactions from all over. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree that we do not need a comprehensive list of every single reaction to this incident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You guys have it all wrong,. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We decide here by means of consensus, not by means of "right" versus "wrong". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Country of Origin should be adjectives

Right now it says, for example "Azerbaijan" or "Russia", it should be changed to Azerbaijani and Russian. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Country" row of "Nationalities" table at the Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243#Passengers and crew?

Country can't be adjective any way.

Russians as one as Azerbaijanis you mean is an ethnic groups and we talk about nationality there (that does not follow any way with any exceptional ethnic group as usually countries population is polyethnic and only fascism/nazism ideology was trying to exceptionalize some ethic group within some exceptonal countries - that's the clear way you follow now - please don't). So no any changed needed. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Why are you comparing me to nazi ideology? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Or is it Franco? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Because I see a clear similarity as you tell the same:

You: "it [Country of Origin] should be changed to Azerbaijani and Russian" (that way ostensibly be monoethnic by default).

Nazis: @Nazism#Racial theories and antisemitism: their desire to create Lebensraum for Germans and other Germanic people in eastern Europe, where millions of Germans and other Germanic settlers would be moved into once those territories were conquered, while the original Slavic inhabitants were to be annihilated, removed or enslaved.

@Nur für Deutsche

etc.

However you can still read in detail my initial post above (you obviously didn't) to understand my pov. 83.142.111.102 (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Rm 'bird strike'

There is no evidence of this. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Could maybe add that in the "Theories" section under "Investigation" Millarur (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

We do not speculate on theories here. We only report on notable theories that are being discussed by reliable sources, when we can do so in a way that satisfied balance and undue weight concerns. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe add under "Shameful Russian face-saving attempts"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

But, now that the radio traffic has been made public, the timeline shows that this it what the aircrew first reported. So it's not entirely clear how much Russia knew and when. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried searching where it was made public, but I guess my search skills aren’t as good. Could you please share the link or the source? Thanks in advance. Millarur (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We should at least remove this from the lead. The pilots reported a bird strike, so of course both the airline and Russia are going to speculate that might have been the cause. We now know that it wasn't so it would be undue to mention it in the lead. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - at least remove from lead. Springnuts (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

In the initial aftermath of the crash, the airline and Russia's Federal Air Transport Agency suggested that the cause might have been a bird strike, though both Russian and Azerbaijani authorities said it was too early to speculate.

Question for those more knowledgeable of the local media sources… did the airline suggest that the cause might have been a bird strike… or just the pilots? The lede says the airline suggested that, so I just want to be sure that’s factual. But frankly the entire sentence feels like a throwaway at this point.

I think the only thing that gives me the least bit of pause is that it might be worth mentioning that the the crew thought they may have had a bird strike… while passengers in the back heard an explosion and shrapnel hitting the plane (which for the record, would be consistent with what would passengers would experience after a bird strike leading to an uncontained engine failure). RickyCourtney (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"Bird strike" is still there, just not in the lead. I think this is good for now. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like both I and @Springnuts took a stab at it -- and I accidentally overwrote their changes. I thing both ways of rewriting this are valid and I'll let the Wiki hivemind decide which they like better. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy that it will sort itself out. Springnuts (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Um, the airline would have had no idea. It's understandable if the pilots called a birdstrike to ATC, as they probably weren't expecting an anti-aircraft missile. Getting bits of shrapnel in your leg is not very consistent with "a bird strike leading to an uncontained engine failure." Maybe the aircrew informed the flight deck, but the pilot has to make a call rapidly. It looks like the hydraulics failure was not immediate. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Russian Telegram channel VChK-OGPU

Who is "Russian Telegram channel VChK-OGPU" and are they reliable? We don't normally use random social media sources unless it's the official channel of some otherwise-reliable organization. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I just WP:BOLD removed it. The last thing we need is Felix Dzerzhinsky claiming to run this account. Borgenland (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Only problem here is that's only initial source half of the article (connected to near Grozny flyby - ATC-plane radio transcription with timeline) is based on (meant here at the end). No alternatives provided in the article. 83.142.111.102 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland May I request you reconsider that removal? It isn't exactly a "random social media" account; both Newsweek and Radio Free Europe use this source regularly, as does the Meduzanews website in Latvia.

