Jump to content

Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 007/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Good Article/Featured Article

Is this officially a good article? should there be an indication of this under title (It still reads as a "B" article).

I'd like to see this as a Featured Article. If someone else would likewise like to see that, could you start the process. I'd do it myself but having vision problems at presentBert Schlossberg (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good article (see the green logo at the top of this page). FA is tough to achieve, and will involve a considerable amount of work. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1. According to the Article page itself, it's a Good Article nominee and not yet a good article.

2. My desire is that the article be read, have more of an exposure. As a good article, I am not sure that there is any way of gaining more exposure. One has to have an interest before clicking on. But a featured article has prominence and gains more exposure by being listed as such monthly, as well as the featured article for the day, and then listed for people interested in the articles that have been featured. Is all this correct? If so, I would go the extra workBert Schlossberg (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see what you're referring to - it's GA. A featured article may appear on the front page, and therefore will be more widely read. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

this is what the article heading reads now

"Korean Air Lines Flight 007 A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Currently a good article nominee. A former good article nominee."Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Plesae post the URL, as I still can't see what you're referring to. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been updated - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_007 . Thanks, anywayBert Schlossberg (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Part of a US war drive"?

I have no problem with the meaning of the sentence which I accept as true (i.e. that the Soviets claimed that the flight was military/intelligence in nature).

However, the phrase "part of a US war drive" does not sound like colloquial usage to me. In fact, it sounds like a butchered translation. Possible replacements are "military campaign", "military operation", "espionage operation", "intelligence gathering operation", etc. I personally like "intelligence gathering operation". On the other hand, you could just say "a deliberate military provocation". I'm not making a change because I'm not 100% sure which phrase to use as they have slightly different nuances.

--Richard (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - have changed it to use wording closer to the citation. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sea of Japan/ East Sea

Both are correct - from different eyes. Sea of Japan I think is a more common designation. Koreans are very strong in asserting that the Sea should be viewed, not from Japan's vantage, but from Korea's - East SeaBert Schlossberg (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There's Korea's East Sea, China's East Sea, and Vietnam's East Sea. Saying "East Sea" without an overwhelmingly clear Korean perspective is not clear enough. HkCaGu (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Right!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The primary article on WP uses the term "Sea of Japan"; also I've yet to see a source that uses the term "East Sea" with reference to this incident. So I believe we are correct to use the more common term here, although a note should be added to state that "East Sea" is used in Korea. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Still feasible?

Guys, do you think that the article still has a chance to make it as a Featured Article?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest that an A-Class review might be a more achievable milestone as there's still a lot of work to get this article to FA status. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

artist rendition/Plume of flame?

That does seem to be a plume of flame at the back of KAL 007 in the lead image to article. It did seem strange to me at the beginning but I just let it go but the more I think about it, it seems like a half hearted attempt to have KAL 007 on fire. This is contrary to ICAO which states that no portion of wreckage considered as connected with KAL 007 evidences burn marks. "1.11.10...Several items of wreckage could be identified as coming from a Boeing 747 and some had colours or text associated with Korean Air Lines. Some of the wreckage had an odour of kerosene but none showed evidence of fire." Is there a better image that could be used?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Time mag cover

This image should not be deleted. It should be retained with original caption. The reasons for non deletion, are sufficiently provided by the info which has now been added to the file photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Time_magazine.jpg Bert Schlossberg (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bert, please raise your objections on the page where the deletion has been nominated. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Have doneBert Schlossberg (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Waypoint deviation table confusing

The last 3 entries in the "Airway R20 Waypoint" table are confusing, since they include the text "distance from impact" in the deviation column. This column is showing the distance from intended course, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.19.237 (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct - the intended course formed an arc around Soviet territory at the point of impact, which is why the 8th waypoint is bizarrely further off course than the 7th and 9th. The diagrams I've seen that depict this route are not reliable. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Updated the main article based on this feedback to remove the extra text identified above. If distance from impact were known or knowable, it would need its own column and would have its own value at each waypoint. - P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.19.237 (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be good to not speak about "point of impact" and the location for it. There is a clear contradiction in published sources about this matter. But I am aware that ICAO does use "point of impact" and does give a precise location for it. Hear is my reasoning to not take either side of the conflict in the article.

1.The point of impact (46degtrees 33'32'N, 141 degrees 19"41'E) is given by ICAO in the area and at the time that Commander Piotti would state with over a "95% level of confidence that the wreckage of KAL 007 would be found not in the 225 sq. miles U.S. Task Force 71 was searching (which covered the area in question and which indeed proved futile*) but in Soviet territorial waters.

2. ICAO info for the location and the timing came from the some of the Soviet civilian divers. But prior to this info, the Soviet civilian divers had already stated and what they had stated already published in Izvestia, clear contradictions to what they are purported to have stated to ICAO. The most glaring contradiction, but by no means the only one, is the date of their diving and hence the finding of the black box. The civilian divers reports in Izvestia give no location for the wreck they had visited and the date they had first gone done much prior to the date that ICAO gives. ICAO gives the the beginning of October and the finding of the DFDR a week later and the CVR 3 days later (1.12.3). Under this reckoning, The Soviet search pretence lasted a month (they stopped the search first week of November) and then kept knowledge that they had the black box for 9 years. But the Soviet civilian diver reports of Izvestia state that the first civilian dive (both ICAO and Izvestia and subsequent diver reports all agree that the Soviet military divers had preceded the civilian!) had gone done on September 15, after the civilian divers had been kept waiting about a week at the Soviet diving instalation at Holmsk on Sackhalin. The Soviet pretence of searching was thus for more than two full months rather than one month

Diver Viacheslav Popov

“The first submergence was on 15 September, two weeks after the aircraft had been shot down. As we learned then, before us the trawlers had done some ‘work’ in the designated quadrant. It is hard to understand what sense the military saw in the trawling operation. First drag everything haphazardly around the bottom by the trawls, and then send in the submersibles?...It is clear that things should have been done in the reverse order.”


Because of the clear contradictions in published primary sources, I think that our article should stay clear of location of point of impact, and, indeed, certainty of a point of impact. An unspecified "Point of contact with water" is much better.

  • A 'large probability' area was established... The search of this area was also unseccessful. The search operations lasted until 5 Novemberand covered an area of approximately 225 square miles in international waters... ICA) '93, 1.11.7

Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging KAL 007: The Search in International Waters into this article. I don't feel that the incident and the search warrant two seperate pages. Often when pages are seperated like this the quality of both pages suffer. It is often best to keep the content together and ensure the quality remains high. It is better for a reader to have all the info within one article. ~PescoSo say•we all 15:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Merge the key points, delete the rest. WP:NOTWEBHOST. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am merging some dataBert Schlossberg (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Who's copying who?

After noticing the large number of quotes in this article that lack citations, I did a Google search of some of this article's text suspecting plagiarism. I have noticed that this article and the Conservapedia article on the subject contain much identical text. Since Conservapedia forbids copying from Wikipedia, I'm wondering if Conservapedia text has been copied into this article.

