Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 007/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I have finished my review. I will place this nomination on hold. This article does not comply with the criteria set forth at Good article criteria. As this is an interesting article, about a story that needs to be told, I'm willing to work with you to get the article into shape. The issues are fairly easily fixable, but will take time. I have to work on my own nomination for good article (which was also placed on hold) So, I'll check back once my own nomination is in shape.

GAC Criteria:

• Well-written:

There are several places not in compliance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically:

• • Per WP:LEAD, a lead section of an article of this size should be 3 to 4 paragraphs

Amplified

• • Several sentences read like footnotes, and should either be made into a footnotes or re-written: (See [1] for passenger and crew photos and stories and [2] for photos (Life magazine of 1983) of passengers who had boarded the plane but who have not been linked to passenger list and remain unidentified). There are several more phrases like this that need to be re-written.

Re-Written

• • Bold text is misused in the article, please review MOS:BOLD. The section "U.S. After Action Report Assessment of Search and Rescue/Salvage Mission" is obscenely overbolded.

Done

• • Incorrect use of ellipsis throughout the 2nd half of the article.

I THINK I GOT THEM ALL, BUT MAYBE SOMEONE CAN CHECK 217.132.55.130 (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Incorrect placement of punctuation marks around quotations and reference markers. See WP:PUNCT. Should look like this.

CAN SOMEONE CHECK OUT THE PUNCTUATION?

• • There are four timelines in the article, all partially overlapping. These should be combined into one timeline, or made to not overlap.

THE SLIGHT OVERLAPPING (AS WELL AS SLIGHT REPETISION OF QUOTES IS INTENDED AS A TRANSIT OR SETTING OF ONE TIME LINE WITHIN THE CHRONOLOGY OR ANOTHER HAVING A DIFFERENT FOCUS. FOR INSTANCE, THE FIRST TIME LINE IS JUST OF PILOT OT GROUND CONTROLLER DURING ATTACK. THE NEXT TIME LINE BRINGS IN GROUND CREW, KAL FLIGHT CREW, AS WELL AS PILOT. THIS GIVES A FULLER PICTURE. THE OVERLAPPING PROVIDES THE NEXUS.

• • Sections Soviet harassment of U.S. search and rescue and The black box tapes have lists that IMO would read better if converted to prose.

DAVE, I THINK THAT THE WAY IT IS NOW MAKES THE MATTER CLEAR. BUT IF YOU THINK THAT IT WOULD STAND IN THE WAY OF A GOOD ARTICLE, I'LL TRY TO PROSE IT. LET ME KNOW.

• • Parts of the article are redundant. For example, it is stated in three places in the article that the hole in the fuselage was 1 3/4 feet in diameter, not a large enough hole to suck out a body. Some of the quotes from the fighter pilots are repeated in multiple sections.

HAVE BEGUN ON REDUNDANCIES. DELETED "CRACH SCENE' SECTION AFTER MOVING CRASH LOCATION INFO TO "U.S. After Action Report Assessment of Search and Rescue/Salvage Mission". OTHER PERTINENT INFO NOW FOUND ONLY IN ONE PLACE. WILL CONTINUE REDUNDANCY CLEANUP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 12:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

HAVE DELETED "EMERGENY LANDING" FROM "SEE ALSO" AS INFO IS IN "WATER LANDING"

HAVE DELETED 2 OCCURANCES OF "1 3/4 FT." REDUNDANCY LEAVING ONLY THE REFERENCE IN THE INJURY TO PASSENGER SECTIONBert Schlossberg (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Several of the headings do not comply with WP:Headings
  • Per WP:ALLCAPS, ALLCAPS should not be used for article titles or authors, even if the newspaper cited does. ::SOMEONE?

Several of references list authors and article titles in ALL CAPS, this should be fixed.

• • There is a bit of WP:OVERLINK violation (for example cockpit voice recorder is linked twice in the same paragraph, etc.)

Does not pass, but fixable.

• Factually accurate and verifiable:
  • There are a few statements flagged as Citation Needed. This needs to be fixed immediately, this is grounds for a quick fail of the GAC criteria, and should have been fixed before the article was nominated.

