Talk:Smolensk air disaster/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

New Article Section

I believe it would be prudent to add new section to this article entitled the "Investigation Controversies". There are many well documented, and credible (non-blog-like, non-conspiracy-like) sources cited throughout this discussion to warrant creation of such section. Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This could easily become a coatrack for every dubious theory. Let's say it again: the final report has not been published yet, and unless the Polish government or the mainstream media questions the findings, it would be attempting to add personal analysis to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with IanMacM, not really needed we can just wait and sum up when the findings are known, if anything comes of it we can add it then. Blogs and stuff are designed for this sort of original reasearch and synthesis but this is an encyclopedia we can just wait, as I have said early Wikipedia does not have any deadlines. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. I am not suggesting providing a platform for speculations, original research, or conspiracy theories! What I am suggesting is that pretending that there are no controversies surrounding this investigation as reported by credible news sources is silly. Would you feel more comfortable if we dropped all news sources from this article and quoted only Novosti, RT, Pravda, Izvestia, and the like? See, the Katyn Massacre "didn't" exist for decades either ... at least, according to Novosti, Pravda, Izvestia, and the like ;) Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

Separate Criticism/Controversy sections are not usually good Wikipedia writing style, and can be tagged for cleanup. It is better to integrate material and present it in an organized way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ian, you have not addressed Doomed Soldiers' point that the Russian media sources (many of which are state controlled or coerced) are no different from a Cold War CIA agent's inside information and analysis. Have you or any other editor verified the employees of these not-so-mainstream Russian media? My goodness, 52 journalists have been killed since 1992; 32 were murder; and 30 have gone unpunished. By allowing the text in the principal article to stand that comes from such coerced sources, you have violated the Wikipedia verifiability principles yourself. I'm with Doomed in his preference to drop all news sources with a worldwide reputation for nation-state control. The Charleston Mercury News is nothing of the sort, and Eugene Poteat is President of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers and a sought-out expert on intel issues. I have to go with Doomed Soldiers here.MWoodson (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no job to deny existence of conspiracy theories where there are any. Existence of conspiracy theories is a fact of relevance like any other fact, just see the list of conspiracy theories. Regarding this particular article the existence of conspiracy theories is probably one of the very few things that are not disputed at all. Richiez (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A Retired CIA Officer Gene Poteat Makes His Case. Evidence: Tragic Polish Flight Was No Accident. Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

Per Mr. Poteat's comment, the correct title of his article should be: "Russian Image Management. Making Unpleasant Historical Truths About Poland Disappear" - Provided link to the article with correct title in the External Links section. Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC).

About the author: Gene Poteat is an electrical engineer (The Citadel) and a retired CIA scientific intelligence officer. He served abroad in London, Scandinavia, the Middle East and Asia. He is president of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO), writes and lectures on intelligence matters and teaches at The Institute of World Politics graduate school in Washington; the IWP is scheduled to award Gene Poteat an honorary doctoral degree on June 5. Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC).

Another credible article source: Prof. Waller interviewed by Nasz Dziennik

J. Michael Waller's Credentials: "He is a member of the faculty of the Leader Development and Education for Sustained Peace (LDESP) program at the Naval Postgraduate School; and is an Honorary Fellow at the Proteus Futures Group at the Center for Strategic Leadership of the US Army War College, sponsored by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Intelligence University. In 2010 he was named a member of the Psychological Operations Capabilities-Based Assessment team for the US Special Operations Command. Dr. Waller has written for Insight, the Los Angeles Times, Reader's Digest, USA Today, the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal. He is an occasional commentator on the BBC, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC". Is this credible enough? Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC).

Both of the sources mentioned above are interviews with individuals who may have axes to grind. Given the size of the Internet, it is easy to support any desired position in this way. While I have assumed good faith here, it is disappointing that there is a tendency to cherry pick any material criticizing the investigation, even though the Polish government has not made any formal complaints so far. Let's wait for the official findings before criticizing them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ian, Wikipedia is collaborative. If some editors see an imbalance in an article and source biases such as you have exhibited in your comments above and your silence on the reliability problems with Russian media sources, they may balance that by emphasizing the differing narratives out there. Poteat is a professional one who brooks very little nonsense. He's a straight talker and has cited facts that are themselves verifiable. For you or the other editors to omit non-coerced sources such as some referenced by Doomed Soldiers and myself, yet grant legitimacy to state-coerced sources, is an exercise in the furtherance of state media propaganda. That most certainly isn't acceptable on Wikepedia, and whether or not a final report ever surfaces in any form resembling a verifiable investigation, the biases evident in this early media source (Wikipedia) will affect world perceptions due to the high search position this source gets on Google. This is going to lead to discussions over your head unless this propaganda issue either gets balanced or itself deleted if its vanguard continues sanitizing this piece from encyclopedic historical information.MWoodson (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's draw a parallel here with the death of Alexander Litvinenko. This was a hugely controversial death, because the UK government publicly accused Andrey Lugovoy of murder and asked for his extradition, which Russia refused. The UK government would not have risked a diplomatic row over something like this unless it was confident that there was hard evidence that would stand up in court. By contrast, the official Smolensk crash report has not been published yet and some people are trying to pre-empt its findings. Let's suppose that the final report says that pilot error was the main cause of the Smolensk crash and the Polish government accepts it. This would mean that the alternative theories would be personal opinions rather than official findings, Granted, there are articles like 9/11 conspiracy theories looking at theories like this, but it is still early days with the Smolensk crash and most of the conspiracy theories look like a mixture of WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. I'm as keen to see the final crash report as anyone else, but do not want to jump the gun by adding material that questions the findings before they have been published.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ian, following your logic, the post-9-11 report saying Iraq had WMD was official and therefore accurate and true.MWoodson (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your sources again is just speculating. I repeat: Nobody is denying that theoretically there may be something fishy going on. But theoretically, pigs may fly. Unless you can come with reliable sources that something *is* wrong, this should not go into the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You must spell out how you have arrived at the conclusion that Doomed Soldiers' source is "just speculating." It would be easier to collaborate with you if you were specific. It would be easier to understand you if you were specific. Please be specific as to how and where and about what you aver Eugene Poteat is speculating about.MWoodson (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems we are discussing two issue sin one place and that is unproductive. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss the "real truth (tm)" of anything - whether aircraft accidents of pig flying (anyone remembers BBC's really flying penguins btw?). Wikipedia should carry together notable information from other sources. If there are notable sources voting concerns about methods of investigation or supporting outright conspiracy theories those must be included.

