Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 007/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Moneron again

Socrates, here [1] is another photo of Moneron. It is "second best" because it doesn't show the size (by the way, thanks for the photos you suggested. I did'nt go further with them because they also showed Moneron only partially). This photo may pass as it has a source, but I am so hesitant to try again. What do you think? Can I put up, as is, and use as fair use rationale, no other photo for our pupose as good, and "no harm intended", and not for profit? The source suggests a travel company rather than a photographerBert Schlossberg (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Did it again. The source is wikitravel.org . One of ours?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the original source is Flickr - its license there is "all rights reserved". Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, correction: the photographer has explicitly allowed usage here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Socrates, thanks for checking. Could you edit the photo in for me in the Soviet Search and Rescue Mission section? You probably have to re-size anyway. I will let a closely held secret out. I will be 71, learned to type about 5 or 6 years ago, computer doings and paraparnelia just barely grasped, and feel like I'm from another age, not a future one. Very fittingly, a friend of mine recently gave me a gift - a feathered quill ball point pen to dip in an imaginary inkwell. All this by way of backing for you to do the photo for me. Thanks!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

State Dept. closed down investigation?

I don't think that that State closed down their own investigation for any reason. They just did not undertake one. the NTSB had investigation closed down for them by State on the grounds that it wasn't an accident. Here is the quote of State Dept. official Lynn Pascoe in a quoted context from Nation Magazine - "Eighteen months after the airliner was shot down, when asked if the State Department ever conducted such an inquiry, a high level State Department official replied, 'How is the State Dapartmetn going to investigate?'"Bert Schlossberg (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Johnson has the following to say (pg 227): "But the most significant point about the demand for an ICAO enquiry inquiry was that someone, somewhere clearly had to conduct a proper accident investigation and publish the results. But neither the US nor South Korea appeared at all keen to do this. In the end both these governments produced official White Papers on the affair of a highly political sort - and, of course, the Russians carried out an investigation all on their own. But the US Administration seemed singularly determined to avoid the normal type of accident investigation. Under US law, because 007 was an American-built plane, with American passengers aboard, leaving from an American airport, there had legally to be an investigation into the disaster by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB did indeed open just such an investigation, but was summarily (and illegally) order by the State Department to halt it and to turn over all its documentation on the disaster. The was the last ever heard of these documents, or of the legally necessary inquiry in the US. Clearly, the Administration's hope was that hope was that an ICAO would head off the demand for an inquiry by anyone else. And the ICAO had the supreme advantage of being an intergovernmental organisation which can only consider information or evidence that its member governments decided to bring before it. What this meant is that the ICAO would have no independent power of inquiry and could not pose to the US any of the very large number of embaressing questions which the affair has raised about US behaviour."

That is pretty much how I understand it. But the way we have it in the article now "...the State Department would now conduct the investigation.[72] "However the US State Department closed down this investigation on the grounds that it was not an accident, and pursued an ICAO investigation instead. " sounds as if the State Dept. started investigating and then closed the investigation down on the grounds that it was an accident, instead of State, taking it out of the hands of NTSB on grounds that it was not an accident, and that they (State) would investigatem and then not do it, and thus ICAO become the investigation bodyBert Schlossberg (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the SD did not investigate itself - it closed down the NTSB investigation. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification in article is good. Just a note of interest. As far as I know, aside from a few congressmen showing interest, there has been only one U.S. governmental investigation into the downing of KAL 007, despite the enormity of the political implications of the incident. That was the investigation my the Minority Staff of the Committee on Foreign Relations (employing CIA, DIA, and NSA intelligence input) but also to be noted, it was an investigation only of the Minortiy Staff of the Committee. It is almost as if there was total unconcern. Your inclusion from Johnson book about the relative merits of NTSB over ICAO is also tellingBert Schlossberg (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

GA

Is it time for that GA review yet? Might have to close off the open peer review first though. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think soBert Schlossberg (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Post attack section

Deleted "and crash" from section heading "Post attack flight and crash" reverted to the former title, "Post attack flight", as the whole section is about the post attack flightBert Schlossberg (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

KAL 007 transmissions -right color?