ALL "CITATION NEEDED" REQUESTS SUPPLIED

• • References – the initials ICAO are used in the first reference, but never explained, and not linked to the actual source until reference 17. Should be fully explained and linked on the first use, then OK to abbreviate on subsequent mentions.

I TRIED TO ACCESS THE REFERENCES TO LINK TO THE FIRST USE THE FULL TITLE OF ICAO '93 TO THE ARTICLE BUT COULD NOT. THAT FULL TITLE IS IN THE FIRST PART OF THE TALK PAGE FOR THE KAL 007 ARTICLE WHICH NO LONGER APPEARS (ARCHIVED?}. THE COMMON TITLE, AND, I BELIEVE, ACCEPTABLE HERE (WITH REFERENCE TO THE FIRST ENTRY ON REFERENCE LIST) IS THE "COMPLETION REPORT OF THE 1983 REPORT OF DESTRUCTION OF KEO 007, INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, 1993,1.3, Pg. 6". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 12:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Having now gotten the report in my hand, I can give the full and accurate title of the ICAO '93 report, if someone can access the first reference to supply the full title. Here it is: Report of the Completion of the Fact Finding Investigation regarding the shooting down of Korean Airlines Boeing 747 (Flight KE007) On 31 August 1983, \International Civil Aviation |Organization, United Nations, 1993, 1.3, Pg. 6Bert Schlossberg (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Conservapedia is not a reliable source. This could be used if the account has been published elsewhere, or could be listed as an external link.

I HAVE DELETED FROM ARTICLE AND PUT IN EXTERNAL LINKSBert Schlossberg (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Several sources are not properly attributed. For example, the publisher of the website www.Rescue007.org is listed as rescue007.org, not the actual publisher of the information. All sources need to list the title of the work, author, publisher, date published and/or accessed.
  • The wikipedia checklink tool reports 4 dead links [1]. Find alternate source or link to www.webarchive.org (or similar) if archives of these pages are available.

(?)

The link provided will generate a report about the links used in this article. This tool reports 4 dead links. Find where these dead links are used in the article. Either find replacement sources, re-word such that no source is required, or see if this information is available elsewhere.

You ask for the publisher of the website. I did not know that it is referenced as a book would be. I think that this is the info requested but not sure how it all fits or where it is to go in the article. "2002-2006 The International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors, Inc. All rights reserved." The author is primarily myself with assistance from Mr. Ben Torry and a few others (Different people for Russian, Korean, and Japanese portions). I hope that will do itBert Schlossberg (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I COULD NOT LOCATE THE DEAD LINKS. WHEN I CLICK ON, I GET "Forbidden Crawling dynamicly generated pages is not allowed". CAN ANYONE LOCATE THE DEAD LINKS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 12:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Footnote 12, needs sources. I'd recommend to just delete it, it doesn't really add to the article anyways. Tried to

TRIED TO DELETE BUT DID NOT SUCCEED. CAN ANYONE DO?

The Footnotes and References are auto-generated from text marked with <ref></ref>. Search for the actual text of the footnote in the prose portion of the article.

• Broad in its coverage: Yes, Pass.
• Neutral:
  • There is a potential Conflict of Interest concern. Per the userpage, one of the primary contributors of this article is affiliated with the website rescue007.org, used as a source. I have no problem with using this website as a source, if the material being sourced was written or previously published by others, with this website just being the host. If anybody has used an article that they wrote as a source, that does not necessarily disqualify from use, but should be disclosed and discussed.

MATERIAL USED FROM WEBSITE WAS WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED BY OTHERS. WEBSITE IS ONLY "HOST"

"I have no problem with using this website as a source, if the material being sourced was written or previously published by others, with this website just being the host". That is the caseBert Schlossberg (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Accepted, pass.

I retract this. I have found links that are questionable and will take another look.Dave (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Stable: Reasonably, it looks like their was some edit warring in the past, but I'd expect some with an article as controversial as this. Pass.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images:
  • File:Time magazine.jpg, File:Andropov1.jpg and File:Dmitry Ustinov defense minister.jpg need fair use justifications. For a good one to use as a guide, see File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg. I'd also advise to take out the word "erroneous" from the description of the Time Magazine cover something like "as perceived at the time" gets the same message across, with more grace.