Please be aware that text may be getting copied from Conservapedia into Wikipedia. Also, please remember that on Wikipedia, all quotes require citations. How can you have an accurate quote without a source for the quote? --JHP (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's because User:Bert Schlossberg has been updating the article on both wikis, and has been cross-posting his edits. Please add a {{citequote}} tag to any quotes you are concerned about, and they will be dealt with. Thanks.Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have been updating in both articles. I will get citations for any edits I have made if requested.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Flight Crew Awareness of Deviation

This section is very poorly referenced, and looks like a bunch of original research or synthesis of the ICAO report. Please add reliable references for this section. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

will doBert Schlossberg (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC) doneBert Schlossberg (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think this section is good, especially because it indicates there has clearly been a coverup.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack, I think that this section clearly shows that the there is a possibility of an intentional deviation by the pilots, but that doesn't square to me with the fact that the pilots are so casual (CVR) at the times when their deviation took them over the most dangerous parts of their flight. But if there was an intentional deviation, it need not have been for intelligence gathering purposes, or even for "short-cutting" to save fuel. The opinion of Capt. Parks, the pilot of sister flight KAL 015, and the close friend (important) of Capt. Chun, the pilot of 007, was that Capt. Chun, soon after take off, realized that the INS had inserted into it the wrong coordinates, or the right coordinates but when off ramp position and rolling, and rather than lose face, risk demotion, be fined heavily for having had to dump fuel and return (which he would have had to do according to KAL regulations) decided to "wing it" on magnetic compass, and believed that he was successfully doing it. I don't knowBert Schlossberg (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - it is not only according to Pearson that the points of this section bear on pilot awareness of the deviation, also ICAO (and others) point this out. This section merely high lights the points rather than deciding in favor of intentionality (suggested by Pearson)or "lack of situational awareness" (ICAO). It might be better to say "according to ICAO, Pearson (since most of the citations are from him) and others, rather than leave it at "according to Pearson". I could look up the references in ICAO at later dateBert Schlossberg (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Socrates, accurate and said well!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least this section highlights the problem with the official theory of what happened. The banter is a valid point, but the numerous indications that the plane was off course is also valid. The article should encompass both points.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I'll mention it. I just read through and this looks like a great article. What's left to do to get it to featured status? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of work! :-) Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a whole lot of experience with starting article reviews and the like, so I'm not really sure where to begin, but I'd love to contribute! AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Aniraptor, I'd love to see this a featured article as well' go to it!, I will help any way I can, as I know Socrates will also. Bert Schlossberg70.191.161.173 (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the points to be addressed for FA:
  • Referencing - the stds are much higher than for GA.
  • Language - people will shred you for style & grammar.
  • POV - I guess I've worked on this article too much now to be objective anymore, however the content is controversial and therefore likely to raise some "interesting" debate.
  • Synthesis - Still have some minor concerns about this, esp around interpretation of flight data recorder info.
  • Coverage - I'm not aware of any glaring (verifiable) facts that are not mentioned in the story.
  • The last attempt at FA raised points that need addressing.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that the references need to be absolutely perfect for FA. After my reading, I didn't feel that the article was particularly skewed towards any particular point of view. I was expecting far more conspiracy theory blabber, and honestly did not expect such a high-quality article. While the synthesis concerns are a bit beyond my abilities, I may be able to secure an improved rendering for the lead image. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot of "conspiracy theory blabber" about the Soviet Government shooting down a civilian aircraft that innocently strayed off course and then covering up the truth.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Your personal conspiracy theory is not mainstream. Apart from repeatedly sharing your disapproval of this article on the talk page over the past months, you have failed so far to prove any reliable sources for your point of view. So my suggestion is that you either find these references and submit them, or that you refrain from further unhelpful comments such as the one above. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have actually added citations in the article. My point is that the term "conspiracy theory" is clearly biased in this context.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is. I did not mean to suggest that any of the viewpoints of the shootdown discussed in this article can be dismissed as conspiracy theories or blabber. The entire thing is very well sourced and carefully written. Let's see what we can do to improve it. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Alvin Snyder incident in the aftermath section

I have added , some of Alvin Snyders comments in his article in Washington Post , september 1, 1996, in the "Aftermath" section of the article. It is well documented, and it is an important article from Washington Post, since Alvin Snyder was in the centre of all the activities concerning the U.S handling of the KAL 007 incident.

http://www.alvinsnyder.com/the_truth_about_korean_airlines_flight_007_8994.htm

I especially find it interesting , that Alvin Snyder says that Osipovich fired warningshots with his machine cannon - the very same thing, was in the transmission from the swedish television in september 1983 !! I think the transcripts of russian transmission on the conservapedia article is not quite complete or perhaps wrongly translated . Alvin Snyder also reports that Osipovich tipped his wings as a signal to KAL 007 - that is also not on the transcript in the conservapedia article - something is definitely missing there.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Korean_Airlines_Flight_007#The_Osipovich.E2.80.93Air_Controller_KAL_007_Identity_miscommunication

Understandable science (talk 17:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody changed a lot in this sections text, and I have tried to clean up , as best as I can. Someone removed the links and wanted clarification of what agency USIA ( United States Information Agency) was - I have provided the answer with links, and provided links to the article, that has Alvin Snyder´s statements. Just want to give a link to the original article in Washington Post, september 1, 1996: 

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/10192271.html?dids=10192271&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS&date=Sep+1%2C+1996&author=Snyder%2C+Alvin+A&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=C2&desc=Flight+007%3A++The+rest+of+the+story

A link to Alvin Snyders curriculum vitae (CV) (and his own website) - to show that he actually was director of worldwide television for USIA :

http://www.annenberg.northwestern.edu/pubs/usfa/

http://www.alvinsnyder.com/

Understandable science 17:41 , 7 september, 2009

State maps changed

The following i know to be true from the documentation that I have. I won't edit it in as I do not know whether this has been published in acceptable literature. Perhaps one of you would know:

Sakhalin Island had been occupied by the Soviets just in the North. Two weeks before the end of World War ll, the Soviets routed Japan from the South. U.S. State department maps had always had a line (50 degrees)of demarcation between North and South - until KAL 007. Then no more. Why? From State Dapartment Watch - "For decades through the mid-1980s the State Department always marked maps of Sakhalin Island with a dividing line at 50 degrees north noting that the Soviet Union occupied it but was not sovereign. In September 1983, when the Soviets shot down the Korean airliner KAL007 over southern Sakhalin Island, the State Department removed the dividing line and notation on the map, lending legitimacy to the Soviet excuse of shooting down a civilian airplane in its "sovereign" airspace````Bert Schlossberg

Hi Bert - what documentation would that be? Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/SoSakhalinGiveaway.htm The map, progesion of documents, and the Treaty of San Francisco have a marked bearing on KAL 007 matters. State Department Watch has its main concern with a number of Islands, including Wrangel, and not primarily on Sakhalin. But someone might have published more on the connection to Sakhalin and KAL 007 Bert Schlossberg

Reverted Swedish broadcast edit

I reverted Swedish broadcast of 1983 edits (Timeline of Flight and Transcripts intro). Osipovich himself in his 1996 New York Times interview reversed himself and admitted that he had known that the aircraft was a passsenger plane and that it was a Boeing 747 which he knew by the double row of lights, and that he had not fired tracer rounds at or in the direction of KAL 007. He maintained that he thought the 747 was on an intelligence mission, had reported to ground controller (Titovnin) that it had blinking lights and had not reported that it was a Boeing 747, thinking that the description of it would have indicated a transport and would have been sufficient. From the transcript of communication between Lt. Col. Maistrenko and Lt. Col.Titovnin, it was not sufficient.


From http://www.conservapedia.com/Korean_Airlines_Flight_007#The_Osipovich.E2.80.93Air_Controller_KAL_007_Identity_miscommunication

"I knew this was a civilian plane"

Until 1996, there had been a controversy concerning the identity of KAL 007 by the Soviets as a civilian passenger plane, rather than a U.S. RC-135 Reconnaissance plane. But that ended with the acknowledgment of Gennadie Osipovich, the SU-15 Interceptor pilot, that he indeed knew he was shooting down a civilian passenger plane and that he did see its navigation lights blinking.

"From the flashing lights and the configuration of the windows, he recognized the aircraft as a civilian type of plane,....'I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing,' he said. 'I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use.(New York Times, Dec. 9, 1996).

At 18:26 GMT two air-to-air missiles from an Su-15 Flagon piloted by Major Gennadi Osipovich were fired at the jumbo jet[4], causing it to spiral down from 35,000 feet and after a 12 minute descent crash into the sea near Moneron Island.