KAL 007's transmissions as recorded on its CVR begin at 17:54 and are approptiately light yellow from that point on. But KAL 007's transmissions prior to 17:54 are not from the CVR and should not be light yellow. They are from the ATC/KAL 007 transmissions transcript.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed the table legend - hopefully that removes any confusion. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-instatement to Timeline of Attack

Socrates, a suggestion. What do you think. I'd like the below, just deleted, to be reinstated. I know that the info is elsewhere in the article, but I see now, from contacts, that there is much study being done particularly of the Timeline itself. For this reason, these types of explanatory connections to the transcripts are valuable. What do you think!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

18:26:33 - |The missile launched was a R-98 medium-range air-to-air radar guided and proximity fused, designed to detonate 50 meters behind an aircraft sending forward its fragments. The missile's detonation pushed KAL 007's tail downward, causing the aircraft to gain altitude for several moments. ICAO graphing of Digital Flight Data Recorder tapes will show that rising of altitude in a 113 second arc to an apex of 38,250 ft. beginning with missile detonation was caused by severence of, or damage to, the cross over cable between the left inboard and right outboard elevators

Hi Bert. The article is currently very long and growing slowly all the time, so I have concerns that it will become too cumbersome. Also, I don't see the benefit of repeating in the timeline what has already been started in the article body. Lastly, I believe the timeline should be a succinct table of the transcripts only, without extensive analysis, as this is the style commonly used in other aviation articles at Wikipedia. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

O.K.with meBert Schlossberg (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the timeline presented the details of the shootdown in a clear and precise manner. I think we've lost quite bit replacing it with prose. 70.75.34.249 (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review

Ok, let's try this again :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead looks good.

First section: I'd put the date of departure up with the time of departure, especially since it differs from the date the aircraft was shot down.

Done

Under the section "Flight deviation from assigned route" the following sentences appear: According to the ICAO, the autopilot was not operating in INS mode for one of two reasons: the autopilot was not switched to INS mode by the crew (shortly after Cairn Mountain). Alternatively, INS mode was selected by the crew, but the aircraft had already deviated off track by more than the 7.5 nautical miles (13.9 km) tolerance permitted for the inertial navigation computer to activate. I think that construction calls for an either/or clause following it, or drop the colon.

Done

There are lots of small sentence structure issues, as is to be expected with such a long article. It needs copy-editing, but is OK for the "reasonably well-written" standard of GA.

If you point them out, will happily address...

Lots of references and sources, not all of which I can read. Still, the links of the online sources are good, and seem to relate to the purpose for which they're used, so generally OK here. Also, generally a good enough job with backing up the POV sources with a more neutral one.

The tone gets a little loose towards the end. For example, in the Aftermath section we see: "NATO had decided, under the impetus of the Reagan administration, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 6–10 minutes striking distance from Moscow. Support for the deployment was wavering and it looked doubful that it would be carried out. However when the Soviet Union shot down Flight 007, the U.S. was able to galvanize enough support at home and abroad to enable the deployment to go ahead." Unfortunately, not a citation in sight.

Have sorted the refs - do you think the sentences need work too?

Reference 125 needs an article title. Similarly, 127 needs something beyond "?" Baltimore Sun if it's going to stay in the article.

Done

I'm not quite sure what to make of the "Timeline for attack" = it just appears to me as a box with no content. Should I be able to see something here? See below. Anyway, on hold for now, but I have every reason to think it can make GA this time. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the timeline box again. I have a script killer that kept me from viewing it; I can expand the box now. And I have questions. First of course are the usual OR questions. I have no real problem on this score provided that all sources are reliable and all have time stamps. I would like a cite to each source in the color key, however, and follow up cites for commentary (for example, when it say the the fighter jet changed position, we should cite to the source that let's us conclude this). I would also consider calling this section something like "Timeline of the final flight of 007" or "Timeline of flight and downing of 007" my point being that it isn't JUST the attack.

Renamed and citations added.

This is a long article, I'll read it through again later and will probably have more comments. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've completely re-read the article after taking a break from it. There are a few things that I noticed on this reading. *:First, please list this article with WP:GOCE. Make it clear that it's a GAN on hold, and someone probably will get to it quickly. I only recently learned of this project or I would have recommended it earlier.

Listed, thanks for the tip.

• Next, at line 181 Major Osipovich appears with no introduction. Do we know his first name? and which plane he piloted? I'm able to infer the information as I keep reading, but it isn't obvious at first.