Yes they are all clearly politically biased, but so are TASS and Pravda. We can only strive for balance, and in this case, just factual information, much of which isn't necessarily political.

1. Telegram has become a platform widely used in Russia and Ukraine by independent media outlets to broadcast news as news websites and social media have been subjected to massive blocking since the {Ukraine} war began. CPJ - Committee to Protect Journalists; https://cpj.org/2022/08/russian-authorities-detain-journalists-media-workers-on-extortion-fraud-charges/
2. The VChK-OGPU outlet, which purports to have inside information from Russian security forces, said that... Example from Newsweek; https://www.newsweek.com/russia-officers-kherson-vchk-ogpu-1828371
3. The Telegram channel VChK-OGPU, which is widely read and is believed to have ties to security agencies, was added to the list {Russia's Justice Ministry: "foreign agents" register} for "dissemination of false information aimed at creating a negative image of the Russian army. Example at Radio Free Europe; https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-bogdanova-vchk-ogpu-foeign-agent/33034773.html

Other examples may be found at Google, although this source may be a little too left-field for the BBC and the New York Times to quote themselves. And of course Newsweek isn't necessarily 100% squeaky-clean either, but who is?

Please don't let the {Russian} trolls win!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry but I cannot make judgements on arguments laced with WP:FORUM issues and possible aspersions. I suggest you gain consensus from other editors if you want a revert. Borgenland (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I apologise. I didn't recognise that my comments were WP:FORUM - in fact I still cannot see it that way, but whatever. I was under the impression I was demonstrating the source was potentially WP:RS, and not just a "random social source" - where did I go wrong? Perhaps it was my final comment? I can see that it might have swung the pendulum against me. If you strike that from the text, can you explain why if other media outlets use this source, we treat it differently? I stress that is a polite request from me, not a challenge. I'm not that confrontational, or at least I try not to be.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm plainly a stickler for WP:PRIMARY. As such I would not have minded if it were embedded inside a secondary source. And while I sometimes make exceptions I cannot for a CTOPS. Also please read WP:ACTIVIST if you don't want to turn off others who want to interact with you constructively. Borgenland (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The thought of me as an WP:ACTIVIST nearly made me choke on my cornflakes. It may come as a surprise to you but up until 90 minutes ago I didn't have a clue about any of these media outlets, apart from an R.E.M. track called 'Radio Free Europe'. All I posted came from a quick Google search, which was quite illuminating. I'm here because of aviation and because the quotes from this source e.g. NDB - non-directional beacons, are bread-and-butter for me, and sound entirely credible. It would be a tragedy to lose such technical detail.

But I clearly overstepped the mark with the troll comment; mea culpa - I'll try and tone it down. Thanks for the feedback! Getting slapped around the chops with a wet haddock is probably what I deserved.

Peace, comrade!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a random social media account until someone can confirm that it belongs to RS. See WP:RSSELF. I don't care if Newsweek quotes it, because Newsweek is not RS. If some RS quotes from this channel, I would be fine with including that, with whatever attribution the RS used when publishing.

Please do not suggest that any of us are collaborating with Russian trolls. That borders on a personal attack. I don't care about trolls, but I do care about sourcing. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22

And I humbly apologise to you too, sir.

It was supposed to be a general comment, not aimed at you personally, but regarding the wholesale shenanigans that have being going on in this article all along. I regret any discomfort it may have caused you.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, this is the claim that is now without a source:

"08:36: Pilots start a normal landing procedure in Grozny but due to GPS signal loss Grozny air control offers non-directional beacon approach"

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Section ordering

Is there a reason Accident is before Background? I'd WP:BOLD it but for a change that dramatic I'd want someone else to sanity check me first. guninvalid (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's because of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents). But that guide violates the general principal of putting articles in chronological order, and other aircraft accident articles don't seem to follow it. I won't object if you change it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Likely?