The Osipovich–Air Controller KAL 007 Identity miscommunication

In his September 9, 1996 interview Osipovich stated that he knew that it was a civilian Boeing from the double rows of windows. He told ground controllers that there were blinking lights, which he believed should have alerted them to the fact that the plane was a transport. But he did not tell them that the aircraft was specifically a Boeing 747. Also clear, is that KAL 007's blinking navigational lights were also not communicated upward:

"From the flashing lights and the configuration of the windows, he recognized the aircraft as a civilian type of plane, he said. 'I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing,' he said. 'I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use.'... Osipovich also revealed that in the pressure of the moment, he did not provide a full description of the intruder to Soviet ground controllers. 'I did not tell the ground that it was a Boeing-type plane,' he recalled. 'They did not ask me.' He did, however, tell Soviet ground controllers that the plane had blinking lights on, which he says was an indication that it could be a transport plane." That the omission of the identity of KAL 007 as a Boeing by Osipovich is confirmed by ground personnel to the Combat controller, Lt. Col. Titovnin:

Titovnin: The commander has given orders that if the border is violated—destroy [the target]. Lt. Col. Maistrenko: ...May [be] a passenger [aircraft]. All necessary steps must be taken to identify it. Titovnin: Identification measures are being taken, but the pilot cannot see. It’s dark. Even now it’s still dark. Maistrenko: Well, okay. The task is correct. If there are no lights—it cannot be a passenger [aircraft]. 98.170.236.50 (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg

Bert, thanks for this - I agree with your summary. Please bear in mind that Conservapedia does not meet the WP:NPOV or WP:V requirements of Wikipeda. Also, given that you wrote most (all?) of the Conservapedia article, citing it here would be a self reference. Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bert, Socrates and everyone else !! Bert , please keep in mind, that your timeline of transmissions might not be complete, there are large intervals between some of the transmitting, and you can not be sure that all transmission is included in your conservapedia article. For instance Osipovich shoots 243 rounds of cannon shells - where is that on the transcription ?? And were they warning shots or shots at the KAL 007 ? I don´t mind that you undo the swedish broadcasting from 1983, I have no shares of interest in this matter - however the broadcasting still exists in the archives of the national television of Sweden. It is only less than one minut transmission from the fighter pilot - nowhere does it indicate that the fighter pilot identified the airplane as a passenger flight ( perhaps the broadcasting was edited by the swedes - I don´t know), but it does mention that the fighter is flying ahead of the airplane (flashing warninglights) and later fires his machineguns as a warning. If the fighterpilot later changed his version in an interview (on your own blog... hmm,hmm....) , then apparently he changed his version once more in later interviews , where he does state that he fired rounds from his machinegun : Here is an interview from Discovery Channel : Unsolved History, KAL 007 :

http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/133157

In the same program there is a few seconds of the original transmission from the fighter pilot - he says "flying ahead of target" in russian !! Perhaps you should buy this program from Discovery Channel - it is available on DVD.

Yes,he did fly ahead, and in passing knew that KAL 007 was a passenger 747. That is when he reported to his ground controller that he would try a missile (instead of the canons), and then he dropped behind.Bert Schlossberg

All the best to all here on Wiki. Greetings from Understandable science 17:04, 6. september 2009.

I found the part from Discovery Channel, Unsolved History, KAL 007 :

http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/133163&mvpageno=1

With the original transmission from the russian fighter pilot: " I am going around it " ...."I am already moving IN FRONT of the target" ...... so the russian fighter according to this , did fly ahead of the KAL 007. No need to buy the DVD after all . Understandable science 17:41 , 6 september, 2009.

Alternative theories

In the context "Flight 007 has been the subject of ongoing controversy and has spawned a number of conspiracy theories, XXXX as a result of Cold War disinformation campaigns..." why is "arguably" considered "editorial" while "primarily" is considered NPOV?? The controversy has in fact continued since the end of the Cold War. Furthermore, I think it is hardly neutral to dismiss Time magazine, Airways magazine, and numerous other publications as merely "Cold War disinformation campaigns". They may well have been wrong, but that is not the same as being mouthpieces of Moscow. Finally, the sentence leaves itself open to endless edits and additions (which has already happened). Would it not be better to stick to the bare bones of the issue and not "editorialise" at all about the reasons for the controversy. I mean, the deaths of numerous civilians in unexplained circumstances - isn't that controversial enough???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Arguably" implies that it's the editor (i.e. you) who is making the argument - so this is blatant, unreferenced synthesis at worst, or weasel terminology at best. Suggest you find some references rather than try to construct your own argument in the article. PS: The wording does not suggest that the controversy ended with the Cold War, but rather that it is rooted in it.Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You've totally missed the point. I am not making the argument at all. As I indicated above, I think the entire introductory sentence is far from NPOV and ideally should be replaced, but the phrase "primarily as a result of Cold War disinformation campaigns" just has to go. "Primarily"! This states that without a doubt the shooting down of a civilian aircraft wouldn't attract controversy if not for these "disinformation campaigns". Note that it refers to "disinformation campaigns", not just the Cold War context. Which is palpably absurd. "Arguably" at least states that some have argued (as cited presumably). Another problem is that after this imperious "primarily" a number of other supposed causes have been tacked on, which probably will continue indefinitely, sucking any meaning from the word "primarily". But the lack of neutrality is the main problem. While you've got your nose in the Wikipedia rule book why don't you look up "NPOV". And better still actually read the text!--Jack Upland (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the wording could be improved, but "arguably" is not terminology of an encyclopedia. Suggest that to avoid edit warring, any new wording is hammered out here first before being made to the article, that you supply references rather than use weasel phrases like "some have argued". Socrates2008 (Talk)

I see your point about "arguably", but I don't think you're really grasping the issue. Why should I provide references for something I disagree with??? I don't we actually need to explain the cause of the controversy or "conspiracy theories". The reader can work that out by reading the article. Nor do we need to reiterate the Cold War context or the black box issue. I would propose the sentence be shortened to: "Flight 007 has been the subject of ongoing controversy and has spawned a number of conspiracy theories.". Then we can go on with the details.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC0

The Cold War context is very important - e.g. the Soviets were the first to make accusations that the flight had a military purpose. The rift also effectively precluded a proper investigation, which in turn fuelled and spawned a number of theories. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Cold War context is obvious from the article. Citing it here is unnecessarily - accept that it vaguely undermines what follows. But the sentence actually says "Cold War disinformation campaigns" - that's a very much stronger allegation. And one that the source given (Pry, p 31) doesn't support! Then the sentence loses its way, ending up talking about surveillance aircraft, implying the "conspiracy theories" are valid. It really is a sentence "made by a committee" which no individual could endorse in its entirety, but which puts forward a number of points of view, none of which seem to well supported. It really should be neutralised.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know I was a committee :-). Anyway, the sentence you are having difficulty with is merely intended as an introduction to the various conspiracy theories, before launching directly into the first one. Have added a better ref. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're not a committee. Maybe you're just confused. I would have thought the deviation of the plane should be added as a reason for the theories.

And I still don't see why tacitly accusing the numerous American "conspiracy theorists" of being dupes of Soviet "disinformation" and "propaganda" is neutral. Perhaps if I type WP:NPOV you might get the point.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I am confused about is your constant picking at the intro when you can simply add a paragraph, with references, to cover any theory that you feel needs expansion. I also don't see why you're waving the NPOV flag, because although no-one is stopping you making a contribution, you seem to feel more comfortable with criticism.

PS: The attribution of disinformation and and/or conspiracy to only one side is your own misinterpretation - suggest you re-read the intro with an NPOV instead of assuming that any of these was unilateral. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As previously discussed, anything I do will be reverted. If it was up to me I would simply shorten the introductory sentence as outlined previously. Adding another para elsewhere won't change an introductory sentence that is biased and/or confused. As most of the "conspiracy theories" listed are critical of the US Government I don't see how they could be said to be due to US Cold War disinformation or propaganda!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, as previously discussed, the only bias you've highlighted is your own. There is nothing in the section intro to suggest that the conspiracy theories are critical of the US government only (See Bert Schlossberg's theory for example, which is particularly critical of the Soviet government). The information you deleted is neutral and meets the verifiability requirement with no less than three citations. Lastly, the {{fact}} tag you added appears pointed, as the reference was already present at the end of the sentence you tagged. As before, you're still not actually making any contribution to the article, just deleting, criticising and tagging it - something that is now becoming rather disruptive. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think the sentence is your private property. First, you advise me to discuss rather than edit, then suggest I contribute rather than discuss, then you condemn me for doing both! I do not intend to engage in an edit war, but will respond to your criticism for the future reference of other editors.

