Talk:Smolensk air disaster/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Deleted Polish political posturing & removed POV Tag

Is it time again for weird conspiracy theories and political smear campaigns?? Even the President of the Polish Episcopal Conference bishop Józef Michalik told the conspiracy weirdos to present proof or shut up [1]. Besides saying the Russians bombed the plane, Macierewicz also wants to prove that Donald Tusk, Radoslaw Sikorski, Bogdan Klich, Jerzy Miller and Tomasz Arabski “intentionally and deliberately committed a number of offences to the detriment of the Republic of Poland and its constitutional organs”, which he believes led to the tragedy on 10 April 2010; furthermore he claims that the Russian "жизненные рефлекси" (vital reflexes) actually means "signs of life" thus proving people survived the crash [2]; his expert admits that he only analysed the pictures taken just after the air crash and thus came to his conclusion this was a bomb [3], the "scientists" will meet actually for the first time in October 2012, my favorite weirdo sentence from Macierewicz is: "And if we scrutinise the report and focus only on the suggested irregularities in the 26 Air Forces Regiment, the blame sits firmly with the Donald Tusk cabinet." [4]. This all is nothing but some political blame game - wikipedia is not involved in Polish political debates - especially ones that are based on flimsy evidence, hearsay, conspiracy theories, and just plain lying (see bishop Józef Michalik for that quote)... More proof that this is junk, fringe: [5], or this gem "the members of the committee were more or less in the middle of their work." followed by "also presented the main conclusions reached during the work." [6] - so in the middle of the work the conclusions are already established??? Serious work there in the Polish parliament... especially as the experts want to be anonymous... and that the "The decision concerning the landing was political and came from Moscow, which should be clearly said. " [7] or this political crap: the military prosecutors wanted to talk to Binienda, who refused and instead invited them to interview him at a session of the committee in parliament, which the prosecutors declined to visit (as it would be a political spectacle). [8] and have a look at this gem: "Antoni Macierewicz also stressed that while investigating the Smolensk air crash, the Polish officials "were acting according to Putin's decree."... because this is all part of the Russian war against Poland! [9]. Therefore a) POV tag removed b) section deleted. c) Discussion hereby ended. noclador (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There are fundamental problems with your arbitrary deletion:

(1) Your sources - You will be hard-pressed to convince anyone, even on Wiki, that the views of two communist snitches "Zephyr" and "Mikhailov" (see below) supersede academic credibility of notable scientists affiliated with credible universities, Boening, NASA, and others. Once again, the Polish Parliament is not a fringe organization. It is an official body of the Polish Government. What you are bringing forth are views expressed by two noted communist secret police informers

Per Wiki's own articles:

(a) Michalik: Links with Polish secret police, the SB

On February 15, 2007 Michalik, in an interview with Polish TV, Polish Press Agency PAP, IAR and the IAC has reported that the Church Historical Commission on the basis of materials established by the Institute of National Remembrance IPN found that during the years 1975 to 1978 he was registered as an agent of the Communist secret police (SB) codenamed "Zephyr"

b) Ciril: Links with the KGB

In the early 1990s and later on, Kirill was accused of having links to the KGB during much of the Soviet period, as were many members of the Russian Orthodox Church hierarchy, and of pursuing the state’s interests before those of the Church.[27][28][29][30][31][32] His alleged KGB agent’s codename was "Mikhailov".

(2) This article heavily relays on sources that by all accounts are clearly identified as propaganda centers. See various earlier objections that thus far have not been addressed.

Please do not vandalize this article any further. Both the discussion and the POV tag are hereby reintroduced. --WingManFA2 (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree! This deletion was clearly unwarranted. --Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

patriarch Kirill??? I did not mention him! Bishop Michalik is in 1 of the sources! ALL the others are comments by Macierewicz or news about his commission. Your claim "This article heavily relays on sources that by all accounts are clearly identified as propaganda centers" - please prove that the Polish government, the Russian government, the Polish press, the EU, the Western governments, the Western press, the Polish Episcopal Conference are indeed "propaganda centers"! If you can not provide sources to back up you accusation, well... Bishop Michalik has some opinion about that. noclador (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User noclador you are involved in unethical and arbitrary deletions of other users' contributions, including my edits. You need to brush up how Wiki works, because what you have done is plain and simple vandalism! This is not how Wiki works! --Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to cool your jets noclador. Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean you have a right to vandalize this or other articles. The Doomed is right. You need to brash up on how to behave in a collegial environment. A break form Wiki would be good for you. --DrJacPhD (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