So instead of discussing the real truth of the incident would please someone spend a second doublechecking whether some of the links meet inclusion criteria? A mention on a national newspaper in Poland must be regarded sufficient - the article is full of links to questionable Russian media which are apparently regarded good enough as well. Just because someone feels uncomfortable with the content is no excuse to exculde a notable source. Richiez (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's be blunt here: implying that the Russian government is somehow lying about the investigation is a POV approach with WP:REDFLAG issues. Wheeling out retired CIA officers to add personal analysis fails WP:V, while the Institute of World Politics is a place where people can express personal opinions freely. Neither of these sources is notable enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's. Poteat doesn't require wheeling out, which is an ageist and bigoted reference FYI. He's current President of the Association of Retired Intelligence Officers and has more experience than you could imagine relating to the leadership of the RF investigation and his training. He is often sought out as a lecturer on intel topics. You approve sources that cite Vladimir Putin and Medvedev's sound bytes as fact, and the principal article actually reads that way; and Mr. Putin is a former intel officer no less the cold warrior than Poteat. I'd like to see some balance from you and the rest of the vanguard who are protecting the propagandized Russian version of this article. Here is my proposal: you and the other oppositional editors here allow Eugene Poteat's analysis to be published here as an historical fact of an expert who sees likely political violence here instead of pilot error (such as announced a day after the crash by your sources)MWoodson (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am perplexed by your comments. You are insisting on applying peculiar standards which have nothing to do with WP:REDFLAG or WP:V. I would be delighted to hear your explanation why the Very detailed analysis of the crash by Smolensk journalist and researcher Sergei Amelin mets the standards you espouse to, and why, while a detailed analysis provided by number of other credible sources do not? Is there one set of standards, or two sets of standards you insist on applying here? Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing peculiar with the "standards" which he, I and everyone else here insists on applying. It's the same standards that should be applied everywhere on Wikipedia. Read WP:V and WP:LINKS, especially [1]. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There was never yet a major tragedy where people did not question the official account. The article at [2] seems to fail WP:SPS because it is from a blog/forum environment. I'm wearing out the keyboard here, but until the final crash report is published, home brewed exercises in original research are unsuitable as sources or links in the article.

There was never yet a major tragedy where people did not question the official account. - actually there is! This article!

There is nothing peculiar with the "standards" which he, I and everyone here insists on. I am still awaiting for an explanation why yourself and couple of your other friends, who are working overtime on this article, don't object to a blog written by an amateur "investigator"/"journalist" while other editors' edits, citing credible, well established sources, are being reverted by you and your colleagues? Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for info I have tidied up the ext links section and removed the link to the blog site qouted above as per WP:EL. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the argument is over here, but the link at Авиакатастрофа в Смоленске clearly fails WP:ELNO #11. This edit was reverted because of clear WP:TOPIC and WP:SYNTHESIS issues. "Mr. Deripaska has also been a skiing partner to Mr. Putin". Fine, but a) irrelevant to this article at the moment and b) a convoluted way of dragging Vladimir Putin into the article. Sadly, Mr Putin has not been topping up my secret Swiss bank account during all of this, but please could we stay on topic and not introduce blatant attempts at implying that Lech Kaczyński was assassinated. Evidence, please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, Mr Putin has not been topping up my secret Swiss bank account during all of this - Darnit, that's regrettable! You might as well get on the payroll. You are doing a great job! LOL Best, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There is many a true word spoken in jest. Some people would like to show that Vladimir Putin assassinated Lech Kaczyński, and have been throwing around Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Purely on the grounds of WP:CRYSTAL, it is silly to jump the gun before the final report is published. Most of what other users have wanted to add during the last few days is routine Internet chatter and speculation. I stand by all of the edits removing this type of material from the article, and would not need to be paid by Vladimir Putin to uphold core policies like WP:V and WP:OR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ian, conflict of interest in Putin's chief investigator role is obvious because his long time friend and political supporter has a monetary stake in the outcome of the investigation. It is not encyclopedic to gloss over historical facts, especially such as these.MWoodson (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I called his secretary, there has been a mix up, you'll get your regular payments again starting July. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith from all editors and can I just remind everbody about WP:CIVIL, editors will be blocked from editing for making personal attacks. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Both articles suggested by me were published by well known, credible, and respected mainstream Polish and US newspapers. As such they certainly meet criteria required for their inclusion. Thus, it is irrelevant that you User:MilborneOne, User talk:OpenFuture, User:ianmacm don’t personally like the fact that they conflict with your own biases. Furthermore, it is also less than subtle that the three of you are working as a TAGTEAM undermining other editors good faith efforts to bring much needed balance to this article. So far, you have indulged in, what is becoming more and more apparent, blatant, and undue censorship of credible sources from this article. I will reiterate it once again, the fact that you don’t personally like the content published in sources other than those preferred by you, or who wrote them, is irrelevant. Everything in this Wiki article is WP:V, and WP:OR in one way or the other. The WP:LINKS criteria is most certainly met by both articles. Both the "Nowy Dziennik", and "Charleston Mercury", are credible and mainstream media publications. The credibility and credentials of both authors are also beyond reproach. Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User User:OpenFuture, your removal of the Russian Image Management, at al. in Charleston Mercury without consulting with other editors contributing to this article certainly falls under Wikipedia:Vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, the article in the Charlestone Mercury is a personal essay, and offers no reliable evidence that the crash was a conspiracy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are making another wide-sweeping statement undermining credibility of someone who has devoted his entire life to the study of these very issues, and whose credentials and expertise in these matters are beyond reproach. You also insist on pretending to be uniquely qualified to make such biased and unfounded assessment. I am once again dumbfounded by your statements. Respectfully yours, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The official report into the crash has not been published yet. Let's see what this has to say before getting into an argument over whether there was a conspiracy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

See Ian, you have been insisting that this entire discussion is about a "conspiracy" or its "absence". What other editors, including myself have a problem with, are your persistent and factually inaccurate statements such as this one: The Polish authorities and media seem happy enough with the crash investigation at the moment. Guess what, not all of them are, and I had cited quiet a few examples myself. Others had cited them as well. But, each and every time sources other than those approved by you are suggested for the inclusion in this article, they are reverted either by yourself or by one of your friends. You only aught to study the chatter in the Russian blogs immediately after this tragedy took place. What would you have learned from that? Oh well, you would have found out that it is exactly there that the conspiracy theories began. But, than again, our objections are not about including "conspiracy" theories here, or not. Our objections are about your persistent sanitizing of this article, and preventing other editors from improving the factual content of this article. The Wiki readers are not idiots Ian, and neither are we. That's the problem Ian! Best, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There are various ways of looking at the crash investigation. It could be argued that parts of it are sloppy or inadequate, or it could be argued that the Russians have acted in bad faith. The former is possible, but the latter gets deep into WP:REDFLAG territory. It is too early to say whether the investigation has major shortcomings, because the final crash report has not been published yet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Peculiar "logic" again Ian. Two more credible article sources: Jaroslaw Kaczynski, brother of the late President of Poland, Lech Kaczynski said ... Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis: Speaking about the transcripts, Kaczynski stated that these types of documents are to be made public, and it should be Russia and not Poland that should pursue all avenues for a truthful outcome of this investigation. He also appealed that it should be the families of the victims who should be reading these transcripts first. Source: Article 1

Synopsis: [Jaroslaw] Kaczynski: "I read the transcripts, they tell us nothing". He also stated that the investigation should be turned over to Poland. Noting that Poland is a sovereign nation, he commented on the handling of the investigation by Mr. Tusk's lead coalition, and pointed out that he refuses to accept Tusk's position, because it is the Polish president and its highest representatives who died in the crash. Source: Article 2

Credit cards

re: this edit. The source at [3] confirms that the cards were not used in transactions: Prokuratura dodała jeszcze, że nie prowadzi żadnych czynności mających na celu zbadanie kart wydanych na nazwisko Pani Aleksandry Natalii-Swiat.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, it should be added to the article. The cited info that the cards were missing but had not been used should not have been removed from the article. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading the source again [4] it appears that the cards belonging to Aleksandra Natalli-Świat have turned up and are now with the Military Police. I was unclear whether this meant that the cards had not been stolen, and had simply gone missing for a while. It appears that the cards were not used while they were missing. Could someone with a better grasp of Polish confirm this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A place to hang a coat

I've twice removed the following from the article:

(The Aviakor plant is held by Russian Machines, which is controlled by Basic [Element], Oleg [Deripaska's] firm. Oleg Deripaska had married into the Yeltsin family, thus obtaining special legal and political protections under Putin's first official act: Yeltsin's pardon. Mr. Deripaska has also been a skiing partner to Mr. Putin.)