How can calling an opinion a “conspiracy theory” that’s “rooted in” “disinformation and propaganda” be construed as neutral? It doesn’t matter if you believe this is US Government disinformation and propaganda! Which I doubt! Even in the case to Schlossberg!

You boast that this contention has “no less than three citations”. The only one I can check (Pry) is irrelevant. It’s simply dishonest to keep it there. And Pearson is one of the theorists being maligned. So presumably (?) this is the opinion of Young. If so, it should be treated as such, not used as an introduction.

There is no need for you to disrupt your quiet self-contemplation by responding.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Censorship is not contributing to the article, especially when this is based on your unfounded POV that the words "disinformation" and "propaganda" somehow infer one-sided fault on the part of the USA. Now here's the catch: BOTH counties sowed propaganda and disinformation about this Cold War incident.
PS: Here are those three "dishonest" citations you seem to have trouble reviewing (Google is your friend):
  • [117] (last paragraph on p. 382)
  • [118] (paragraph 1 on p. 31)
  • [119]

Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't connect to anything I've said. As for the citations, Pry refers to "KGB disinformation" about Andropov being a "closet liberal". Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've just searched for the words "disinformation" in the books without reading the context! I rest my case.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yip, you're wrong - the keyword search was for your benefit as you claimed the citations were "dishonest". Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I rest my case. But as a postscript, I query whether the Knight encyclopedia is a reliable source. It states that Gollin and Allardyce do not suggest a conspiracy involving US intelligence. In fact, as cited, they do.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

photo on page

it states in the article thaty the plane had engine power and that the crash was due to loss of contorl to the flight surfaces. why does the photo show engines on fire when it was shot at with radar missles wich would have not struck the engines and exploded 50 meteres behind the plane wich is another 50 meteres to the engines. i think we should have a new picture put up.Firl21 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a new picture should be put up. It just shows the power and fixity of images on our mind and thinking. And how we carry with us "former knowledges" that the present read of facts do not support. Bert Schlossberg

Well, I see that new picture is up - and it is good one! Bert Schlossberg

Warning shots/ Tracer rounds

citations for the above

The citations for the Memos and Izvestia article - Top Secret Memos disclosed in 1992 by Boris Yeltsin and published in Izvestia, #228, Oct. 16, 1992., Cited in Christopher Andrew, "KGB Foreign Intelligence from Brezhnev to the Coup," Intelligence and National Security, vol. 8, no. 3 (July 1993), p. 60." and by Benjamin B. Fischer,Center for the Study of Intelligence (CIA), A Cold War Conundrum, 1997)Bert Schlossberg

"eyewitness" report

I have included this report, which is not in effect an eyewitness report as the informer did not see KAL 007, because it is one of the puzzling reports that generally is accepted (except by Brun and a few others). The informant heard a sound and then a flash of light. As Brun points out, the plane was presumably very far away (low on the horizon). What should have arrived to his senses first was not the sound but the flash, light traveling much faster than sound.Bert Schlossberg

Notes

Unless anyone has severe objections (supported by good reasons), I am planning on deleting note # 6, which currently says:

"^ INS mode, while accurate to within a mile, is not accurate enough for take-off and landing. HEADING mode is typically used during take-off and landing, as runways are by convention aligned on a magnetic heading. (Degani, 2001)"

My reason for deleting is that it is a very confusing statement, with the latter part not being true at all. The autopilot heading mode is not used to make approaches and landings, nor for takeoff. When the AP heading mode is used to vector to intercept the final approach course of the typical ILS approach, the autopilot is armed to capture that final approach localizer and fly it inbound to the runway with the ILS mode of the AP, not the heading mode. It would be both dangerous and illegal to try and use the AP heading mode to make a landing. And, for takeoff, the autopilot is not allowed to be on at all, so it would be impossible to be using the AP heading mode for takeoff. I could find nothing in the Degani chapter 4, where he discusses the functions of the AP modes, to support that incomprehensible statement of note # 6. Degani did not say anything like that, so the citation is worthless. EditorASC (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"eyewitness" report

I include this report here, though it is the wrong place. For some reason, my edits to this page do not appear at the end. Can anyone helop me? We shall see if they appear here.BertSchlossberg I have included this report, which is not in effect an eyewitness report as the informer did not see KAL 007, because it is one of the puzzling reports that generally is accepted (except by Brun and a few others). The informant heard a sound and then saw a flash. As Brun points out, the plane was presumably very far away (low on the horizon). What should have arrived to his senses first was not the sound but the flash, light traveling much faster than sound.Bert Schlossberg

Location/Occurrence summary

The location given in the 'Occurence summary' is the Strait of Tartary, however the maps shows that the plane was shot down much further south, near Nevelsk in the Sea of Japan. Can we correct this? --Kleinzach 05:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed the reference to the Strait of Tartary.--Kleinzach 00:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

S-a-k-h-a-l-i-n-s-k-a-

I have re-edited in the S-a-k-h-l-i-n-s-k-a as Orville Brockman, spokesman for Washington D.C. FAA, had spelled out the name of the Island to Tommy Toles, press secretary of Larry McDonald. That call was recorded and is in the books that speak about the safe landing on Sakhalin report. And that is the way it is in Pearson's book which is the reference to this quote. (Again, I have to edit this in the wrong place to get onto the discussion page. I don't know why my discussion page is truncated. Perhaps, my page is the only one messed up and I needn't put in wrong place after all!) Bert Schlossberg


If the question is whether or not Osipovich fired incendiary warning shots - No evidence of this in the transcripts which are a part of ICAO report. Also no evidence of awareness of shots of any kind (crew reaction) in the KAL 007 CVR tapes. In a number of places Osipovich maintains that he did fire warning shots. In both Osipovich's interview and in the Nov. 28 1983 memo of General Makarov, published in 1992 by Izvestia, there is a clear denial of TRACER rounds that could have been seen by the the crew of KAL 007. That and no confirmation that the interceptor pilot had ever tried to contact KAL 007 on emergency frequency (which would have been picked up by the CVR) are the reasons that Makarov gives for his recommendation that the Black Box remain concealed from the West. Bert Schlossberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.236.50 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You've added a quote box to the section "Revised ICAO report (1993) - "The Report of the Completion of the Fact Finding Investigation..." but there isn't much indication of how it fits in with the flow of the section. Can we do something about that? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The section as we had it was the "Revised ICAO report (1993)". I really do not object to that and it really is a revision of the ICAO '83 report. But the official title and self understanding is that it is a "completion" of the 1983 report. The full title is "The Report of the Completion of the Fact Finding Investigation Regarding the Shooting Down of Korean Air Lines Boeing 747 (Flight KE 007) On 31 August 1983". That is why I added (perhaps faultily) , instead of the whole cumbersome title, "The Report of the Completion of the Fact Finding Investigation..."Bert Schlossberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.236.50 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

AniRaptor, did you mean the quote box in the Soviet Memoranda section rather than the Revised ICAO section? If so, that is an old quote box, been there a long time. I just added the photo of Dmitri Ustinov and the quote box got repositioned. The quote itself is pertinent to the section.BertSchlossberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.236.50 (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that the addition of the photo has caused the quote box to travel off somewhere else. Let me see what I can do to remedy this. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Missile damage to the plane

Hydraulics:

I removed this statement from that paragraph: "System four also had a third electrical power source." While that is technically true, it is not relevant nor germane to the subject matter of remaining hydraulic control of the plane, after the missile damage. The reason is that the electrical power source for the # 4 hydraulic system is solely for having braking power, while the plane is being towed by mechanics. They turn on that electric pump switch, which pressurizes the # 4 system on the ground, so that the mechanic sitting in the pilot's seat can apply the plane's brakes, whenever needed during a ground towing operation. That pump only works on the ground and then only if the number 4 engine is not running. It has no power source when the plane is in flight, thus it would not be available to power the # 4 hydraulic system, except on the ground. EditorASC (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Could have alerted them" changed

My understanding is that when a plane is forced to relay reports by means of another plane, and in this case, three times, then that certainly does give a "heads up" that they are off course. But I think that the deleted "could have", not "should have" or something like that ("by definition") is more accurate. That is because it is not uncommon for a plane to have to request of another plane relay of a position report because of, most often, weather interference. It is in the spectrum of the other aspects of pilot awareness of possible course deviation (Horizontal Situation Indicator in front of each pilot would have been pegged at its limit showing at least 8 miles deviation at Bethel when KAL 007 was, in fact, shown by King Salmon radar, 12.6 miles deviated, etc.) that the "could have" verges on to "should have".Bert Schlossberg (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bert: "That is because it is not uncommon for a plane to have to request of another plane relay of a position report because of, most often, weather interference."
Actually, it is extremely rare, IMHO, for a plane to be forced to ask another plane to relay its report. Weather does not interfere with line-of-sight VHF and UHF radio communications, but it sometime does interfere with HF (low frequency) communications. The crew should have been, and most likely were, alerted to the fact that they were off-course, by the fact that they could not reach the normal ground-based ATC facilities with their VHF radios, in areas were VHF was the normal method of making progress reports. Other factors too (HSI needle, mileages and crosstrack readings on the INS, etc.) would have alerted them. All of which makes the Ewing Scenario highly probable to me, namely that the FO and SO knew the Capt was tracking to the right of the course, but that they decided not to say anything, simply because of their cultural conditioning that said the Capt is equivalent to God, and to never be challenged. Also, that it was likely the Captain was in the cabin talking to prominent passengers for a good deal of the time, so that he was not aware of his own screw-up. EditorASC (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correction. I will be in contact on your user talk page when able to continue discussion where we left offBert Schlossberg (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"abundance of shoes"

Have changed "were prepared" to "might have been prepared". The editor might have used the following material (International Committee for the Rescue...) as basis:

"On Monday, September 26, 1983, a delegation of seven Japanese and American officials arriving aboard the Japanese patrol boat Tsugaru, met a six-man Soviet delegation at the port of Nevelsk on Sakhalin Island. KGB Major General A. I. Romanenko, the Commander of the Sakhalin and Kuril Islands frontier guard, headed the Soviet delegation.* Romanenko handed over to the Americans and Japanese, among other things, single and paired footwear. With footwear that the Japanese also retrieved, the total came to 213 men's, women's and children's dress shoes, sandals, and sports shoes. The Soviets said that all that they had retrieved, they had found floating in the water or washed up on the shores of Sakhalin and Moneron islands.

Family members of KAL 007 passengers would later state that these shoes were actually worn by their loved ones for the flight on that fateful night. Sonia Munder had no difficulty recognizing the sneakers of her children, one of Christian age 14 and one of Lisi age 17, by the intricate way her children laced them. (Sonia confirmed to me personally that her children were wearing these shoes when they boarded the flight). Another mother says, "I recognized them just like that. You see, there are all kinds of inconspicuous marks which strangers do not notice. This is how I recognized them. My daughter loved to wear them." And yet, another mother (and maybe it takes a mother!), Nan Oldham identified her son, John's, sneakers from a photo in Life magazine of 55 of the 213 shoes -- apparently, a random array on display those first days at Chitose Air Force Base in Japan. "We saw photos of his shoes in a magazine," says Nan, "We followed up through KAL and a few weeks later, a package arrived. His shoes were inside: size 11 sneakers with cream white paint." John Oldham had taken his seat in row 31 of KAL 007 wearing those cream white paint spattered sneakers. He had just come from painting his suburban Washington, D.C., family home.

From an examination of the shoes in the photo of Life magazine, pairing the sets and counting them with the single shoes, and relating them to the whole, it turns out that the total amount of shoes retrieved account for 198 of the 269 people of KAL 007 - or almost 74% of the total.

The Soviets retrieved the shoes of some portion of this 74% of the flight's passengers, yet claimed not to have found one single body, not one person. This adds great weight to the question "Where are the bodies?" Either the shoes were on the bodies and removed by the Soviets (or the Japanese), or they were removed by the wearers and retrieved by the Soviets (or Japanese). Why were these shoes loose? Were they taken off in preparation for the landing or were they simply removed during the course of the flight? In either case, the one great question remains. Is it really possible for so many shoes to be found and not one single person found to wear them? And if we should negate that the shoes were taken off in preparation for a ditching - that there was no time to do so, or the aircraft was in an exploded and too disintegrated condition to do so, then another question arises - If the non appearance of bodies is explained by their flesh being eaten by crabs, and, contrary to expert opinion, bones eaten by sea creatures, is it really credible, that not one of the 213 items of footwear had a foot, or a toe or a toe bone within it?

  • Note - Gen. Romanenko would meet a bad end due (according to the Republican Staff Report) to his handling of KAL 007 matters. The Republican Staff Study reports that he was probably sent to the Gulag himself. The Israeli Research Centre for Prisons, Psych-Prisons, and Forced Labor Concentration Camps of the USSR, resting on informant information reported, independently and prior to the Staff Study, that Romanenko's name no longer appears in KGB computers. (Once in, a person is noted as reassigned, deceased, retired, etc., but never deleted. It is as if Gen. Romanenko never existed). And finally, Hans Ephraimson-Abt, the head of the US families of the victims association, reports that while he was in East Germany at the Soviet embassy, he was informed by embassy officials that Gen. Romanenko, whom he had come to enquire about (he had not!), had committed suicide. Of course, each in its own time, could have been true."Bert Schlossberg (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Completed not revised report

I just want to point out, but will leave it for someone else to make a better title, the 1993 ICAO report is not a "revision" of the 1983 report, but, in its own terms and phrasology a "completion" of the 1983 report. That is why it is officially called "The Report of the Completion of the Fact Finding Investigation..." Bert Schlossberg (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

S-a-k-h-a-l-i-n-s-k-a

I have put S-a-k-h-a-l-i-n-s-k-a in again. This is part of the original quote, the name of the Island was actually spelled out in the communication, so it should remain in. This spelling had been deleted twice before people thinking that it was not original to the communication but appears as a result of faulty editingBert Schlossberg (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Add a note to explain and you might have more luck. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Article length

This article has been growing and growing and in the process becoming increasingly unwieldy. It would be a shame to break it up, as it would lose continuity, but the only other alternative is some smarter editing, such as removal of redundant and exclusion of non-essential information. May I suggest that the quotes section falls into the category of the latter? In any event, I encourage other editors to bear the length in mind before adding further content. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to the split. I think that what we have now in amount and content for the Alternative theories section seems just about right taking the article as a whole. I agree about deleting the Quotes section.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen WP:SIZERULE (this article is 169KB?) We're going to have to sort this out somehow, so what is your suggestion if you are opposed to the particular split I proposed? Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Before we go the way of split, let me go over article and see if I come up with anything to deleteBert Schlossberg (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted some from the Revised ICAO report ('93) and suggest deleting Popular Culture. If that still won't do, I would agree to splitting (If we do split, I would prefer to leave in main article Popular Culture, but not what I have just deleted from the Revised ICAO report.)Bert Schlossberg (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's still too long (167KB) What about splitting out the transcript? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean its still too long with the Alternative theories section split away and the Popular culture deleted? How much of a "rule" is the SIZERULE? It seems more of a guideline that allows other factors to come into consideration rather than a requirement. The Time Line/Transcripts seem to me to be so much a part of the main article that I loathe to see it split. When I see how minor articles are sometimes split off from a main article, or perhaps had never been part of the main article, they seem to be the nonessential aspects or sometimes, just points of interest. But in the case of KAL 007, the transcripts are so much the core of almost all aspects.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not fully at peace about this and wanting the article to stay as is, but if the Transcripts were split off could the Alternative theories stay part of the main article as well? Would the article be reduced enough according to the guidliness to allow that?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ICAO photo