What is that violationg WP:NOTCRYSTAL at the lede: ", likely due to military jamming."? Remove it! 83.142.111.43 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This assertion is well supported by sources cited in the article. Most sources are not characterizing the jamming as causal, as other aircraft landed safely at Grozny despite it. Carguychris (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Case is not in military or not.

I mean it would be much more appropriate a "believed to be" and not "likely" to use if sources support the doubts. 83.142.111.43 (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

“Believed to be” is pretty much the definition of “likely”. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The cited sources say nothing about military jamming. And FlightRadar said the flight did face jamming, not that it likely faced jamming. So I think we should change "likely due to military jamming" to "due to jamming". GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Are there any non-military actors that would be causing the jamming? RickyCourtney (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with anything. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - such term nowhere used except that exact article and it clearly WP:OR.

According to GPS jamming#Occurrences there's not "military jamming" exists, but only the GPS jamming itself both while military exercises and Russian invasion of Ukraine, therefore always it's just a "GPS-jamming" and nothing more as there's no difference between harmful inteference ANY GPS JAMMING do. So - please, stop fairy tales in the article - remove that "military jamming" word and replace it with exactly "GPS jamming" (as no other jamming interference was ever confirmed). 83.142.111.43 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

no real Pravda website is quoted

In the article, the source of "Azerbaijani resources report that a passenger on an Embraer plane was wounded by shrapnel while still in the air" is reported as Pravda; i think this is wrong, as the website for real Pravda is gazeta-pravda.ru, not news-pravda.com.
Not sure about this, as i don't know who is "news-pravda.com", please check. If i'm right, please remove wikilink to Pravda. --151.38.129.30 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears that it is a completely different website and was registered "privately" with no ownership or contact information, about 7 months ago. It would seem to be a dubious feed at best. TiggerJay (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I replaced the citation with a "citation needed" tag at the following diff for future reference if needed. TiggerJay (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"hush up" as a quotation?

The article uses the term "hush up" (including the quotes) in both the lede and the reactions section, but this sentence is not quoted. The sentence does say that it is President Aliyev who said this, but I have a hard time believing Alia gave this announcement in English, so those words are most likely from a translator. In either case, more encyclopedic language should be used. Do we have a source for those particular words? If not, I would prefer rewriting as "President Aliyev accused Russia of covering-up their involvement" or similar. guninvalid (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It very well could have been said in the sense of emphasis on the phrase or perhaps to "air quote" the English idiom as part of the translation. I'm not opposed with removing the quotes, but it does appear to me that the intent was to convey some sort of emphasis on this term, which might be appropriate in some form, perhaps either to replace the quotes with italics or perhaps a link to the Wiktionary (wikt:hush up) entry as the WP article seems less precise for the meaning. But leaving as plain text is not a problem either. TiggerJay (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Crew/total losses misleading

While initial final crash reports at the evening it happened were told there were 3 crew survivors with 38 dead and 29 survived total:

https://www.instagram.com/ladakz/live/18046477829165407

https://t.me/tass_agency/293345

https://caliber.az/en/post/three-crew-members-survive-azal-plane-crash-in-aktau

https://www.nur.kz/incident/emergency/2205078-iz-pyati-chlenov-ekipazha-upavshego-pod-aktau-samoleta-troe-vyzhili/

https://total.kz/ru/news/zhizn/krushenie_samoleta_bliz_aktau_troe_chlenov_ekipazha_vizhili__karabaev_date_2024_12_25_21_52_12

https://arbatmedia.kz/news-kz/cernyi-yashhik-naiden-na-meste-kruseniya-samoleta-pod-aktau-7099

3 days later were told about 3 crew members killed and only 2 survived without changing overall killed in the crash value:

https://massaget.kz/news/aktauda-apatka-ushyiragan-ushaktyin-bortserg-hokume-alieva-122774/