Done

Please click the links provided. This will lead to the page for the images, where the copyright and licensing terms are displayed.

• • File:Mi-8 CM2.jpg the license on this image is iffy. as the author is only identified as "CM" but was uploaded by user Radomil. I'll let this slide for the GAC. But should you want to nominate this for WP:FAC this will cause you headaches. I'd contact the uploader, asking him to clarify/confirm who owns the copyright for this image.

Does not pass, but fixable.

CAN ANYONE FIX? HAVE TRIED BEFORE BUT EVIDENTLY NOT UNDERSTANDING

Other friendly suggestions: These suggestions have no bearing on weather the article passes GAC or not, just offering my advice.

• The formatting of the references/sources is not consistent. While not a requirement for GAC, it does make tracking down your sources very difficult, and will cause grief should you want to take this article to FAC. I'm a big fan of the WP:Citation templates. Not required, but I like them. They forces all the references and sources to have consistent formatting.
• Some books are listed as sources but with no ISBN number. Try to see if an ISBN or OCLC or DOI number is available, or state none.
• In many places the word "see" precedes a link. This is redundant, the word see is implied by a link.

DONE

• section 16.1. Though I've not seen it in Wikipedia's style guides, most style guides I've seen advise against having a .1 section of an outline without a .2. The advice I've read is to either merge or split sections so that the "orphan" .1 section doesn't occur.
• Per WP:SEEALSO, Larry McDonald is already discussed in the article and doesn't need to be mentioned in the See Also section. Also, text to put the link into context, is good, but I'd reword the two present to state something like: Water landing – Includes Survival Rates of Passenger Plane Water Landings

DONE

• The external links are excessive and should be pruned. The ones used as sources should not be repeated in the external links section.
• Inconsistent abbreviations, for example both USSR and U.S.S.R. are used interchangeably.

Review finished. I can tell you put a lot of work into this article, and it would be my pleasure to pass this, once the issues mentioned above are addressed.Dave (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have reformatted the responses. In the future please avoid bolding and all caps. This was very difficult to follow. Dave (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

The section for which citation is requested is unclear. It reads as if there was visual contact (and cannon fire) by Soviet interceptors of KAL 007 in KAL 007's first intrusion of Soviet airspace (Kamchatka). In actuality, though interceptors were sent up, they returned to base on Kamchatka after failing to make contact. It was only after KAL 007 had passed into international airspace over the Sea of Okhutsk that visual contact as well as radar contact by Osipovich in his Su-15, and only after KAL 007 had passed out of Soviet territory the second time (just west of SAkhalin) that KAL 007 had been fired upon (no tracers). I would try my hand at rewriting but will wait for any response - hoping that the "citation needed" will not jeapordize this article for Good Article status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 12:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to be listed as a Good article, the article must comply with the WP:Good article criteria. All of the points above, except for the friendly suggestions, refer to one or more of the criteria and need to be addressed. I can see you've put many hours into this article, just a few more and this will reach GA status. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article, not a book or magazine. It's ok to have this article state "cited facts" with links to other articles that include more information, including disputed facts plus expert and witness speculation. That's the intent of the much misused External links section. Good luck, again I would love to pass this article, interesting read! Dave (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Beginning work

See Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 007/GA1 for my ammendments and followthrough of Dave's GA! ReviewBert Schlossberg (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My progress on article

Thanks, Dave, fro taking this on. I will work on the list above and insert changes or problems. I hope others will do so too - as I see someone, maybe Dave, has already done with the excessive bold printBert Schlossberg (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Article neutrality & bias