I believe that ICAO moved into the building pictured only in the 1990s, making this photo anachronistic to the article. Is that of concern? - Montréalais (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the article would seem to be a logical course of action given the vast body of evidence compiled whilst various organizations and people have investigated this incident. And I do think, as most good students of history would agree, that making a segregation between primary sources (maps, flight logs, recordings etc...) and theories (ie: how the information has been interpreted by various parties) is not only logical, but quite frankly necessary for the sake of posterity. And then certainly, in order to maintain clarity, the 'Pop Culture wild card' is valid as a separate entity because the incident depicted has resonated in popular culture. This is evident when taking into account movies, documentaries and books that have, in one way or another, attempted to show understanding about the events that occurred regarding KE007 (KAL007). I view wikipedia in a way I assume that most people do: An online encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are by their very definition, designed to be reference materials. The added edge of wikipedia is that it does allow the flexibility of off shoots that include popular cultural references. However, as wikipedia is primarily a reference tool, then segregation needs to apply. - John Cousins# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.145.54 (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Autopilot modes, Vs INS Systems

I just now rolled back an edit that was most likely made in good faith. However, it resulted in a change to erroneous nomenclature and information, so I restored the correct wording. This is how the passage read before the correct word was changed to an incorrect one:

The auto pilot system had four basic control modes: INS, HEADING, VOR/LOC and ILS. When the INS navigation systems were properly programmed with the filed flight plan waypoints, the pilot could turn the auto pilot mode selector switch to the INS position and the plane would then automatically track the programmed INS course line, provided it was headed in the proper direction and within 7.5 nautical miles of the INS course line.

And, here is how it was changed to the incorrect word:

The auto pilot system had four basic control modes: INS, HEADING, VOR/LOC and ILS. When the INS modes were properly programmed with the filed flight plan waypoints,...

The word "modes" is proper for explaining the lateral navigation options available to the AUTO PILOT SYSTEM. The AP course selector switch can be moved to any of those 4 lateral modes mentioned above. But, the AP SYSTEM is a different system than the three INS navigation SYSTEMS. The INS systems also have mode selection options on their CDUs (control-display units). Each SYSTEM has various modes it can operate in. Modes are available options within any given SYSTEM. They are not SYSTEMS themselves. Thus, when mentioning that the AP could be placed in the INS mode, that is a reference to one of the four lateral navigation mode options available to the Auto Pilot SYSTEM. If the AP mode selector is placed to the INS position, then the AP will follow the lateral flight plan course that is programmed into any of the three INS navigation SYSTEMS. It is therefore not correct to refer to the INS navigation systems as "INS modes."

Clear as mud? EditorASC (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Pure propaganda piece. This is the kind of article that is typical of wikipedia. The alternative theories section opens by making a prejudicial attack on right *and* left wing thinking without any emphasis on factual argument. What's more, the most outlandish theories are discussed first, an obvious effort to taint the more plausible scenarios which follow. Is the CIA writing this article? unsigned comment added by 122.106.5.150 (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2010

Perhaps you should have reviewed the edit history of this article before commenting? In any event, fringe theories is a helpful guidline that you may wish to consider. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The first guy is right... It is all propaganda. Moon landing have many mnay theories saying that it never happned. But I think we SHOULD NOT allow them here what so ever.Talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.211.232 (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why this part is in small letters?

"Today, when all versions have been viewed from all possible angles, when leading specialists, including pilots who have flown Boeings for thousands of hours, have declared that three computers could not break down all at once, and neither could five radio transmitters, there can be no doubt as to the intentions of the intruder plane. The Soviet pilots who intercepted the aircraft could not have known that it was a civilian plane. It was flying without the navigation lights,[Notes 7] in conditions of poor visibility and did not respond to radio signals."[3]

I found the above part where it somewhat proved that the Russians had the right to shot down. But the part was in samll letters compared to the size of the letters in the other parts of the article. WHY IS THAT? I am not bias towards Russians, but it seems like that someone here is trying to be bias aginst Russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.211.232 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

About whether or not KAL 007 was known to be a civilian passenger plane - In 1996, Osipovich would reverse his previous denials that he knew that the "target" he had downed was a civilian passenger plane. "I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing. I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use." (New York Times interview, September 9, 1996)

About KAL 007 being warned before being shot down -

"However in case the flight recorders shall become available to the western countries their data may be used for: - Claiming possibility of erroneous use by the crew of airborne navigational equipment to form various theories based on the data analysis; - Confirmation of no attempt by the intercepting aircraft to establish a radio contact with the intruder plane on 121.5 MHz and no tracers warning shots in the last section of the flight; - Disputing our specification of the flight termination time (the time of the flight termination may be altered within a range from 30 to 40 seconds); - Confirmation of no intelligence mission by the plane on the strength of argument that within the last 30 minutes of flight during which the voice recorder registered oral communications of the crew nothing was said that might disclose the reason of incursion of the airplane into the airspace of the USSR. However in our opinion the same argument might equally be used as circumstantial evidence of intentional incursion. In sum the available objective data by the flight recorder may equally be used by the USSR and the western countries in confirmation of opposite views on nature of the flight by the South Korean airplane. The data by the voice recorder may be expressly favorable for the western countries.

CONCLUSION In connection with above, it seems unnecessary to transfer the flight recorders to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) or any third party willing to decipher and analyze of their data. Head of the Group Lieutenant-General of Aviation MAKAROV Staff of the Group Lieutenant-General Engineer TICHOMIROV Major-General Engineer DIDENKO Major -General of Aviation STEPANOV Major -General of Aviation KOVTUN Corresponding Member of Academy of Sciences of the USSR FEDOSOV 28 November 1983"

The sourcing of the above - In 1992, Russian president Boris Yeltsin disclosed five top-secret memos dating from late 1983, within weeks of the downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007. These memos were published in the Soviet news magazine, Izvestia #228, October 16, 1992, shortly after being made public. I don't think that this article is biased against the Soviet Union. For the full text of the memos, see http://www.rescue007.org/TopSecretMemos.htm Bert Schlossberg (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Compared to Iran Air Flight 655, this one is US bias!

Compare to USA shoot down of Iranian jet here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655, this article is clearly bias aginst Russians! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.211.232 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to be more specific? PS: The Iranian shootdown article has previously been flagged as biased against the Iranians. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That's my whole point! The Iran Air 655 is against Iranians, while this one is against Russia. Wikipedia is not neutral that you all try to say it is neutral. In fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing, Timothy McVeigh is belongs to Christian Identity movement, which is a US and Western bases Christian terrorist movement. But yet, Wikipedia failed to mention that Timothy McVeigh is Christian! How come when an Islamic, Hindu or a Buddhist terrorist blow something up, they are immediately label as "their religion" + "terrorist", yet when American Christians do it, it is not label like that? No wonder Wikipedia is losing ground in countries like Russia, India, Sri Lanka, Brazil and many other countries due to its bias support for the Westren Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.211.232 (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
In addition, this article DID NOT mention the FACT THAT ACCORDING TO THE INTERNATIOAL LAW (NOT THE AMERICAN CHRISTIAN LAW), RUSSIA HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO SHOT DOWN KOREAN AIR 007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.211.232 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

According to international convention, Russia had first the obligation of warning KAL 007. This would have been done, on emergency frequency, waggling the wings of the interceptor aircraft in the sight of KAL 007's crew inorder to lead the offending aircraft of a landing, and firing incendiary rounds (tracers) in front of and therefore in the sight of KAL 007's crew. Yet these were not done. Read the entry on this page immediately aboveBert Schlossberg (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Three warning shots were fired. It is in the international report as well. Even US govt's own NTSB admitted that the warning shots were fired by Russians, but unfortunately the Korean pilots did NOT recognize them. This was also mention in Air Crash Investigation on NatGeo. Today even UN officals agree that the Russian Air Force did what it supposed to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.211.232 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but not tracers. Only tracers could be seen. Here they give that as one of the reasons they decided to conceal the fact that they had recovered the Black Box - "- Confirmation of no attempt by the intercepting aircraft to establish a radio contact with the intruder plane on 121.5 MHz and no tracers warning shots in the last section of the flight"Bert Schlossberg (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a requirement for verifiability and reliability that articles need to meet. This 1) allows you to independently check any information in an article for yourself and 2) expand or correct an article as long as you have suitable references to back up your edits. It's not sufficient on a subjective level to disagree with an article's content. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

deleted paragraphes from Alternative theories

I have restored the two deleted paragraphs. What does it mean "which has no currency"?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative theory exists that the flight was either allowed to stray or made to stray into an already provoked Soviet Airspace in order to prompt the Russians to shoot down what they would believe was a US spy plane. The motivation being to kill Larry McDonald.