All the charges are completely misguided because the section doesn't contain anything that could be considered as a "political game" of Macierewicz or anyone else, even if such a game exists. It doesn't even contain any of the accusations of political responsibility of Polish Government, etc. The section is mostly about scientific researches made by experts, who are NOT anonymous:

Wiesław Binienda http://www.ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/people/binienda/

or http://www.uakron.edu/engineering/research/profile.dot?identity=1064521

Kazimierz Nowaczyk http://cfs.umbi.umd.edu/cfs/people/kazik.html

Gregory Szuladziński http://www.simulate-events.com/principals-resume.html/

Michael Baden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden

Voyt13 (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Polish parliamentary investigation/break

What we have here Voyt13 is a situation that appears to require an arbitration. Thus far, I have been accused of being YOU, Robert, and just about anybody else, as long as it suits the agenda of the POV zelots who prefer to maintain this article in its present, "science-fiction" form. My edits, your edits, and edits of other editors have been removed. Dare I say, were vandalized? Under the present circumstances, and reluctantly, I am beginning to feel that Wikipedia, as it is, is not a reliable source of information. In fact, after this nonsense, it certainly is NOT "encyclopedic" by any stretch of imagination.--WingManFA2 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And you've got arbitration, or, at least, the active oversight now of an administrator. I have barred editing to the page for a week to allow you people to form consensus on the talkpage. Stop using emotive language and flinging insults. The question at the moment, it seems from the edit history, is whether the Polish Parliamentary investigation should be included in the article.

Let me give you my personal opinion: it seems unlikely to me that the theory in the parliamentary investigation is factually based; there are far too many uncertainties in air crashes, and the computer modelling could have produced unreliable data for all kinds of reasons. However, that does not mean the Polish Parliamentary investigation is not WP:NOTABLE. It may be a fringe theory, but it represents the strongly held views, no doubt, of many Poles who may be distrustful of their eastern neighbour. Therefore, my personal view is that the seemingly well-referenced Polish Parliamentary section should remain. Let's not insult the intelligence of our readers by denying them even the knowledge that the Polish Parliament investigated the matter: let's trust them to decide individually whether what the Parliamentary investigation was true. I would also recommend that a discussion thread be created at WT:POLAND and/or WT:AVIATION. Please do not hesitate to contact me via my talkpage. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Note to User:Voyt13. I feel that you came with a specific POV to edit this article. Therefore I would suggest to please have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I would like to point out why I came to this conclusion by listing some of your edits:

• "like Sergei Ivanov and his contribution to war crimes in Chechnya or links to Russian services responsible for assassinations"
• "much more reputable than the experts of the Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents"
• "The investigation and scientific research concerns only the plane crash. It is not about how much psychopathic murderer Putin is"

Besides I would like to point out some of your other edits:

• "This independent investigation is mostly censored in the mainstream media in Poland"
• "there are indistinct voices interpreted as "don't kill us!" in Polish".
• "there is plenty of black PR like this about experts like Binienda"