I have been doing some work on this article in the past months. Although it has improved considerably, I feel it will still require a considerable amount of work to get into shape. In addition to the points above that are noted by the GA reviewer, which I agree with, I have concerns in particular about the neutrality of this article and some of the original research in it. For example, the website rescue007.org is widely referenced throughout, yet this particular site has the following objective: "The International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors, Inc. was formed in 2001 to uncover and disseminate the truth about the KAL 007 incident and to effect the rescue and return home of its survivors." In other words, this website runs its own agenda/conspiracy theory about the flight, and can therefore not be taken as accurate or neutral. There are many other reliable sources that can be referenced instead of as there is a wide body of published material available. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I dont think that "widely referenced throughout" is very accurate. The website of the International Committee for he Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors is referred four times - 1 time to an article, 1 time to a photo of one of the important figures in the shootdown (Gen. Ivan Tretyak), and 2 times for scanned pertinent letters from Government officials on official stationary (Senator Helms and Rear Admiral Bud Nance). As a matter of fact, the Committee does not hold to much of a conspiracy theory but rather the possiblity/probability of survivors, and if it did hold to a conspiracy theory, that would be no reason to discount its accuracy - unless, ipso facto, there could not be such a thing as a conspiracy. Was there anything that you had come upon from the material of the website or from the article here in Wikipedia that you feel is inaccurate?217.132.55.130 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I count at least 12 references (some inline raw links) and external links to rescue007. As above, there are many more reliable sources such as published works. Are you associated with this website? Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what inline raw links are. There are only the 4 references (mentioned above} in the referencs section. I am connected with the website (not my personal one) I am the director of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors. Did you find any inaccuracies in the article?217.132.55.130 (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to my concerns above, I've just noticed that the primary contributor (Bert Schlossberg) states on his user page that he also has a connection with the website rescue007.org as well as a conflict of interest due to his connection with the incident and the book he's written about it. My concerns about article neutrality therefore appear justified, so I've tagged it as such. Lastly, I've opened a socket puppetry case, as I unfortunately suspect that the same person is behind multiple accounts that are editing this article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this. Sockpuppetry is one person deceptively editing wikipedia under multiple usernames, usually to create the appearance of more support than really exists. I don't see any deliberate deception here. What I see is Bert either forgetting to log in while editing, or getting logged out while editing. With that said, I am seeing a pattern of sloppy mistakes, such as this, as well as sloppy editing standards. This is understandable for someone new to wikipedia. However, by the time someone nominates an article as a Good Article, I would expect them to be reasonably familiar with how wikipedia works. Bert, I suggest to be more careful in the future. As stated above, I am currently distracted fixing the issues found by the reviewer of my own GA nomination. However, the On-hold status provides for 7 days to improve the article. I'll re-evaluate the article before the 7 days expires.

Regarding the "inline raw links", Socrates is referring to the external links that appear in-line with the article text. This is discouraged, external links are normally limited to footnotes, sources, and external links. This is related to the request I left in the review, where I states several statements read like footnotes and should be made into footnotes or re-worded. Dave (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I BELIEVE THAT ALL THE IN LINE RAW LINKS ARE NOW REMOVEDBert Schlossberg (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) Let me also say that I think tagging the article with is pre-mature. Yes, there are concerns, but WP:COI gives guidance to ensure that a conflict of interest does not occur. My take on this guideline is the following needs to occur:

1. All connection to KAL007 are disclosed (Done, Bert's userpage is frank about his connections to the issue)
2. Allow and encourage others to review edits to insure no conflict of interest has occurred (happening right now)
3. Agree to remove any content claimed to be a conflict of interest by a good faith review

If the above are met, I do not believe a COI has occurred. Let's WP:Assume good faith and give Bert a chance to agree to those terms. Is this agreeable to all?Dave (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it!217.132.55.130 ([[User talk:217.132.55.130|talk]]) 07:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree to the terms.217.132.55.130 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg (I am typing my name because though I type the 4 tildas, by name does not appear)

Bert, before pushing submit, first push "Show Preview" and wait until the preview page appears. Then check the upper right corner of the wikipedia page. If you are not logged in, you will see "Log in/create account", if you are logged in you will instead see your links to your userpage, your talk page, your watchlist, etc.Dave (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That did it! BertBert Schlossberg (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's move forward then. However I stand by my assertion that all the rescue007.org links/references need to be replaced due to the connections that Bert has with this website, as well as the fact that they can easily be substituted. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For me the issue of bias relates to the one-sided assertion of the official US point of view. I have tried to address this by contributing to the "Soviet Reaction" and "Controversy" sections, but there is a tendency for other points of view to be drowned out. Ideally, some points from the recent Airways magazine article could be added to substantiate the controversy, but unfortunately it's not available online. The central question about why KAL007 was flying where and how it was is largely ignored in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Details that are reliably referenced are welcome. The question about why it was flying where it was is dealt with very early on in the "Flight deviation prior to attack" section, which covers the mainstream theory that is supported by ICAO (a United Nations body) analysis of the flight data recoders. Furthermore there is discussion of some of the conspiracy theories in one of the sections. Socrates2008 (Talk) 01:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's an abundance of technical data in the "Flight deviation" section but little in the way of explanation of why this exceptional deviation happened and why the crew didn't notice. Sorry, I happen to think that's kind of important. Or... actually the only important question here. If such mistakes could happen so easily they would have, and multiple flights would have trespassed on Soviet airspace.