WHy do we hide there's clear disrepancy exists between initial official losses report and later news that "Nationalities" table @ Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243#Passengers and crew still hiddenly reflects (you can count the last line manually - Total surviving = 26 of passngers + 2 crew that is 28 and not 29 as it widely shared and stated as overall survivors number)? I think it's worth noting initial official reports stated 29 survivors and 38 dead you base the article on were false as next only next morning the body of Hokuma Aliyeva were found, identified and stated her as dead, according to:

https://qafqazinfo.az/news/detailru/-40131 https://ru.axar.az/news/aktualno/930222.html

There's also said the next:

"It was previously reported that out of 5 crew members, [only] 2 pilots died."

which clearly confirms previous evening stated losses (despite it was official) were wrong and Hokuma Aliyeva is a 39th killed victim of the crash.

Can we reflect it at the article? 83.142.111.107 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Main page ITN

Just to note that, regardless of any caution here, the ITN blurb on Main page is now this: "Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 is shot down near Aktau International Airport, Kazakhstan, killing 38 people." I've added a note at WP:ITN/C. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Why are we avoiding calling this an (accidental) shootdown? Every government in the world is calling it that except the likely perpetrator, Russia and its closest allies… and even they are tacitly admitting it now. I just don’t understand the need for the need for extreme caution anymore. Clearly the ITN team didn’t feel the need for it. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess because there is no preliminary investigation report yet published. In fact, has the makeup of the investigation team even been agreed yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

So we now have "accidental shootdown", which seems very likely, but is still wholly unsubstantiated by hard evidence? At least it has now dropped off ITN on Main page. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You mean hard evidence other than the perforated holes in the tail section consistent with the damage caused by a surface-to-air missile? RickyCourtney (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean that the lack of complete transparency from Putin allows for the possibility of a deliberate shootdown. He won't want to admit that Russian anti-aircraft systems ever make mistakes. But I think we can rule out the possibility that the holes were made my Ukrainian drones. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

What way? THese type (that flying far away to attack some static target) of drones do not explode out of/away from the target - it have to directly collide it, in conrast of what exactly AAM missile do (that's it's main function to intercept the fast-moving target when distance is already critical for harming the target, especially if it "feels" it will miss it, as it usually miss it if we talk about direct collision - that's why it's numerous shapnel there inside and not a some sort of only big cannonball that can harm target really critical while direct hit) that these holes can be confirmation of.

Other words, if it would be a collision, traces of explosion (soot) and big object (as drone is relatively big as of panzir missile) with collision dents on the tail. And there were no of it. 83.142.111.43 (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea what you mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think what he means is that the damage is consistent with a surface-to-air missile, not a drone. SAMs typically explode in close proximity to their target and spray shrapnel everywhere in hopes of shredding their agile target. That is in contrast to the Ukrainians who strap a "dumb bomb" to a drone and then crash it into something which would leave damage other than shrapnel holes. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If so, then yes, I fully agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

So should "shootdown" appear under Summary in the infobox? Do we need an RfC to decide this? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And the source in the infobox supporting this claim is now marked as unreliable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't need an rfc, we just need a reliable source. Do you have one? GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The infobox seems to be in a state of flux. You mean a reliable source was says categorically "it was a shootdown"? I think I might struggle to find one. The flightsafety.org source that was previously in (only) the infobox just says; "Also, a passenger was supposedly interviewed after surviving the accident. He stated having heard an explosion during the descent or approach. He also reported observing that shrapnel had perforated his life vest. Another in-flight video shows a hole in a flap track fairing on the left-hand wing. Additionally, post accident video footage of the tail section shows multiple small holes in the tailfin as well as horizontal stabilizer." and quotes the Azerbaijan State Civil Aviation Authority saying, "due to physical and technical external interference". It gives a "Category: Unlawful Interference". I'd suggest that whatever is in the infobox wholly reflects what is stated and sourced in the main body. It should not need any additional source(s). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Just for the record, @GA-RT-22 and @Martinevans123: Aviationwikiflight was wrong to label the Aviation Safety Network as user-generated content. It is a long time, well established, respected, reliable source here on Wikipedia.