We must be mindful of WP:SYNTH, WP:TOPIC and WP:COATRACK here. Let us be patient and wait for proper evidence to emerge for any conspiracy theories. Thank you, --John (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This has already been removed by me in a previous edit (see above) as WP:SYNTH. If the best evidence for Vladimir Putin's involvement in the Smolensk crash is that he went on a skiing holiday with Oleg Deripaska, then we can safely discard it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that is an incorrect portrayal of what you two have been deleting without understanding or discussing it with the text's editor (me). The Aviakor details are not evidence of involvement. They are evidence of relationships forming a context around the investigation that informs the reader. The readers decide, not the encyclopedia. The context is conflictual, specifically, conflict of interest. Putin named himself chief investigator. His skiiing buddy and political campaign supporter has a pecuniary stake in Aviakor. It's evidence of a conflict of interest. If someone should sue Aviakor, Putin's investigation findings (he's the chief of it), would carry significant bias into court. Not to recognize this with at least an encyclopedic recordation of the neutral facts of conflict would be to hide and reinforce the bias flowing from the conflict. If that is what you want to do and sign your names to, I'd respectfully suggest you change your mind.MWoodson (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that explicitly makes the connection then, and we can discuss whether it belongs in the article. --John (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a source to make a connection, just reliable sources for the facts from which the readers may decide what the connection is. It therefore remains neutral, however, it also enables readers to use it to make their own hypotheses.MWoodson (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You need a source to *state* the connection which is what is discussed here. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is an inherent Wikipedia rule disfavoring sources that have a political or monetary stake in the outcome of an article, i.e. promotional interest. That is a Wikipedia connection inferred from the Wikipedia rules of reliable sources. So in effect, the Putin-led investigation actually illustrates a conflict of interest that Wikipedia expects its editors to to put together when discarding a source with a promotional conflict.98.245.14.57 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you leave something like The Aviakor plant is held by Russian Machines, which is controlled by Basic Element which is owned by Oleg Deripaska. as well as the sources. It is not evidence of anything but very interesting reading. Richiez (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Since all that information is already in the Aviakor article, then just wikilink it. Without a reliable source discussing its relevance, it is just noise and distracts form the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources make the relationship connection. Bias or conflict of interest are inherent in the facts, but the facts are reported by reliable sources.MWoodson (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Conclusive proof is neither present nor absent. The absence of proof is not necessarily proof of absence!

The Russian Investigation Raises Doubts - "Rzeczpospolita": Andrei Ilarionov, an adviser and aid to Mr. Putin - The Russian Investigation Raises Doubts.

Polish Prosecutors and Military investigators are considering whether the controller in Smolensk gave Polish TU-154 crew wrong flight data. - TVN24

Russian Air-Safety Laws may have been violated, by the Russian Federation, says Valeriy Shelkovnikov, Russian Air Safety expert. - "Gazeta.pl"

Prof. Waller interviewed by Nasz Dziennik - "Nasz Dziennik"

Russian Image Management. Making Unpleasant Historical Truths About Poland Disappear - "Charleston Mercury"

Aleksander Korontshyk, Russian pilot, and an employee at Smolensk airport: "The responsibility for the crash is to be found at the airport."

"No TAWS equipped aircraft ever crashed. None - until April 10, 2010 " - "Niezalezna.pl" after "USA Today"

The investigation that is only to theoretically explain reasons for the Smolensk tragedy leads nowhere … Newsweek.pl

Families of crash victims appeal to the media: "Don't unjustly blame the pilots" - TVN 24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Latvian President Valdas Adamkus: "Kaczynski didn't pressure pilots" to land during their flight to Georgia. - Source "Niezalezna.pl" Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

An independent analysis of the TU-154 final phase of the flight ... - Nasz Dziennik

Polish investigators have their hands tied - says Rafał Rogalski, representing families of the Smolensk crash victims, including the Kaczynski family. - Rzeczpospolita

Russian dissidents have warned Poland against Putin's hypocrisy! - Newsweek.pl

"The common sense dictates that […] the probability of a random accident is exactly the same as probability of a planned accident." - Niezalezna.pl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"MAK's report fails at basic math" - Nasz Dziennik

Analysts from the Krakow's Forensics Institute: "Copy of black box recordings received from Russia rigged […] Russians cut the tape" - Nasz Dziennik

Polish investigators were, and still are, prevented from conducting crash investigation. - "Niezalezna", June 15, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Komorowski's interview with Inertia, April 29, 2010 - 01:43: "The elections will come, or president [Kaczynski] will be flying somewhere, and it will all change."

Boleslaw Komorowski: "After consultation with Prime Minister [Tusk] our strategy to exit NATO is ready" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 13:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll spare you re-citing countless other credible sources pointing out to the evidence mishandling issues, i.e. "how much for 'em wings", or the blatant disrespect in handling of the remains of the crash victims. So, without further due, the crux of the matter is that before these sources are censored-out, we need to figure out what, in the context of this article, makes RT, Novosti, Pravda, Izvestia, etc., stories credible enough to be included in this article. Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

IanMacM : "The interview with Edmund Klich [2] makes clear that the Polish authorities now accept that pilot error was the cause of the crash." - Are you sure?

IanMacM: "There is little point in throwing mud at the Russian government over the crash investigation unless criticism can be supported from reliable sources" - see my mainstream sources above, including those of Polish, Russian, and US origin.

IanMacM: "The Russians were keen to show that the conspiracy theories were unfounded" - No big surprises here.

IanMacM: "[..] still unanswered questions about why the pilot attempted a landing despite the obviously poor weather" - This is little bit more complicated than that? Wouldn't you agree? - See my sources.

OpenFuture: "Every single source agrees it was pilot error" - Are you sure? That's silly, isn't it?

IanMacM: "It [the investigation] ruled out terrorism, fire and explosion, and said that there was nothing technically wrong with the plane." - Not at all. Not a single scenario was ruled out as of yet.

OpenFuture: "The black box records these things too, so running commentary is not needed." - Actually, there is such need OpenFuture. Don't forget that what was released were only "partial" findings, and the accuracy of those findings was challenged by various mainstream media outfits.

OpenFuture: "Well, it may give the impression that the investigation is still ongoing, yes. But there is little doubt that it's pilot error, and even some involved in the investigation has said so even if the report is not done." - Do I even need to comment on this one OpenFuture?