As to "conspiracy theories", as the Soviet Union is the relevant authority in question any suggestion that events did not transpire exactly as it said they did should properly be termed a "conspiracy theory" and not the reverse, but then I think bias always trumps logic, doesn't it?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Union denied shooting the aircraft down, suppressed evidence (finding the wreck & black boxes) and had strong reasons to try to influence the outcome of any investigation. The ICAO on the other hand is an international body and therefore the most neutral and authoritive here. They did state in their report why the aircraft was off course - it flew a constant heading instead of following the waypoints of its assigned route; two possible reasons for this error were given. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You've sidestepped my point on the term "conspiracy theory". The point is that we're dealing with claim and counterclaim in the context of the Cold War, of which the USA is the sole surviving antagonist. The Soviet Government's denial of the shootdown was very shortlived, as the article makes clear, and seems to indicate initial confusion not dishonesty. I'm not sure why you harp on that. While they might have covered up their discovery of the black box, the location of wreckage seems more to indicate the Western account was false.

As to ICAO, the fact is that these "international", "neutral" bodies are frequently just rubber stamps for US foreign policy: UNSCOM in Iraq comes to mind, as does Truman's comment that it was easier to get UN endorsement for involvement in Korea than to pass it through Congress.

And on the extremely errant flightpath, the article smothers this burning issue - the key reason the plane was shot down! - in a welter of technical minutiae. As well it might, if it was a propaganda piece trying to heap all the blame on the USSR rather than a genuine encyclopedia article. Not only was the plane off course, but there are several indications that the pilot knew this: not communicating with aircraft control, carrying extra fuel as if a diversion was planned, taking evasive action etc. As I said, if this was a routine error than planes would have been routinely straying over Soviet military installations... But no it was just the aptly named Flight 007, aptly piloted by a fighter ace from the police state of South Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is based on reliable references from a wide range of material - if you have references to substantiate your "burning" alternative theory, then contribute them; otherwise Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum to air your personal views. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

None of my claims are disputed. The point is that this article is constructed in a biased fashion so as to ignore obvious discrepancies in the "official" account.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Update on review

First, let me say the pace on improvement on this article is impressive. Now for the bad news. When I first reviewed the article, I was borderline on fail or place on-hold. I was willing to give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt, as there was lots of people trying to improve this article. More important, frankly, wikipedia needs more featured articles on topics like this, and less about Wrestle-mania 137, or some Myspace band that will be long forgotten in 2 years. So I was happy to be a part of it. Now I'm getting skeptical. While verifying the validity of the external links I was shocked to discover that parts of this article were copied almost verbatim, possibly plagiarized, from the linked New American Article. These sections are getting re-written now, but I just noticed this today. Socrates is finding disputed claims left and right. Is there more waiting to be found? This is not looking good. Now I'm worried that even if we find and get all these issues fixed and the GA passes, will all this stuff creep back into the article after it passes and the scrutiny has died down?

I still want to be optimistic, for the reasons stated above. But now I don't know. What are your opinions? Can this article make it? Should I close out the GA, and evaluate later?Dave (talk)

As I said before, this article needs a lot of work to get into GA shape. Personally, I think you're going to have to fail it for now as it won't get level of attention that it requires in the next week. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's try now!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just yesterday I noticed paragraphs of text lifted almost verbatim from another source without attribution. We're not ready now.Dave (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with sources

Burt, can you answer some questions about the two ICAO reports?

1. Are the full version available on line? (so far all I can find is summaries or press releases)
2. What are the full and proper titles of the reports?
3. Do they have any identification numbers? (i.e. ISBN, DOI, OCLC, etc?)
4. Other than ICAO, are any other authors credited on the title page?