The Zero Option

I want to list the article The Zero Option in the See also section but it seems that I was told not to but I just can't remember. This is a problem I have been having. Is it O.K. to do so or is there something that I have forgotten?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it because it's already listed under the "Further reading" section. Secondly, you are connected with the article, so it would be inappropriate for you to be adding links to it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Also consider WP:UNDUE. Suppose I write a book about someone famous, say President Obama. Suppose that book has an article here. Then my book article should link to President Obama, as he is important to my book. But my book is pretty irrelevant to the topic of President Obama, so that article should not link to my book. As The Zero Option is a fictional account loosely based around this flight and its aftermath, it is not that relevant to this article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Failsafe

I'm still not entirely happy with the way the word failsafe is being used. The system was intended to be failsafe before and after the changes. Presumably what has happened is that the failsafe system has been changed to improve performance in certain circumstances. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree that "more failsafe" was probably not great wording - there are 2 NASA articles describing about how this flight influenced the human interface design of the autopilot in modern jetliners - what wording do you propose, as "reliable" is no better, given that the navigation system apparently did not fail, but was more likely, err, misunderstood. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This is the only place in the article that I can find the word "failsafe":
As a result of the incident, the United States altered tracking procedures for aircraft departing Alaska, while the interface of the autopilot used on airliners was redesigned to make it failsafe.[8]
When I clicked the supporting citation number, it just brings us back to the same KAL007 article. No way to find out what is meant by that statement. I think the entire sentence should be removed until such time as someone can supply a citation that is actually accessible, and which explains what is meant by that statement. EditorASC (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Here you go: 1, 2 3. I don't care about the word "failsafe", but the interface change is noteworthy. Co-incidently, I contacted the author in question as I had some feedback about this image, which is drawn incorrectly. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. One of them starts with page 4 -- first three pages are blank. Went all thru them and cannot find anything that supports either the "failsafe" claim, or the change in AP interface. Would you be open to removing the second part of that statement, until such time as a valid citation can be found to support it? EditorASC (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Erm, the change to the autopilot interface is specifically mentioned (e.g. pp. 64-65 here.) Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to include a reference to the improvements. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Article size

...currently stands at 167K. Per this rule of thumb, a 100KB article "...almost certainly should be divided." So, I suggest splitting the "Alternative theories" and transcripts into separate articles. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Good job!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant

Ok, photos of an island coastline, the UN Building, and some research centre? Irrelevant detail.

ICAO documents

This is to facilitate linking of ICAO documents on various language wikis:

Brilliant, thank you!. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Maybe spoke too soon - those are only the press releases, not the actual reports. But thanks anyway. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to see where the actual report it. I'm surprised it hasn't easily been found yet. I'll have to e-mail the UN. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I just fired an e-mail to the ICAO, asking where I can find the reports WhisperToMe (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not free - you've got to pay for it. I'm not sure of the cost. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The ICAO has an online store, but at http://store1.icao.int/search.ch2 I can't find where the KE007 documents are. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

FBI document

I found, from the FBI, http://web.archive.org/*/foia.fbi.gov/flight/flight1.pdf - It talks about KAL007 WhisperToMe (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In this section: Soviet command response to post-detonation flight Though the interceptor pilot reported to ground control, "Target destroyed", the Soviet command, from General on down, indicated surprise and consternation at KAL 007's continued flight, and ability to regain its altitude and maneuver. This consternation continued through to KAL 007's subsequent level flight at altitude 16,424 ft (5,006 m). and then, after almost 5 minutes, through its spiral descent over Moneron Island. (See transcript from 18:26 onwards: "Lt. Col. Novoseletski: Well, what is happening, what is the matter, who guided him in, he locked on, why didn’t he shoot it down?")" I click onto the blue "transcript" but it does not take me to transcripts. Can anyone fix?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Soviet intelligence ships.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Soviet intelligence ships.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 21 April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Soviet intelligence ships.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

this is one of the best written articles on wikipedia I have ever read.

All I got. 68.38.197.76 (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Terminology

Is "shootdown" a proper word?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Cause listed in infobox

I removed pilot error from the cause of crash in the infobox. Yes, the pilot made a navigational error. But, this type of error should never have resulted in disaster (as compared to flying into the rainforest instead of flying along the coast). Shootdown should be the only cause listed. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Order in victims' nationality list

Official sources, like that of the Malaysia Airlines, tend to list the number of passengers and their nationalities from highest to lowest number. As argument against following this practice in wikipedia, I've seen here and at the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 page that sorting this list alphabetically by nationality is how "All the other articles have it". This is not true. For the 24 pages of aircraft incidents with more than 160 victims that have such a table, 15 have it in the intuitive and much more useful numerical order (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, including this page until Supersaiyen312 changed that the day before yesterday) while only 5 have them in alphabetical order (1,2, 3, 4, 5) (I'm calling the MH17 page still in flux). 3 pages have a hybrid solution, listing the 1 to 3 most common nationalities first, and the remainder alphabetically. A complete alphabetical order may make sense if no nationalities are overrepresented or the official source has them listed so. The remark that the numerical order can be achieved by the arrows at the top of the column is of course equally applicable to the alphabetical order. An additional rationalization made at the MH17 page that the alphabetical order is more neutral does not make any sense to me. Afasmit (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 page also had it from highest to lowest number too, before User:Juhachi alphabetized it right here. So I ordered it here the same way after that. As for my "All the other articles have it", I mean the more recent ones, notably the two Malaysia Airlines' case, both of which are getting alot views.[1][2] Obviously most seem to be fine with it. Also the list on the MH17 isn't exactly being consistent with the airlines' list anyway, such as the "dual nationality" column, most of which the airlines did not list. Malaysia Airlines most likely did it that way to emphasize the count for the Netherlands and Malaysia, which is why they have those two bolded and even provided numbers to contact their countries. I also see you tried to order Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 from the highest to lowest number, but someone changed it back, I don't know who. I'd say this list can be ordered the same way then also. The other lists you cited are structured differently, most without the arrows to reorder it anyway. Also, there's not exactly a source on all these lists ordering it some certain way, and the arrows would be useless if it's already in numerical order. It's useless to reorder it to alphabetical order; this is the default. I don't know about the "rationalization made at the MH17 page that the alphabetical order is more neutral" but I will make an edit request at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 using your argument to put it in numerical order and see what they say. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've put it back to the alphabetical order for now. If they agree to put it in numerical order at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 I'll self-revert. I've started the conversation on that page. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Post-attack flight

...before coming down 2.6 miles (4.2 km), killing all 269 on board.