As far as other reliable sources:

Reuters: Russian air-defense system downed Azerbaijan plane, sources say

New York Times: Azerbaijan Blames Russia for Plane Crash and Rebukes Kremlin, Plane Crash Investigators Focus on Russian Air Defenses as Possible Cause

CBS News: Azerbaijan's president says Russia unintentionally shot down jetliner that crashed in Kazakhstan

Washington Post: Azerbaijan demands Russia admit guilt for downing plane, pay compensation

-- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Not all of ASN is user-generated. If the content is user-generated, a warning stating "This information is added by users of ASN. ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information," appears. However, it has generally been accepted that the non user-generated entries are generally (providing that the sources are reliable). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Despite that standard proviso at the top of the page, if you look at the change log at the bottom of the page, you see that the ASN staff has been heavily involved in editing the entry. I suspect that they, like us, are doing the best they can to make sense of a complex situation by aggregating reliable sources in the absence of an official report from aviation safety authorities. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes however just like our pages, we cannot cite ourselves as a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. So while the admins at ASN might be doing an admirable job over there, I would proffer since it's essentially unvetted user contributed (and we cannot even see the change diffs), that we must have a reliable source to use their information. They can be a research point that then we follow their citations to grab actual reliable sources. Otherwise it is simply a WP:SPS TiggerJay (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

None of those sources say the plane was shot down. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That's half a dozen sources saying the plane was shot down. Yes, they're citing sources or officials, but that's how journalism works. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I do think we can remove some of the attributions now. So instead of "The New York Times reported that Azerbaijani investigators believed a Russian Pantsir-S1 air-defence system had damaged the plane before it crashed" we could say "Azerbaijani investigators believe a Russian air-defence system shot the plane down". And similar changes in the Investigation section. With updated sourcing. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I just reverted the infobox summary edit because it does not seem to me that there is clear consensus that the term "shootdown" or similar terms should be included in this yet. For my own perspective I think it is WP:TOOSOON and just because news sources are essentially restating the allegations of the victim does not actually make their statements true, nor would it qualify as natural neutral, but most certainly one sided. Now time might tell that it was actually shot-down or the result thereof. But as of right now, aside from allegations, I don't see an evidence-based statements that are demonstrating that it was. While it certainly might look like such, we are not permitted the liberty of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and this is especially true with developing stories. TiggerJay (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s just simply not true. These reports are not based solely on the allegations of a victim. In fact, I can’t recall any of them even citing any victim. These sources all cite the physical evidence observed on the wreckage, information from sources with access to US intelligence (which you can read to mean AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/US intelligence), or information from sources within the Azerbaijani government. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

First to be clear before I show the list, I am saying that pursuant to POLICY it is simply TOOSOON, but eventually more reliable information will be available. It is extremely likely that formally it will be determined to be a crime, but until such point, it is against policy to attempt to litigate this likelihood of a crime on here.

Top google news results for "what caused Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243" shows me the following: (emphasis added)

• CBS
  • "We can say with complete clarity that the plane was shot down by Russia. (...) We are not saying that it was done intentionally, but it was done," Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said.
• Forbes
  • "Azerbaijan’s transport minister Rashad Nabiyev said evidence suggests there was “external interference” with the flight"
  • "Surviving passengers and crew members told Reuters they heard multiple loud “bangs” after the flight was unable to land in Grozny."
  • "should Russia be found responsible" (Azerbaijani parliamentarian Rasim Musabeyov)
• Routers
  • Four sources with knowledge of the preliminary findings of Azerbaijan's investigation into the disaster told Reuters on Thursday that Russian air defences had mistakenly shot it down.
• NY Times
  • No specific claim to reason
• Additionally the following industry sources are very specifically mute on the topic:
  • ICAO Union
  • AFACWA
  • Prior search with the FAA, but did not show up on my Google Search