Thanks, Dave (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked unsuccessfully so far for the full reports. It's obvious that all the citations that list these have been lifted from other sources. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bert says above he has a copy of one of the reports. And had I read his full comment I would have read the title is listed as "Report of the Completion of the Fact Finding Investigation regarding the shooting down of Korean Airlines Boeing 747 (Flight KE007) On 31 August 1983" My Mistake. Dave (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have the 1983 report too but it is packed away for the move. I will try to get it but can't right now. All citations that I have made were taken directly from the ICAO reports and not from other other sources. will try to get back as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 08:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2 ICAO reports would be VERY useful to cross-check much of the material in this article, to add missing references and to check the POV of some of the more questionable sources. Is there any chance of uploading them to somewhere at some point? (I can't see GA being achieved without them.) Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, that's most likely copyright violation. It's been my experience with agencies, such as this, is they use their reports for revenue generation. They charge an obscene price for them, then loaded with big copyright disclaimers warning not to even photocopy them. If they even offer the standards for sale in electronic version (i.e. pdf) that is really $$$$$$ (as in tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars)Dave (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The ICAO is part of the United Nations - surely the UN doesn't enforce copyright on its reports? More likely, it's never been digitized. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I have no experience with ICAO, but many government and international organizations delegate the publishing of key standards and reports to a quazi-government or even non-government sub-agency. This agency is chartered by said governmental agency with investigation and/or standard setting (examples include ISO, NEC, AASHTO, IEEE etc.) these agencies are NOTORIOUS for charging exuberant prices for these documents, especially the standards/reports where industries or people are legally obligated to comply, and have no choice but to pay their price. If Bert says this was directly published by ICAO and has no copyright notice, I'll be pleasantly surprised. Dave (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There's another '93 ICAO report: "C-WP/7764: Destruction of Korean Air Lines Boeing 747 over the Sea of Japan, 31 Aug 1993 (Report of ICAO Fact Finding Mission). Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

YIKES!!! The article has a dozen citations credited only as "ICAO '93 p12." Now we learn that ICAO published multiple reports relating to KAL007 in 1993? How do I know which report to request if I see a citation of only "ICAO '93"? In my opinion here is what we need to do, and unfortunately this will take time:

1. If the reports are copyrighted, we need the full copyright info (credited authors, copyright date, and title of report) and...
2. Someone with access to the reports needs to go through everything cited with just "ICAO p15" and populate with the title of the report.
3. If the reports are public domain, Ideally, scan them and post on-line so multiple people can help track down these citations. I have connections to a multi-page document scanner, (i.e. machine that can scan hundreds of pages and assemble them into a single digital file.) However the machine I have access to only works with loose leaf (i.e if bound I'd have to cut the spine) So this requires a leap of faith by someone who has a report.

Its looking more and more like the GA will have to wait, as this will take some time. However, I think the conflict of interest tag can come down. We've discussed this and so far nobody has opposed.Dave (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave, It looks like I may be the only one with the ICAO Reports. The full title of /93 is "Report of the Completion of the Fact Finding Investigation regarding the shooting down of Korean Airlines Boeing 747 (Flight KE007) On 31 August 1983, \International Civil Aviation |Organization, United Nations, 1993" It is published by either the United Nations or International Civil Aviation Organization under the greater Title Council: 139th Session. The report was distributed free through the Americam relatives of the victims association. But I received a second copy simply by writing to headquarters in Montreal. I did not memtion that I was a family member which makes me think that anyone can receive the report simply by writing. I have never seen the report on trhe Internet.

The full title of report is now on the third reference item, the first referening to report. after that ICAO '93 is used. Isn't that standard or acceptable usage? As far a s I know, ICAO did not publish multiple reports in 1993. The only one published is the above. I believe the one referred to is the '83 report. Perhaps Socrates can check it out and get back to us (I am unable to get to my copy at this time of the '83 report to check it out myself)Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It definite, that's the '83 report Socrates is referring to. Not the '93 report. No problem in getting to the right report with present referencing.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looks you're correct - sorry about the confusion. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Deeper than skin deep, but skin deep is nice too

I know that we have beeen going fast and furious and also really working with the content in a very thorough way, but just want to say the article looks good now, really good. Helps to in going from one thing to another.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy to rubberstamp this one - it must be a solid article so that it can stand up to any scrutiny going forward. There's plenty more work to do... Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Current article status