This line needs clarification. Does it mean coming down 2.6 miles of altitude? Does it mean coming down 2.6 miles from land? Arbalest Mike (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I know it has been trendy over the past month to paint "Popular Culture" sections with the brush of "Trivia" and delete such sections wholesale, but what WP:POPCULTURE really says is "When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias." I feel mention of God Bless the USA is notable due to its post-9/11 popularity and simultaneous strong tie to the subject of this article. And I feel mention of the KGO "Green Street Reds" is notable (and well-cited) due to its audacity and tastelessness and in its way captures the sentiment of the Red Scare of the era. Michaelmalak (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If there are no objections voiced in the next 24 hours, I will revert Harizotoh9's 22:05, 29 December 2014 edit, in order to restore God Bless the USA and Green Street Reds to Popular Culture. Michaelmalak (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The page about the song does not mention flight 007 at all. In fact, the citation links to an interview were he talks about the origins of the song and does not mention the flight there either: I wanted to write it my whole life. When I got to that point, we were doing 300 days a year on the road, and we were on our fourth or fifth album on MCA. I called my producer, and I said I have a need to do this. I’ve always wanted to write a song about America". Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The deleted citation is http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1993-05-23/news/9305220478_1_mclin-bless-the-usa-god-bless which states "The song was written in 1983 following the downing of a Korean airliner by the Soviet Union in which 269 civilian passengers died, including 63 Americans." I just now found a more explicit, albeit more recent, reference http://onlineathens.com/stories/102001/ent_1020010023.shtml "Country singer Lee Greenwood was on his tour bus in 1983 when he heard that Korean Air Lines Flight 007, carrying several U.S. citizens, had been shot down when it strayed into Soviet airspace. Angered by the incident, he took pen to scratch paper and composed 'God Bless the USA' in less than two hours." Michaelmalak (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Apparently one of the references is wrong then. The citation on the page about the song does seem to quote him directly. In any case, I have no position on this. Arbalest Mike (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I just now checked out the song's page's cite. There's no contradiction; the references agree in timing (fall 1983) and location (tour bus). I can speculate that perhaps in 2012 the songwriter may have been giving an interview to someone too young to have remembered 1983 and so didn't bother to mention KAL 007. Michaelmalak (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not challenging your edit but there are several points to consider if you really think this reference is so important. Just because there is no contradiction does not make it true. Speculation on why the author does not mention the connection is a weak argument (in general) but in this case more so, especially since he does mention other inspiration in a first-hand quote. The page about the song directly mentions the other inspiration, not just in the citation. So, as it is, your edit now contradicts the page about the song. Another point is that the author of your citation says that is was "written after KAL 007..." but does not at all say "inspired/influenced by" and the actual quote by Greenwood, in your citation, does not mention it at all -- it only quotes Greenwood on flow, pride etc. Note that (three) music videos were made in subsequent years and they depict other themes, the third being made after September 2001. I have not seen any of these videos but if this event was an inspiration maybe there is a reference (or should be) there. Also, why are you not advocating for making the change to the song's WP page, and having this discussion on that 'talk' page? Arbalest Mike (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Korean Air Lines Flight 007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Artist Renderings

I see that Airplaneguy27 has added his renderings here. A quick look at his 15 or so contributions seems to be all insertions of renderings. I am guessing there is a policy violation here (using the WP to showcase one's art) but even if not, this doesn't contribute to the article, if not worse. It is a guess at what things might have looked like. I am creating this section to see if there is consensus about cleaning up this and the other 15 or so articles. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the renderings in this article but I still would like to hear from others about removal of this users renderings in other articles. The reason that removal is important in this case is that they are offered as real/photographs "before the shoot down" and "clearly showing smoke" yada yada. They are RENDERINGS and do not show anything about reality -- only an artist's depiction of reality. Arbalest Mike (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Adding one's own original artwork is a straightforward violation of the "No Original Research" policy (WP:NOR). This case seems a bit more complicated because the renderings were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by a different user ("Anynobody") — but still, if they are artwork created by a random anonymous person (who might or might not be the same person as Airplaneguy27), they don't belong in this or any other article. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Previous discussions over the years on aircraft accidents articles are that such made up images could be misleading and have been removed in the past. Current consensus is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents) which says "Representations or computer generated images, unless released by the investigation authority, should not be used" MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I and another user have removed the renderings inserted by this user, in other articles. Arbalest Mike (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A Flight Deviation ...

Since Bethel, Alaska is key to the story account of the flight deviation, it would be great if the simplified CIA map could be edited to include its location. SquashEngineer (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

7.5 miles

In the third paragraph under "Flight deviation from assigned route" it says "7.5 nautical miles" once, and "miles" several times after that, resulting in different km values. The cited PDF source only ever refers to "miles" as far as I can tell. Since commercial pilots usually don't use NM (http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=402829), maybe somebody can confirm which was meant in the historic and geographic context and then change all instances to read either miles or nautical miles consistently. Gonesoft (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"Commercial pilots usually don't use NM" might be a bit of a problem for them as the aircraft navigation systems use nautical miles. It is likely that the source is actually using nautical miles as it refers to the aircraft systems. MilborneOne (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Pilot error

Martinevans123 has removed "pilot error" from the infobox, suggesting it's a "joke". Pilot error is part of the official version of the incident, though it has been disputed by the Soviet government and others. It has been part of the infobox for about a year (and possibly before that). I'm not sure if it should remain there, but we should have a clearer discussion of the pros and cons.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Creeperbrine360 had added it here as "Pilot Error due to Navigation", but without any edit summary. The relevant material in the article is at "Initial ICAO investigation (1983)" as follows: "This was later deemed to be caused by a "lack of situational awareness and flight deck coordination". But I don't see pilot error anywhere in the article at present. Happy to have that discussion. Sorry if I was misled, by the pattern of this editor's edits, to think it was "a joke". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Soviet denial?

The lead says: "The Soviet Union initially denied knowledge of the incident". This isn't true: according to the section "Initial Soviet denial", 12 hours afterwards, TASS reported an incident, but didn't say the aircraft was shot down. In addition, putting this in the lead seems to be undue weight, as does the section "Initial Soviet denial". The effect is that the article makes a big deal about the few days that the Soviet government took to come out with a full account of the incident and acknowledge the shoot down. There is no section devoted to the full Soviet version, rather it is scattered in different places over the article. The overall effect is very misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The material could be organised better. It does seem a bit misleading. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
How about one section "Official Soviet response" which details the unfolding response to the crisis?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Date of Cockell taking command of SAR?

The "Search for KAL 007 in international waters" section has this sentence:

On the same day as the shootdown, Rear Admiral William A. Cockell, Commander, Task Force 71, and a skeleton staff, taken by helicopter from Japan, embarked in USS Badger (stationed off Vladivostok at time of the flight)[64] on September 9 for further transfer to the destroyer USS Elliot to assume duties as Officer in Tactical Command (OTC) of the Search and Rescue (SAR) effort. [emphasis mine]

It's unclear which of the events described in this sentence took place on September 1 and which on September 9. The citation is to a book which does not appear to be online. Anyone have easy access to it, or other sources, which would clear that up? Chuck (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Korean Air Lines Flight 007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Korean Air Lines Flight 007

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted buidhe 17:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"Well-written" violations: There is some puffery (i.e. "single-handedly" in Interim Developments) and editorialization (i.e. "really" in "continues to believe that he shot down a spy plane, when he really shot down a passenger aircraft"). Often, quotes are included as standalone sentences in jarring manners (i.e. "The border guards. What ships do we now have near Moneron Island, if they are civilians, send [them] there immediately.").

--BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The Flight deviation from assigned route section is difficult to follow. I am not going to touch the technical aspects of it as I know this can be a touchy subject for some, but it seems a convoluted way of saying the flight deviated from its expected route. Statements like The inability to establish direct radio communications to be able to transmit their position directly did not alert the pilots of KAL 007 of their ever-increasing divergence is just poorly written whatever the technical standpoint. We have so much detail that as well as making it a chore to read we are heading pretty close into focus trerritory. The transcripts are not clearly formatted, we have details on all the damage to different parts of the plane under their own headings and other formatting and overdetail issues that bring down the quality. Sourcing doesn't seem up to standard, there is a lot of uncited content especially in the popular culture section. AIRcorn (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007/Archive_6&oldid=1186203472"