IanMacM: "Russian Interior Ministry denies the thefts, which have been reported in the Polish media today. Not sure if this site is a reliable source" - the source was BBC Ian; I would hope that you consider BBC to be as credible as RT, Novosti, Pravda, and others coerced media sources whose spins you have been promoting?

IanMacM: "[...] any criticism of the investigation would need to come from a reliable source. The Polish authorities and media seem happy enough with the crash investigation at the moment. Discussing the authenticity of the evidence would be original research." - Another not so subltle spin - see credible sources above.

OpenFuture: "Unless you can find reliable sources that something *is* wrong, it's all irrelevant." - Plenty of "non-OpenFuture" sources were provided. You worked overtime to prevent other editors from including them in this article. It is all relevant.

MilborneOne: "Sorry this talk page is for comments related to the article not speculation, leave it to the experts." - Sorry, but if one was to take a closer look at the campaign taking place here, no expert opinion is really allowed here; at least not the kind of "expert opinion" promoted by you and your associates? Correct?

OpenFuture: "You have provided no evidence whatsoever that there is anything fishy going on at all. You've only speculated that is *may* be so. Yes it *may*. Now go away until you can show that there *is*." - Civility, civility, civility please. There are a lot of fishy things going on, but you choose to pretend that there are none.

IanMacM: "[…] unless the Polish government or the mainstream media questions the findings, it would be attempting to add personal analysis to the article". Ian, they did, and they still do! Do I even need to comment on this? See sources above.

IanMacM: "Both of the sources mentioned above are interviews with individuals who may have axes to grind." - Where have we failed Ian? The credibility of both authors is beyond reproach. Both articles appeared in mainstream media newspapers. Where have we failed Ian?

IanMacM: "the Polish government has not made any formal complaints so far." - Are you sure about that?

IanMacM: "Let's be blunt here: implying that the Russian government is somehow lying about the investigation is a POV approach with WP:REDFLAG issues. Wheeling out retired CIA officers to add personal analysis fails WP:V, while the Institute of World Politics is a place where people can express personal opinions freely. Neither of these sources is notable enough for the article." - There are many who would object to such a less-than-accurate statement Ian, and for good reason. Did you notice I used "less-than-accurate" rather than ...........

IanMacM: "Disagree, the article in the Charlestone Mercury is a personal essay, and offers no reliable evidence that the crash was a conspiracy." - It is your skewed point of view Ian, and it is not shared by other editors, including myself.

IanMacM: "It is too early to say whether the investigation has major shortcomings, because the final crash report has not been published yet" - this one should become a classic! Once again, please see my suggested sources please.

Of course, there is much more, but this should be sufficient enough to discern why this Wiki article reads like a badly written agit-prop script. Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Find better sources, then be WP:BOLD and make the change. However, please do not remove large quantities of content just because they come from a Russian source. A good deal of information in this article comes from worldwide and Polish sources. Also note that just because certain issues exist in Russian media does not make all of Russian media unreliable sources of information. N419BH 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The 19 May preliminary MAK report did rule out terrorism, fire, explosion or a mechanical fault as the cause.[5]. It would take too long to respond to each point individually, but the issue here seems not to be the investigation itself, but whether the Russian version of events can be trusted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

[...] it would take too long to respond to each point individually - I completely understand, since large chunks of the nonsense appearing in this article would have to go bye bye. But, I have to commend you for your dedication to the cause. Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

What cause is that?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Election?

It does not seem to be relevant to this article to follow every development in the election. Richiez (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we were. The section is brief, and once the results are known it can be corrected to state who won the election and when. That's all we need to cover, but it should be covered as it is part of the aftermath of the accident. Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Article locked for 24h

I've noticed that there appears to be an edit war going on over this article. Therefore I've protected it at the wrong version for 24h in order to facilitate discussion instead of warring. Any admin is free to unlock the article at any time before protection expires without reference to me if, in their view, consensus has been reached over the issue which has caused the article to be locked.

88.16.168.221, if you want that material included then you'll have to find a source that supports it. As far as I can tell, http://www.stewweb.com/ does not support your statement. Further addition of the material against consensus or without a supporting WP:RS will lead to an administrative sanction being applied. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Good, but there really is nothing to discuss here - it's as if someone added to the lead of JFK's article that he was murdered by the CIA. We don't need full protection, just semi-protection to lock out the disruptive anonymous editor. --Kotniski (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, semi would be enough here. http://www.stewweb.com/ is the sort of personal web site that fails WP:RS by a mile. It is not even clear how this page supports the theory that the plane was "mistakenly targeted by an aging Soviet era air defense system". This is the daftest edit dispute yet over page content.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The alledged source of the allegations also seems to be down at the moment - the domain http//stewweb.com appears to be up for sale at the moment. There have been previous attempts by Spanish IP editors (probably the same one) such as [6], [7] and [8]. As this kind of allegation would need extremely' strong sourcing - I suggest that semi protection or pending protection would be appropriate.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree that WP:REDFLAG comes into play here. Thanks also for pointing out some of the other IP edits emanating from Telefonica de Espana SAU, which are probably trolling/vandalism from the same user. This was also raised at User talk:88.16.168.221.

Also, since http://www.stewweb.com/ is a personal website that could easily be changed, here it is on WebCite as of 28 June 2010.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! At the very least that doesn't look like any kind of reliable source - from the brief scan I made it looks like the sort of site that probably should be blacklisted - i.e. a borderline attack site, mutterings about Jewish conspiracies etc.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The guy seems to have an interesting sense of humor, quoting from http://www.stewwebb.com/netanyahu_faces_indictment_04112010.htm :

We are also working around the clock to gather as much evidence as possible concerning the crash of the Polish government aircraft that was leaving Russia and has decapitated the Polish government.

We can now report that the pilot who was allegedly of Arab descent and yelled "Ali akbar" as the plane proceeded to crash, was actually an Israeli Mossad asset who had been employed in the old Soviet province of Georgia by the Israeli Mossad and had flown spy planes over the southern part of Russia.

We can also divulge that the late Polish President Lech Kazynski had received information from the Vatican showing that the late Pope John Paul, who was of Polish descent, felt that the current pontiff Ratzinger had been compromised by the old East German DVD spy agency, as well as the Israeli Mossad, and had actually leaked information to the Israelis concerning pedophile activity of Roman Catholic priests.

This belongs to encyclopediadramatica or uncyclopedia. Richiez (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that is funny! I kinda wonder who his contacts are in the intelligence industry...:). Moving on to more important things, I believe we can conclusively state that no credible source has been found stating an aging Russian anti-air warning system brought down an airplane carrying the late Polish president who happened to have been warned about priest abuse in the Roman Catholic Church and had a Polish pilot of Arabic descent who...