Fixed

• On this reading, the "Pain and Suffering" section really jumped out at me as disrupting the follow of the article. Why does this have its own section? Obviously its important to the civil case, but the civil case is only mentioned a couple of times in the article. Can't this information be merged into the following section without calling so much attention to it?

I think this may originate from the weight that the Rescue007 theory places on it. Happy to merge.

• In the investigations section, is there support for the position that the NTSB investigation v. ICAO report mattered? What power would the NTSB, as a U.S. agency, have had to subpoena foreign governments anyway? And, who it "Johnson" (listed as a commentator) and we should we care?

They would have been able to subpoena US military and civilian radar data and tapes, which may have been embaressing for the US if it showed that the flight was being tracked in realtime but not warned. Will try to reword.

• Finally, I'm not sure I like the "Interim events" section. It reads more like a magazine article than one for an encyclopedia. It seems that if there are important interim events, we should explicitly mention them in the prose. This more of a personal quibble, though, I wouldn't hold up GA over it.

Don't like it either - converted to prose.

• Reference 19 has one of those question marks instead of a title.

Bert, this is one of yours - do you have the full reference please, otherwise it will be removed.

Overall though, I think the changes to the article certainly have improved it. If the copy editors can get to it, I think you'll be most of the way there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the additional comments. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave it another reading tonight, and I'm comfortable that it meets the criteria. Obviously a tremendous amount of work went into this article, my thanks to all for their efforts. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review this long article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work!

I can't remember how I ended up here, but I was pleasantly surprised at how good this article is. The context of the shootdown really explains why the Soviets would do this otherwise inexplicable thing. --Sean 14:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The four senators' letter to Gorbachev

There have been a number of mentions concerning the letter that Kennedy had written with senators Bradley, Levin, and Nunn. Here is the one from Izvestia 1991 6th paragraph, [2] from the lead article on the series on KAL007 by Andrej ILLESH and Alexandr Shalnev. The quote in point - "An aide to Senator Kennedy, referring to this article, noted, "If it is true, that the wreckage has been found, then this is startling news. If it is true (that the wreckage has been found. author), then there is no reason why the Soviet Union should not immediately agree to the senators' request (four American senators, including Kennedy, sent a letter to President Gorbachev with a request to clear up the mystery surrounding the tragedy. author) and present the full results of the Soviet investigation." The significance for KAL 007 lies int he fact that his letter, in the same month that Senator Helms of the Committee on Foreign Relations sent his started the chain of events leading to the release by Boris Yeltsin of KAL 007's Black Box the Soviets had denied having recovered. Not proof but good probalitiy. The significance for Kennedy - it shows his concern and caring in the matter.

New York Times, January 7, 1991:

"...Last year, four United States Senators sought to capitalize on the changing Soviet-American political climate and wrote to President Mikhail S. Gorbachev requesting on humanitarian grounds that Moscow help clear up the mysteries.

A first letter was written in August by Senator Bill Bradley, Democrat of New Jersey. Another letter was sent in November by three other Democrats, Senators Sam Nunn of Georgia, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. No reply has been received to either letter.

An aide to Senator Kennedy, discussing the Izvestia report of the purported location of the wreckage, said: "If this is true, it is stunning news. If true, there should be no reason why the Soviet Union should not immediately respond favorably to the request of the Senators and make available the complete results of the Soviet investigation."

An aide to Senator Levin said the Izvestia article and the official apology to South Korea provided new hope "that Mr. Gorbachev would be more inclined to answer our letter."

Sixty-three Americans were among the 269 people killed when a missile-firing Soviet fighter downed the airliner on Sept. 1, 1983.

"I am now more hopeful that the truth is coming out," said Hans Ephraimson-Abt of Saddle River, N.J., the chairman of the American Association for Families of KAL 007 Victims. He lost a daughter in the crash.""Bert Schlossberg (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire second paragraph is source-less

The entire second paragraph has no sources, and some pretty big accusations are made. Sources added within 7 days please guys, or the paragraph needs deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.159.26 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

DoneBert Schlossberg (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEADCITE - this content is well referenced in the article body. However I understand that given the Cold War legacy of the material, some folks may find some things to be controversial. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)