Firstly, let me say that I'd really like to see this article make GA. However the more I dig, the more I feel that I'm uncovering details that do not line up with mainstream thinking, especially the ICAO verdict. The following are some of the points of concern to me:

• SS-25 missile testing. In addition to being unreferenced, this viewpoint differs from conventional wisdom that Cold War tensions arising from RYAN, Strategic Defence Initiative, NATO Fleet excercises in the north Pacific in Sep '83, US surveillance flights into Soviet territory and Able Archer 83 were the main contributors.
• Water landing - this is an unreferenced alternate theory (supported by Bert's website) and should therefore not be part of the main story.
• Crew regaining control - Appears to be a link in the chain to the water landing/everyone survived theory. I don't see why else it's being given such prominence (At the end of the day, the crew lost control of the aircraft...)
• Tape splicing theory - I can't find any source other than rescue007.org that is highlighting this as an "issue". I'm beginnging to wonder what the ICAO report really says about this, and what prominence they give it. Part of the water landing theory?
• Original interpretation of raw ICAO data - the article in places is reaching different conclusions to the ICAO over the same data. Not good, because this brings me to question all the ICAO references - are these references citing the raw data in the report or the secondary ICAO conclusion? (c.f. tape splicing, crew regaining control)
• Lack of human remains - why such prominence? Part of the rescue007.org theory that everyone survived?
• Chain of command - the whole section currently looks like OR.
• References - I believe we will need to check each and every one, as there have been a number of dodgy ones in there.
• Coverage - this was a major Cold War incident - there's not enough info putting it into this context, and coverage of the political and military aftermath is thin.
• Bert's COI - after looking a little deeper into this subject in the past week, my concerns have not gone away (the opposite in fact).

In short, despite a revamp this past week, this article is unfortuantely still a long way off standing up to the verifiability, neutrality and no original research requirements to reach GA status. I'm happy to keep going at a steady pace until the article is fixed, but will oppose any short term GA status being granted until all the article issues have been dealt with so that it represents a mainstream view on the subject. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What does "neutrality" mean in the Cold War context?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing out GAC

This article has improved much in the 7 days the nomination was placed on-hold, however I still have concerns. I encourage all to re-submit the nomination once the concerns have been addressed. There has been some bickering and accusations that have occurred in the course of this review. I hope that all involved can proceed to improve the article and to remember to assume good faith.

Current standing:

• While the formatting of this article still does not comply with the WP:MOS 100%, it's now in better shape than many that earned a GA status. I no longer have issues here.
• The number of images with copyright issues has fallen from 4 to 1. Cannot pass until all are fixed.

I would ask some, again, to help with working on the remaining image. I need to explain about these types of requests. I have deteriorated vision and can not look long as well as focus accurately enough to read instructions. I can do it, but only after a long time. Needed to say.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• The number of citations to dead links has fallen from 4 to 2. Cannot pass until all are fixed.

• The number of sentences flagged as dubious or citation requested, has increased since the review started. These are due to increased scrutiny, not deterioration of the article. However, I cannot pass with flagged statements.

Same here

• Neutrality: As Socrates states the article should state the theories accepted by the ICAO and other "neutral" organizations first and foremost. However, there is a place in the article for theories advocated by others, including the relatives of the victims, provided it is clear that this is a theory of an advocacy group, not the agency with jurisdiction. This is not a difficult issue to solve if everybody is willing to engage in dialogue. However, this is not going to get resolved today.

I think that this is the best way and can do it. I will try to make the referencing clear and bring in the actual quotes if in distinquishing what belongs to the "mainstream" and ICAO and what belongs to advocacy group theory is unclear.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, my biggest regret is that I could not dedicate more time to helping work with you.

YOU DID FINE, DAVE!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope to have more time in a month or so, should the resolve still be around to improve this article to GA.Dave (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank you all, If I can presume to do it in this space, for your good will toward my type of participation and your good interaction, especially as my own participation is "off beat", to say the least. I have also received good notes along the way that is encouraging. Thank you! I want to wish you all God's blessing on all your endeavors and all your loved onesBert Schlossberg (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)