Can we move on now? :) N419BH 22:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped the protection level down to semi for the remainder of the 24h that was originally imposed. It looks like we are all agreed that the "source" is not useable and therefore further insertion of anything based on that source is disruptive. Mjroots (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Stewweb raised at WP:SBL. Mjroots (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, see also Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_explosion#We_Need_to_Include_the_Truth from our Telefonica friend. In future, attempts by this user to add theories based on blogs etc will be seen as trolling/vandalism. He has had plenty of advice about WP:RS but seems to ignore it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruption

The disruptive editor has been reported at WP:AN/EW. Hopefully he will shortly be blocked - when that happens, please can someone restore the page to how it was before his intervention - I'm going out.--Kotniski (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've requested page protection as well. N419BH 13:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And he's blocked. I've restored the page to the last edit before his spree began. N419BH 13:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The ownership of the black boxes has been a favourite topic in the blogs, but we are still waiting for the final report to be published, and the Polish government has not made any formal complaints about the handling of the investigation. On 16 April 2010, it was reported that one of the three black boxes had been returned to the Polish authorities.[9] See also [10]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The black box which was returned was the one which was built in Poland specifically for the airplane.  Dr. Loosmark  13:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention it's completely normal for the investigating authority to handle the black boxes. If a foreign civil airplane crashes on U.S. soil, it's the NTSB who handles the black boxes and the investigation. As this is a military airplane, I'm not too familiar with international agreements on this. However, if it were a LOT airplane crashing on Russian soil it would definitely be the Russians investigating per ICAO agreements. By the way, looks like pending changes was implemented, then removed. Dunno if we'll get protection or not. N419BH 13:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I see people are still making the same mistake. This was not a civil flight, so civil flight rules, ICAO agreements etc do not apply. It was a military flight, so the issue of who does the investigation is something that has to be sorted out between the Polish and Russian Governments. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert speculation?

I see a couple of problems with this edit:

• highly speculative - I heard of someone who sure knows etc....
• weren't the supposedly full transcriptions of the tapes released earlier (unofficially afaics) - without a trace of such claims?
• ":pl:Polska (dziennik)|Polska The Times" does not look like an appropriate translation. I have never heard anybody refer to "Polska" by that english name.

Should we point out the obvious contradiction or revert? Richiez (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, this does not look ideal, but I left it for other users to see if they agreed. Since the full transcript of the pre-crash audio has been released, this adds little new and may be speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also agree, the transcript of the black boxes is the best source we have. This is a bit of a WP:REDFLAG issue, and needs far better sources than that. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There could also be a separate section listing all the discrepancies and obviously conflicting claims and information. This is not the first "redflag" and instead of ignoring them till everything is resovled (which is probably not going to happen) it might be better to list the issues as long as they are not presented as the last truth. Richiez (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

External link

Is this link suitable per WP:EL? It looks like a rehash of various blog sourced conspiracy theories.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As of reliability, it has among others several sources typically regarded as highly reliable (such as Süddeutsche Zeitung), several other newspapers and apparently also many blogs or less reliable sources. It appears to be quite reliable with citing sources and categorizing them as speculations where appropriate. As of notability - mainstream media do a poor job of combining the available information and wikipedia would have a hard time to do it per WP:SYNTH (as an example the site points out information from Süddeutsche that Poland and Russia have a special agreement concerning investigation of air disasters) so I think there is room for that. Richiez (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Transport deaths

Further to my list suggestion "a while back": how practical would "a list of politicans who died in transport related incidents"?

Thus, for example, for the modern period:

Road: David Penhaligon and Jorg Haider

Rail:William Huskisson and Sergius Stepniak

Water: Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener

Air: The Polish disaster, Dag Hammarskjöld and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq

There are others - but are there sufficient for a list? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of these are rather loosely related to the Smolensk Crash. Dag Hammarskjöld and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq have similarities, but Kitchener etc are not really worth listing alongside the Smolensk crash. Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving state leaders is at the foot of the article, and gives the best comparisons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Politicians and others killed in air accidents are listed at List of fatalities from aviation accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion was for a more general list along the lines mentioned above - and I was giving some examples in each category. ('Horse related transport incidents' would probably be too numerous - William I of England and William III of England for starters). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

tense

The tense of this article needs to be changed from a present/future tense to a past tense. Griffinofwales (talk) ^{Come and join the}_{Simple English Wikipedia} 18:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Great job, Griffinofwales, for catching that! I have made necessary modifications; please let me know if I have missed anything. It's a pity I cannot come and join. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Image of wreckage

This photo appears to be on a Wikipedia compatible licence. Is it worth adding it to the article? Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is also weird. I uploaded the image with a CC 3.0 license at [11], but the bottom left hand corner has a copyright symbol with "Elcommendante". Is this image OK for use in a Wikipedia article?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the image is still copyright of the photographer, even though released on a CC 3.0 licence. It is one way of getting attribution, which may be a condition of useage. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the end of that image, it was speedily deleted. "Elcommendante" should state clearly whether he wants copyright or CC:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, now showing as a non-commercial image. We could use that image or one of the others under NFFU rules, with appropriate rationale. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Before uploading this or a similar image, the tagging would need to be confirmed. I'm not an expert on CC, so could someone else look at this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesnt really add anything more to the article and to use a non-free image it needs a rationale to justify it. The article already has a free image of the wreckage which would count against it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, "El Commendante" can keep this image, it would not add greatly to the article if it required a fair use rationale.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

False statements

This is a false statement:

"Russia is offering full cooperation to Polish prosecutors during the investigation.[52] Polish investigators in Russia have been given access to all procedures of Russian investigators. They do not have the authority to conduct investigative actions by themselves, but they are participating on equal terms with their Russian counterparts in the interviews with people involved and other parts of the investigation. Polish officials are to secure all Polish state documents found in the wreckage, as well as electronic devices (portable computers and mobile telephones) belonging to government officials and military officers."

please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.60.144 (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for why this is a false statement.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The source given in this part [52] "Gazeta Wyborcza" is not reliable, the point of view presented by this newspaper is highly anti-Polish. "Gazeta Wyborcza" is a "fifth-column" in Poland. Second, this article in GW is from April 12, from that day a lot changed. Russia indeed offered its help but it was just a "fool play". For example the plain wreckage and the black boxes are still in Russia, polish prosecutores applied to Russia to get them back but so far there is no reaction from Russian side. Also the presidential satellite phone have not been given back to Poland. You asked me about the source of these information - there are a lot of reliable sources in polish version of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.60.144 (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please cut the crap about Gazeta Wyborcza - it's a very well-respected national newspaper. But certainly this information needs updating in the light of recent events (reported, among others, in Gazeta Wyborcza).--Kotniski (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with the opinion that Gazeta Wyborcza is well-respected, it is, for sure, well-respected by some, but it is also highly disrespected by many.

This appears to be a WP:REDFLAG issue. Therefore it cannot be sourced to one source which may or may not meet WP:RS. Should other sources which are RSs report this (Sky, CNN, ABC, BBC etc), then we can give due consideration to inclusion in the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza is the second largest newspaper in Poland, not just some fringe publication. Which newspapers do you think would satisfy WP:RS? Anyways a hand-over of more documents should happen in a few days and there should be more sources on that after it. Taruti (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait and see. Things have gone quiet in the last few weeks, and there is no word on the likely publication date of the final report. If it is published and the Polish government says that it is happy with the findings, all of this will become academic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

New news has been released over a handover of documents: http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15433548&PageNum=0 + various other sources Taruti (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is also covered here. What is lacking at the moment is any indication on when the final report will be published. It could be some months away, as 12-18 months is normal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Final report should be published in mid-December. MAK completed their investigations and sent a copy of their finding to the Polish authorities yesterday, they then have 60 days to comment before the report is published. Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good. Then we can have a big clean up of the article and remove anything that had nothing to do with the accident, and, hopefully, get it to GA. I'm up for helping get it to GA, anyone else? Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm up for GA, maybe even FA in time. Mjroots (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Weird

I am a little puzzled but the following text which is currently in the article: Alexandr Aleshin, the First Deputy Chief of the Staff of the Russian Air Force, said that during the ensuing runway approach the aircraft increased its descent rate and went below the glide slope 1.5 km (0.93 mi) from the runway. Controllers instructed the pilot to abort the approach; when he did not, controllers advised the aircraft to fly to one of the suggested alternative landing points. According to Aleshin, this order was repeated several times but the crew continued with the approach and crashed.