To be clear NONE of these sources support the claim of a "shootdown", outside of people who are with the Azerbaijani government, their own investigation, the airline or passengers. As such everything shown here supports that this is the victims allegations, and not necessarily established fact. None of the articles on the first page of Google News support the statements from a neutral point or unbiased point of view. The facts we can stick with is that the plane crashed following some mechanical malfunction. The fact that there are multiple sources that have reported the pilots thought it was a bird strike, even though "experts" say it is unlikely/impossible, that does not change the fact it was the first presumption. Now the WEIGHT regarding the pilot statement I believe is minimal for various reasons. It is also fact that the hull riddled with holes/penetrations. And of course a fatal crash. But as far as reliable sources, and weight is concerned, the allegations by Azerbaijani sources are something that can be included in the article, but do not belong in the summary and presented as fact. Now this is not a person who is accused of a criminal act, but per we can still follow the closest guidelines at WP:SUSPECT presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. TiggerJay (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If we are waiting for the Russian operators of that Pantsir-S1 air-defence system to see the inside of a courtroom, we might be waiting a while. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No but it would be appropriate to wait until unbiased aviation authorities make such a statement, which they might, in time. Especially in the aviation world, this is something that will be absolutely investigated with a thoroughness that is rarely seen and very publicly disseminated, with little regard for politics, countries or people. Of course other neutral sources might come forward as well in time. However the above list was simply to answer the statement by Ricky That’s just simply not true. These reports are not based solely on the allegations of a victim. In fact, I can’t recall any of them even citing any victim where infact what I showed, at least from the top google news search results, was that every source was actually citing the victim, broadly speaking -- the people, company and country that was victimized by this situation. Now I'm not very familiar with how civilization operations are operating in that part of the war torn world, and sometimes it is kept secret, but lets say that there is a requirement for IFF systems to be in place, and the airline was not properly transmitting. While this would still be a downing, it greatly changes the current narrative, from country X did this to innocent country Y, to instead being country Y made a grave mistake that country X acted upon that cost lives. But while I can imagine a bunch of things it plausibly could have been, I'm very conservative when it comes to following policy and what should be included. And unsubstantiated claims do have a place in the article, but the weight should be very limited to the strength of the argument presented and claims by the victim are hardly reliable sources. And absolutely irresponsible to report in any way that would be seen by the causal reader as stated fact. All of that instead should be appropriate placed in Hypotheses as most of it currently is. TiggerJay (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

President Ilham Aliyev said Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243, which departed from Baku on Wednesday morning with 67 passengers and crew members bound for Grozny in Russia, “suffered external damage” in Russian airspace and was rendered uncontrollable by electronic warfare. The tail of the Embraer 190, he said in televised remarks, was seriously damaged “as a result of shelling from the ground.” ... Aliyev stressed that it was evident the plane had not been shot down intentionally. But he said Russia should have admitted guilt and apologized to “the friendly state” of Azerbaijan.[1] We have the President saying the plane was shot down. There is no higher government official in Azerbaijan. Mind you, it's the Kazakh aviation authorities who are officially investigating this incident, and it's questionable how "unbiased" their official report will be. It may be another situation like Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 where we get an official report that ends up being contradicted by other aviation authorities... except in this situation none of the "gold standard" authorities like the NTSB or BEA have been invited to assist, so we're going to be relying on reports from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey, with help from Brazil. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the president of the country who was the victim here should have appropriate weight applied to their statement. Is it a reliable statement: in the sense that we can be confident that he really said that, yes, I think the sources would support that; but in the sense that he is conveying an accurate representation of what transpired, absolutely not, this would be the victim speaking about a tragedy, and we have seen presidents from a bias POV get this wrong time after time, especially in their early reactions to a situation. Is there a place for his comments, yes, but should that be presented as fact of what actually happened, I think that would be very inappropriate. TiggerJay (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

No damage on ground?

I've not seen any reports of injures to people on the ground, nor damage to buildings. Can we source this? Was the impact area agricultural? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you take a look at video footage of the aftermath, it looks like very empty waste ground/ scrub, with no signs of human habitation or activity, e.g. at about 3:15 - 3.25 in this one. I have seen no reports of any deaths or injuries to people on the ground. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)