I don't see anywhere in the transcripts of the flight recorders an order to abort approach repeated several times. I am pilot myself and I doubt very much that a pilot given an instruction to abort would continue the approach. Please check how a very reliable sources describes the accident: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20100410-0 There is nothing about the pilots ignoring an order to abort. In my opinion and assuming that the transcripts are correct, that text should be removed from the article for now because it might imply the responsibility of the pilots which at this point was still not established. Maciej37pilot (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point there. Can a Russian/Polish reading editor confirm the above and make the necessary changes please? Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Confirm what? The statement he objected is practically self-contradicting. We need a section for claims that have been made but later have been retracted, falsified or shown unreliable because people remember all those false claims without realising they have been long since shown unreliable or misinformation. Richiez (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The citation at [12] has the wording used in the article and the English translation is OK. Whether this is correct is something that will have to wait for the final report.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The translation is not precise. I am omitting the blurb around the direct quote but the direct citation in the article says "..air controller gave the crew order to go to horizontal flight, when crew did not follow this instruction several times gave them order to fly to reserve airport".. sorry for the technically imprecise wording, trying to stick to original. Overall this makes more sense for me than previous translation - in the previous translation order to abort landing would be practically identical to order to go to reserve airport hence second part of the statement would make no sense at all. Afaics order to go to horizontal flight is not equivalent to abort the landing and the landing might have been completed even during the same approach attempt. Summary, the claim is there were several orders/instructions to go to horizontal flight and one to go to another airport. Richiez (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Even with my translation one question is left open. Normally I would expect this sequence of commands: "go to horizontal flight" or other corrective interventions, "abort approach", "go to another airport". The "abort approach" command is plainly missing in the original quote. Richiez (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on aviation language, so it is hard to be precise about what the citation says. Overall (not just with this quote) the advice to the pilot was that conditions were too foggy for landing and that the plane should divert to another airport. This quote could be modified, or removed since it has largely been superseded by the analysis of the cockpit voice recorder transcript.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems we should drop it and record somewhere that it was based on a faulty translation. Richiez (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This has now been removed:

Alexandr Aleshin, the First Deputy Chief of the Staff of the Russian Air Force, said that during the ensuing runway approach the aircraft increased its descent rate and went below the glide slope 1.5 km (0.93 mi) from the runway. Controllers instructed the pilot to abort the approach; when he did not, controllers advised the aircraft to fly to one of the suggested alternative landing points. According to Aleshin, this order was repeated several times but the crew continued with the approach and crashed. Transcripts of the flight recorders reveal that the order not to descend by the tower was given too late, the aircraft was already fifty meters lower than it should have been when told to abort landing. Up until that point, the tower was advising the aircraft was on the correct heading and path.[13]]

The quote comes from 10 April 2010, the day of the crash, and things have moved on since then. The article makes clear that the pilot did not heed advice from the tower about the weather being too foggy for a landing. Some of the specifics here would need confirmation from the final report, which has yet to be published.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

This article needs serious additions. For example, we need to add information on the fact that Jaroslaw Kaczynski's column was forced to stop in order to let Tusk's column arrive in Smolensk first. Slijk (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources? Here we go. A TVP1 documentary. Synopsis: "Already during the first night of the crash, the Russians were removing the most important pieces of evidence from the crash site, that is, the remains of the Polish President’s Tupolev, TU-154M. Parts of the aircraft were transported away without any prior planning, and some of them were even destroyed. How is it possible, that the Tatiana Anodina's Interstate Aviation Committee (abr. MAK) investigating the causes of this crash was able to examine the remains so quickly? The MAK investigates crashes of planes, that itself certifies as airworthy, for use in its own airspace. In this respect, the MAK is serving as a judge in the case against itself. Conveniently, in 85% of the MAK’s investigations, its findings point to so-called human [pilot] error... The images and video footage you are about to see were never published before. This is the wreckage of the Polish government’s plane that crashed on April 10, 2010 in Smolensk. This documentary shows how the members of the Russian special services who were present on the site of the tragedy during the first days after the crash handled the wreckage. The majority of the trees, that the Tupolev TU-154 is alleged to have made contact with, were cut down ... The wreckage was left unprotected from the elements for months. The footage that documents the actions of the Russians show how the wreckage, that is the most important piece of the evidence in this crash, was being destroyed. The remains of the wreckage where moved from place to place. The larger pieces were stretched-out, compacted, and crushed. The majority of the aircraft remains were not analyzed in any way. In the end, the wreckage remains found their way onto an auxiliary landing strip at the Severny airport. The Russian investigators and the representatives of the Prime Minister Donald Tusk's Polish government claimed that the crash site was thoroughly searched, and that all human remains were carefully collected. Yet, contrary to those assurances, to this day more human remains are being found" Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

And since we are at it, let's dispel some other myths appearing in this deceptive article ...

The TU-154M, 101, was the Polish Government's military Air vessel in service with the Polish Air Force’s 36th Special Aviation Regiment, operated by, and under jurisdiction of the Polish Ministry of National Defense. On April 10, 2010, the Tupolev TU-154M, 101, was conducting a flight designated as "HEAD" ("Important") with the President of the Republic of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, and 95 other individuals onboard. This flight was communicated to the Russian Federation as a military flight. Flights of governmental Air vessels traveling in Russian Federation airspace, are regulated by Russian Federal Aviation Laws. According with the Russian Ministry of Defense regulatory laws, and specifically, the Clause from September 24, 2004, regulating the military flights, flight supervisors (ground controllers) are obligated, at their discretion, to approve, or to forbid, landing of military Air vessels. Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

POV edit

What's with this edit? It seems to completely change the meaning of the sentence. All the sources I've seen support the original version, not the new one. Can other editors please verify this? Offliner (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks like we have a bit of POV-pushing going on here.--Kotniski (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

[14] - can someone please take a look? Offliner (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look and it seems fine. Had the authorities declared the airfield closed, then the flight would have been forced to go elsewhere. They did not, but suggested that the pilots divert. The pilots chose not to divert and the aircraft crashed on approach. These two last items may or may not be linked, but we'll have to wait until the final report is published before we find out. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

but suggested that the pilots divert - well according to the edit, they did not, but instead failed to ask them to divert. That's the problem. Offliner (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Even it they had asked the flight to divert, the final decision is the captain's. Even if they had declared the airfield closed, the captain could still have insisted on landing there if an emergency had occurred. At the end of the day, he makes the decisions and subsequently has to justify those decisions if called on to do so. Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit removes the sourced and relevant info that ground personnel asked the captain to divert - that's why it should be reverted. Offliner (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So what's wrong with adding that back in? Why has it got to be one version or the other? Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong in writing a third version with the info reinserted - just go ahead if you have a suggestion. Offliner (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been addressed before in Talk:2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash/Archive_4#Rules_in_Russia, which makes clear that the final decision on landing would rest with the pilot.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

TAWS

The statement "No TAWS-equipped aircraft is known to have crashed since its introduction" in inaccurate. The plane in the Smolensk crash was equipped with functioning Terrain awareness and warning system, but the voice recording shows that the pilot chose to ignore repeated warnings from it.[15] As ever, technology is only as good as the people using it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How the hell do you know that the pilot "chose to ignore repeated warnings from it?"? PilotPL20 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither the pilot nor the co-pilot indicated any emergency (or even a minor technical problem) during the landing procedure. They show no reaction until swearing after the plane's wingtip hits a tree. It will be up to the investigation to determine why they did not heed the "terrain approaching" and repeated "pull up" messages of the TAWS system.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not true, from the transcripts I have read it's obvious they decided to abort at 80 meters. After that, they were probably throttling the engines and pulling up but they reached the other end of the jar and ran out of time and space. With all due respect, you don't know what exactly was the situation with the TAWS, at least wait for the investigation to finish, until then are simply writing your own personal speculations. PilotPL20 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The investigation will have the final say. However, the decision to take the plane down to less than 100m was inadvisable, as it is unlikely that the plane's engines could have aborted a landing at this altitude.[16] Nothing in the voice recording indicates an attempt to abort the landing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you know they took the decision to take the plane down to less than 100m!? You are mistaken about the voice recording, there is an indication they are aborting the landing, I have read it. PilotPL20 (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We are wandering off into WP:OR territory here. At 10:40:50.5 and around 80m in the MAK transcript, the co-pilot Major Robert Grzywna says "Odchodzimy", variously translated from the Polish as "We're leaving/departing/coming away".[17] This has been interpreted by some reports as a decision to abort the landing.[18] Since the pilot does not confirm this and the plane's altitude continues to decrease, it is hard to say what this means. Let's hope that the final report clears all of this up.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Ian! While an "INCOMPLETE" and leaving much to be desired, MAK transcript indeed states that the pilot is aborting, similar command to abort is issued at 10:41:00,5. I wish many here had your mind-reading powers, but you are once again speculating. If anyone here is engaging in WP:OR, it is you. Two commands to "ABORT" were issued by the pilots! These are the facts! You interpretation is unqualified, and misleading. Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

According to the published MAK transcript (which is the only one that I have access to), At 10:41:00.5, the TAWS says "PULL UP! PULL UP!" and the ground control tower says "уход на второй круг!" (Russian: "Level off, for fuck's sake!") At this stage, it would have been too late for the pilot to abort the landing anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What had prompted this lively exchange Ian, was your insistence that that the crew didn't make any attempts to abort, and that, in essence, the pilots sucked. (1) They did attempt to abort! (2) They were also very experienced pilots. Now, you are insisting that "it would have been too late for the pilots to abort" anyhow. You lost me again, but it wouldn't be the first time ... Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

The "уход на второй круг!" came from the ground control tower (диспетчер/kontroler ruchu lotniczego) just moments before the crash. I am not making any firm judgments about what the English translations mean, because it is beyond my expertise and is for the investigation to decide. However, at 10:41:03 the plane was within one second of crashing, and nothing that the pilots did at this stage would have prevented the crash, that much is clear. Let's wait for the final report.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Association of the Katyn Families 2010 Delivered 300,000 signed petitions to the Polish Parliament on October 21, 2010

"Warsaw, October 21, 2010

Association of the Katyn Families 2010

Honorable Bronislaw Komorowski, President of the Republic of Poland

Because of a particular significance of the Polish government plane crash near Smolensk, in which President of the Republic of Poland Lech Kaczynski, and other individuals, leading the most important institutions of Polish state had died, on April 10, 2010, and having taking under consideration voices of the public opinion, the Stowarzyszenie Rodzin Katyn 2010, appeals to Mr. President to take the necessary actions to appoint an international commission to investigate the causes of the crash.

The investigation of the causes of this national tragedy, conducted by relevant institutions of the Russian Federation, raises serious doubts and concerns, leading to the appearance of many types of speculations. The attempts of the Polish military prosecutors, compelling the Russian authorities to conduct specific actions, have been thus far unsuccessful. A particular example of this is the treatment of the aircraft wreckage. Similarly difficult to understand are delays and untimely responses to Polish requests for legal assistance.

The Stowarzyszenie Rodzin Katyn 2010, received over 300,000 signatures of the Polish citizens supporting the initiative of establishing the above mentioned [International] Commission. We were supported by a great number of Polish-American, and Polish-Canadian citizens. We ought not to ignore their voices. We will be appealing this matter before all relevant Polish and International institutions. We believe that only the International Commission, having confidence of the [Polish] citizens, can and will contribute to the intensification of the investigation, and at the same time will lead to the explanation of the causes of the crash.

The said signatures were deposited in the offices of the Parliament of the Republic of Poland, and are at any time available for viewing.

Respectfully, on behalf of the Association of the Katyn Families 2010,

Zuzanna Kurtyka, Chairman

Magdalena Merta, Deputy-Chairman"

Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. The article notes the call for an independent investigation by Congressman Peter King, and gives a link to the full document.[19].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable quote

While a lot of the article is difficult to read probably because of the constant editing which means some it doesnt make sense or flow. Just like to make a point about the Technical installations at Smolensk North Airport section. Not sure what value the quote from Eugene Poteat gives to the article, certainly the statement Probaby a GCA radar and My guess is that.. is not particularly encyclopedic and statement that the pilots knew the ILS was unreliable when the article has already explained the airfield doesnt have an ILS. Can I suggest the bit from Poteat is just removed as unreliable and not-encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this was removed because of limited relevance. The article already makes clear that the Tu-154 lacked the required equipment for an instrument landing at the airbase, and this should have been factored into any decision that the crew made about a landing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne about the readability. Hopefully once the final report is released it will be easy to bash the article into shape. Overall, it's not too bad, but some rough edges still need to be polished. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Mjroots is right; most air crash articles are in poor shape until investigations are concluded. Once the final report is released, it will be much easier to go through the article and remove anything that has little or no relation to the accident itself. Most accident reports have a summary of the accident and the findings of the investigation, so we will be able to craft a factual representation of the flight, and explain why it occurs. There is, realistically, very little we can do until the report is released; since we do not know if the ILS system was a factor, whether pressure from Kaczyński to land was a factor, along with most other things stated in the article in its current state. If the ILS wasn't a factor, we can perhaps mention it in a sentence or two, rather than the paragraph we have at the moment. If it was a factor, we can expand it further. Once the report is released, the article can be knocked into shape effectively. wackywace 18:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Lamps changing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The image and related text about changing the bulbs is added out of context and appear to be a bit of original research. It is suddenly introduced into the text without explanation of why it relates to the accident or the types of approach lights in use at the airport. The statement who are exchanging light bulbs in lamps, lamps approach runway airport in Smolensk and extend lighting feeders. which actually doesnt make sense in English but appears to be a guess as to what they are. Can I suggest that the lighting bit is removed as unrelated and/or original research. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree here, but did not want to remove this until other users expressed a view. The section about the lamp changing appears to contain original research and should probably be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The material relating to the lamps [20] has been removed because it seems to be based on a mixture of speculation and original research. Other reports have not suggested that the lamps at the airbase were a factor in the crash, and it would have been up to the crew of the Tu-154 to decide whether there was a clear enough view of the runway to attempt a landing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, excellent removal. Offliner (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree... Possible that it is one of reason accident. Crew can't see runway and ask about lights on runway. It is very important fact - unlit runway. Please wait for more opinions!!! --Swd (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be wider sourcing of why this story about the lamps in April is notable to prevent WP:UNDUE. None of the mainstream media reports since the preliminary findings in June suggest that they were a factor in the crash. At worst, the material about the lamps is speculation, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

An IP editor reverted the removal of the lamps story. I've rolled it back. Further additon of this against census and I will semi-protect the artice to prevent such disruption. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Re this edit. Today I am a "Russian anty polish agent". As explained above by other users, even if the runway lights and ILS were not working on the day of the crash, it would still have been the pilot's decision on whether to attempt a landing. Hopefully the final report in December will clear up the loose ends, but I fear that it will be like the Warren Commission and some people will be dissatisfied regardless.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a bit of original research but the image looks like some soldiers setting up some temporary lights possibly to light the crash scene. Hence the reel of cable, putting lamps in, the lamps facing in different directions etc., I would be suprised if these were permanent runway lights. Support Mjroots statement we dont have a consensus to mention the lamps or include the dubious image. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Comrades, Comrades, Comrades! I think, its time to get out of the bunker. Do you realize how preposterous and silly you are starting to look? What's a speculation? They were changing the damned lamps. Then, they destroyed the evidence! Then, they failed to surrender black boxes! Like I said, its time to get out of the bunker, and smell the roses! It already got away from you. It has nothing to do with ILS, or abcdefg, or some other silly spin! WingManFA2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

It *is* getting silly, because there is no consensus to add this. At the risk of setting off fresh arguments, the quote in the article from S. Eugene Poteat saying that ""political violence should not be ruled out under the circumstances of the aircraft crash" sounds like the sort of speculation found on 24 hour news channels when they are trying to pad things out. As other users have commented, Eugene Poteat does not have much to say that is reliably sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So, you are objecting because we are not quoting the "people's" RT, or "Pravda", or some other state-controlled (read as) *coerced* "media" sources? These, of course, had historically been, your preferred sources, of UN-"reliable" information in this article, Comrade IanMacM. WingManFA2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

There have been further additions of the material by IP editors. Therefore I've semi-protected the article for two months, which should be time for the final report to become available.

WARNING Addition of the material by autoconfirmed editors against the consensus demonstrated here will be treated as disruptive editing and dealt with as such. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and do not make silly accusations that editors are Russian agents etc. We have been through this before, and it is inevitable that the Russian government would have some say in the crash investigation. The next crucial phase will be how the Polish government reacts to the final report, which is due to be published in December. *If* it concludes that the cause was pilot error and the Polish government accepts this, then the article will reflect it. No doubt the conspiracy theories will continue in the blogs and forums, but that is the way of life on the Internet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey men (talk to me) are you really soviet or russian agent?. What is yours nationality? Why you deleted facts? It is normal that in all airports lights don't work? All in Smolensk was good? It is part of article about Airport not about crew! This part is only about airport and FACT is one- lights didn't work! Russians after crash, repair lights! You must be objective! You do everything for delete and hide it! Hide fact falsify and conceal history! No lights- it is Russia and Smolensk air base fault. They don't carre about light sistem. ILS- ILS is somthing different! Remember that official report is very controversial and Russia maybe try hide facts. Polish archaeologists are still bones in Smolensk... All this crash is more and more secret! If you answer me that lamp failure is normal and you give me proof that it is normal in all airports around the world, i will be understand why you delete this facts! If Aircraft warning lights runway lights and airplane lights can don't work you can delete and hide this fact ! Light and lighting in aviation is nonsense? Answer! Administration! I suppose that maybe: User:Ianmacm User:Offliner they are Russophile. I want independent administrators will be decide! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swd (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, since you have asked, I am British and not in the pay of the Russian government (WP:AGF). As explained above by other users and myself, the material about the runway lamps [21] is controversial because it appears to be original research and is not supported by other media reports or the view of the official investigators since the preliminary findings in June. There has been a WP:CONSENSUS not to include this, so please respect the decision. In a few weeks' time the final report will be published, and then we can all start arguing on the talk page about how "the truth" has been covered up. However, the article has to give appropriate weight to material that has been published in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember all in this crash is big (very big) secret. The Soviets also tried for 60 years to conceal the murders at Katyn... Finally freedom and true win! Don't be so sure. I wish you know polish langeuge and could read about mistakes what russians did... I think maybe we could create part of article: Unknows or Controverse... Salut! --Swd (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Swd, regardless of whether or not the lights were working, the final decision of whether to land or not to land is down to the captain of the aircraft. His duty is to fly the aircraft safely, deal with any emergencies that may arise, and not to give in to pressure from the passengers (no matter who they are) to land at a specific airport if conditions are not suitable to do so. All we are saying is wait for the official report to come out, at which point we will evaluate what it says, and then make a decision on whether or not to include the stuff about the lights. Please do not add the material again without consensus, otherwise action will follow. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

But, this really isn't about the decision to land, or as you are implying, various other falsehoods promoted throughout this article, i.e. the pressures from the passengers, or the poorly trained pilots that didn't speak Russian, etc. We are talking about the landing lights that are an essential part of any airport in the world. You really are starting to look very, very silly. There is no reason this picture shouldn't go back. WingManFA2 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There is every reason that the picture shouldn't go back for now - consensus is against it. There is WP:NORUSH, let's wait for the report and then reassess the situation once it has been released. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that your WP:NORUSH is superseded by the WP: Stop Perpetuating the Lies This Article, and by the WP: Get out of the Bunker. Your "cleanup" operation is becoming more, and more obvious! WingManFA2 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see your WP: Get out of the Bunker and raise it with WP:REICHSTAG! Seriously, speculation is part and parcel of a number of high-profile aircraft accidents, such as British Airways Flight 38 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Once the reports started coming out, a lot of the speculation was debunked. Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It is very hard to be taken seriously on Wikipedia while failing to assume good faith from the other editors. Either everybody else is wrong about the lamps issue, or WingManFA has overstated the case. There has been one rather speculative story in the media about the lamps, so there is clear WP:UNDUE. And once again, even if the runway lights were not working, it would still have been up to the pilot to decide whether it was safe to attempt a landing. This section has reached the point of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is always a bad sign. We have all exhausted ourselves by arguing about this trivial issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"It is very hard to be taken seriously on Wikipedia" when ones pronouncements of "facts" have absolutely nothing to do with "facts". After all, every airport in the world has such lights? Why, I wonder? You are silly! WingManFA2 (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, a consensus was reached - discussion closed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.