usually such claims: "mostly censored in the mainstream media", "black PR", etc. point to a Wikipedia:Fringe theory and creating theories based on flimsy ideas like "indistinct voices", "interpreted as" point also in the direction of a fringe theory. The same bias is found in the statements by the head of the committee Macierewicz, which does indicate that at least Macierewicz is highly biased. So all this combined makes the investigation look like an politically motivated attempt to give credence to a fringe theory. I agree with user:Buckshot06 that the committee is WP:NOTABLE, however as it is now the section describes the findings of the committee as facts and omits any information about the reaction/feelings of the Polish public to the committee, the government and ruling party opinion/reaction to the committee, the Polish press views of the committee, etc. With such sensational findings that are presented as facts I assume that there would be a lot of debate about the committees findings in Poland and also in the international press. But there seems to be none... which makes us come back full circle to Wikipedia:Fringe theory. noclador (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Everyone has his own views. Here, on the talk page, in some of my posts I adapted to the level of discussion presented by the users I responded to. And then, the statement could include a POV. But in the Article, in the section I created, there are only pure facts, no POV. Regards, Voyt13 (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Voyt13, indeed, you have presented the facts of the Parliamentary investigation. The committee did say such-and-such a thing. But encyclopedic articles need to be *balanced*. In your personal opinion, how likely do you think that the version propounded by the Parliamentary investigation is true? Or is it more reflective of Polish mistrust of Russia? Poland has ample grounds to be mistrustful, but that should not mean we distort the true likelihood of what actually happened in this particular aircraft incident. Do you not think, in order to improve the balance of the article, some mainstream Polish newspaper stories/analysis discussing the Parliamentary investigation should be added? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The function of this, or for this matter, any other article purporting to be encyclopedic, should be to present the facts, as they are seen by the experts and were reported by the media. When I say media, I mean all media, and not only the type of media that this, or the other editor likes. Voyt13 has done exactly that, and it is neither appropriate, nor warranted to ask him what IS, or what ISN'T "true". No such burden has to be met here - particularly in the light of less-than-objective portrayal of the "reality" in this article. Simply put, he doesn't have to "prove" anything. He presented a body of reputable scientific research conducted by well-regarded experts, and properly cited it. It is not for you, or me, or for anyone else to indulge in the censorship, and to treat Wiki's visitors as if they were idiots - no matter how noble the intent. You noted that in your post - and I believe you were genuine when you said that. The "true likelihood of what actually happened in this particular aircraft incident" remains a mystery, was subject to countless spins, misrepresentations, and outright lies since day one. Voyt13 touched upon some of these, and but appropriately, didn't editorialize them. He simply enumerated the facts as they were reported. Personally, I'll take what someone like Binienda, or Szeludzinski, and other independent experts (holding doctorates in their respective fields) have said, long before I'll give any credence to what the RT (a reputed loudmouth of the Putin's propaganda), or the "experts in nothing" of the Jerzy Miller's ilk, or others, had thus far fabricated. And, Voyt13, thank you for your valuable contributions. --Doomed Soldiers (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be deliberately avoiding one simple fact. It's not about RT, it's not about Miller, it's not about Binienda and whatshisname. It's about the whole freaking world. Vlad the Psycho blows up an airplane full of high ranking officials of not the most insignificant country on Earth, and no one gives a damn, except a few far-right american specialists in political warfare. Like, how is that possible? Where's the outrage? Pussy Riot got sentenced to 2 years, and Russia got loads of shit poured on her. Polish president gets blown up, and even FoxNews remains silent. Unthinkable. How do you explain that? 89.178.33.231 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

89.178.33.231, I told everybody to stop using emotive language and flinging insults. The mainstream view is that this incident was an accident. Stay on-topic, do not use this page as a forum post area, and remain focused on fixing the way we as Wikipedians wish to portray this incident. Mr Warren, I appreciate your concerns, but there is a *reason* we have the guideline WP:FRINGE, and this situation needs to be interpreted in line with that guideline:

"A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea"

At present, I am not seeing any genuine intention of discussion to improve the article, rather more hurling of accusations. Stay on topic everybody, and focus on producing some compromise wording, or I believe this article will have to remain locked down for a longer period. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the material added here is that it is way too long and has issues with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The Polish and Russian governments were broadly agreed on the cause of the crash, and this new investigation is the usual grassy knoll stuff by dissenters. The Polish parliamentary investigation is worth mentioning, but fairly briefly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

re: Robert Warren: a) [10] violates WP:Civility b) [11] please refrain from WP:Sock and c) your claim: the "experts in nothing" of the Jerzy Miller's ilk: a bit of expertise the 34 investigators have. The full report in English can be found at: [12] d) and if one wants to see how serious one can take Binienda - there is enlightening section in his Polish wikipedia article pl:Wiesław Binienda ([13]). e) and User:Voyt13 is a 1 topic editor on the Polish wiki too [14]. Wikipedia is not meant to help propagate a fringe theory. noclador (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As for your claim that the Polish side had no access to the Black Box: page 60 of the final report:

• Crash protetcted flight data recorder MŁP-14-5: "Data from this recorder were readout on 11.04.2010 in Moscow in the seat of the Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK) at the presence of Polish specialists and a Polish military prosecutor."
• Cassette recorder KBN-1-1: "Readout of the data from this recorder was carried out on 14.04.2010 in Moscow, in the seat of MAK, at the presence of Polish specialists and a Polish military prosecutor."
• Quick Access Recorder ATM-QAR/R128ENC: "On 20.04.2010, the data from the memory of the cassette were readout in the Air Force Institute of Technology in Warsaw, in the presence of representative of MAK, the Committee of Aircraft Accident Investigation in National Aviation (henceforth Committee), Polish Prosecutor‘s Office and the manufacturer‘s of ATM-QAR representative. The all data were retrieved."
• Voice recorder MARS-BM: "Reading of the data from this recorder was carried out on 11.04.2010, in Moscow, in the seat of MAK, at the presence of Polish specialists. The data were copied and secured by representatives of Polish prosecutor‘s office in MAK‘s headquarters."

maybe you want to read the official report, before making claims that are contradicted by the official report. noclador (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Following are some of Binienda's "fringe" credentials. Machine language translation:

"Collaborates with NASA conducting leading research grants funded by NASA [11]. Led by the Gas Turbine Testing Facility, built in 2005-2006 [21], has been conducting research on the components of turbines and engines for the United States Air Force, NASA and private industry [22] (companies General Electric, Honeywell and Williams International [10]). In 2008, it installed the so-called lab. has gas, entirely funded by the NASA Glenn Research Center, used by the team Wieslaw Biniendy testing of composite materials subjected to collisions with objects moving at high speed [23]. Participated in the study disaster space shuttle "Columbia" [24] [25], but it is not listed among those participating in the study in the official report drawn up after the disaster. [26] NASA collaborated with the turbofan engine design called the GEnx, which is used in Boeing 787 Dreamliner [11], and is co-author of a new composite material with a special woven carbon fiber used to build the GEnx engine [27]."

So, pun intended: "'Houston, we have a problem" … because, neither is this guy "fringe", nor are the others, and neither are their findings. You can't marginalize "facts" (read: numbers that at least are adding up) just because they didn't originate from the sources liked by SOME editors. Mind you, all of this was reported by the reputable media outlets in Poland, United States, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, and elsewhere. The aforementioned findings were also subject of an intense peer-review, and prevailed. Similarly, one would hope that the European Parliament, or the Polish Parliament, or the Polish Parliamentary Group, are as notable as are the other sources cited in this article. The Wiki readers are NOT STUPID, and I find the motives guiding some of the editors here puzzling - to say the least. As far as the length of the said section of the article is concerned, my personal feeling is that compared to the lengthy diatribes about a lot of nothing, the Voyt13's contribution constitutes only a small portion of an overall article length, and should stay as is. The sources are prominent enough, the findings are documented, and are properly annotated. --Doomed Soldiers (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As for Roberts and Voyt13 claims about the quality of the experts (see above and [15]) "Prof. Binienda participated in the investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster", 6 volumes, over 3,000 pages, but Binienda isn't mentioned anywhere [16]. "Binienda was awarded by NASA [17]", the university of Akron got an award as part of a team of 15 companies/institution/universities... and NASA gave out 18 more awards that day [18]. And this Australian National Security Researchers Directory is the phone book of Defense related scientists in Australia [19],... now aside from exaggerating the NASA connection: Binienda is an expert on turbines and engines... not airplanes, not airplane wings, not airplane crashes, not airplane materials, not airplane impact studies or anything else related to the crash in Smolensk. None of the engines failed, so what can bring Binienda to the investigation??? Let's not say Binienda is fringe - but you have to admit that his area of expertise is not connected with the crash. Secondly you say that "subject of an intense peer-review, and prevailed."... well, all the sources I can find say Binienda refused to allow a peer-review! "Binienda nigdy nie opublikował danych, jakie wprowadził do komputera tworząc słynną symulację." ("Binienda never published data, which introduced the famous computer simulation form.") and that is from Newsweek Poland! Maybe you wanna read the Newsweek article - it debunks your claim of peer-review completely [20]. As does this letter by a Polish professor from University of Toronto: "Dodam, że moje publicznie zadawane profesorowi Biniendzie pytania, ważne dla wyjaśnienia działania jego modelu, pozostają od wielu miesięcy bez odpowiedzi." ("I would add that my professor asked Biniendzie public questions, important for clarification of his model, many months remain unanswered.") [21]. As for your claims that all this was reported in media in "Poland, United States, Canada, Australia, Great Britain" - show us the links!! noclador (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If Binienda's simulation is "famous", as you say yourself, then how can you suggest that his findings are insignificant, and strangely enough, suggest that what he brought to the table is not sufficiently notable to be part of this article? The Szeludzinski guy, is considered to be among the best experts in the world in the things that go poof, or explode, if you will. I am having considerable problem with following your logic here, as I am sure, are others. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but the University of Toronto professor you mention is an astrophysicist. Right? So, he is kind a Milky Way, or star-gazing kinda dude, right? So, what does he bring to the table then? Binienda's stated qualifications on the other hand, are in all-things-aircraft, and if I remember correctly (maybe someone can dig it up for the benefit of the rest of us) presented his findings to an international body not to long ago. Right? They didn't run him out. Did they? Do you remember that? Apparently, Binienda specializes in "testing of composite materials subjected to collisions with objects moving at high speed", and then he designs aircraft engines. Another one of these independent experts apparently designed some Boeing planes, that fly allover the world. Right? The claim to fame of one of your Miller's experts is that they can apparently hear voices. Do you remember that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.243.205 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"famous" = irony! Please read the entire Newsweek article, as it says that Binienda brought nothing to the table so far. Szeludzinski is "considered to be among the best experts in the world" considers who?? Binienda did not present his findings to any relevant "international body" yet (relevant means a body that can and will do a peer-review!). Binienda specializes in what happens when something hits the moving parts of an engine at high speeds (i.e. a bird a turbine blade). "apparently designed some Boeing planes"... who? which planes? when? there are a few thousand people working on a Boeing plane... what was this experts function? and no: before you make again the claim that Miller's experts are just capable to hear voices, I urge you to grab a copy of the official report, have a look at the credentials of the 33 people that make up the commission and then provide sources that prove none of them is an expert in aviation accidents [22]:

1. Colonel Pilot, Mirosław Grochowski, M.Eng., military pilot, Head of the Inspectorate for Flight Security at the Ministry of Defence
2. Agata Kaczyńska, M.A., lawyer specialized in aviation law
3. Lieutenant Colonel Pilot Robert Benedict, military pilot, test pilot, Inspectorate for Flight Security at the Ministry of Defence
4. Lieutenant Colonel, Bogusław Biernat, M.D., military doctor, anatomopathologist, Military Institute of Aviation Medicine
5. Major Dariusz Dawidziak, M.Eng., aviation engineer, Inspectorate for Flight Security at the Ministry of Defence
6. Major Leszek Filipczyk, M.Eng., aviation engineer, Inspectorate for Flight Security at the Ministry of Defence
7. Bogdan Fydrych, M.Eng. air traffic controller in the reserve, Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents
8. Wiesław Jedynak, M., airline pilot, civil instructor, LOT Polish Airlines, Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents
9. Prof. Ryszard Krystek, Ph.D., civil engineer, Professor Gdansk University of Technology, Institute of Road Engineering
10. Major Artur Kułaszka, M.Eng., aviation engineer, Head of the Division of Aero-Engines at Air Force Institute of Technology
11. Agnieszka Kunert‑Diallo, attorney at law, lawyer specialized in aviation law, LOTPolish Airlines
12. Maciej Lasek, Ph.D, Eng. pilot, aviation engineer, Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents
13. Krzysztof Lenartowicz, M.Eng., active airline pilot, LOTPolish Airlines
14. Piotr Lipiec, M.Eng., engineer, Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents
15. Edward Łojek, M.Eng., aviation engineer, LOTPolish Airlines, Head of the Department for Planning and Supervision of Aviation Operations
16. Commanding pilot, Dariusz Majewski, military pilot in the reserve, military retiree
17. Lieutenant Colonel Dariusz Majewski, M.Eng., aviation engineer, Inspectorate for Flight Security at the Ministry of Defence
18. Władysław Metelski, M.Eng., aviation engineer, Member of the Management Board of LOT AMS Sp. z o.o.
19. Lieutenant Colonel, Sławomir Michalak, Ph.D., Eng. aviation engineer, Air Force Institute of Technology, Head of Division of Avionics
20. Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Mirosław Milanowski, M.Eng., meteorologist in the reserve, civil military employee at the Inspectorate for Flight Security at the Ministry of Defence
21. Lieutenant Colonel Cezary Musiał, M.Eng., aviation engineer, on-board technician, Inspectorate for Flight Security at the Ministry of Defence
22. Lieutenant Colonel, Janusz Niczyj, M.Eng., aviation engineer, flight safety inspector at the Flight Safety Department of the Polish Air Force
23. Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Maciej Ostrowski, M.Eng., meteorologist in the reserve, military retiree, university teacher at Warsaw University, Committee for national Aviation Accidents
24. Reserve Clonel Jacek Przybysz, M.Eng., aviation engineer in the reserve, military retiree
25. Reserve Major, Jerzy Skrzypek, M.Eng., aviation engineer in the reserve, civil military employee at the Inspectorate for Flight Security at the Ministry of Defence
26. Kazimierz Szostak, M.Eng., on-board engineer, LOTPolish Airlines, Head of Department for Aviation Security
27. Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Waldemar Targalski, M.Eng., military pilot, airline pilot, active in the reserve, Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents
28. Colonel Olaf Truszczyński, MD, PhD, aviation psychologist in service, Commander at the Military Institute of Aviation Medicine; Head of the Medical Subcommittee at Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents
29. Colonel Mirosław Wierzbicki, M.Eng., aviation engineer, on-board engineer in service, Inspectorate for Flight Security at the Ministry of Defence, Head of the Aircraft Engineering Department; Head of the technical Subcommittee at the Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents
30. Colonel Andrzej Winiewski, Ph.D., certified reserve pilot, military pilot in the reserve, lawyer, expert on operation of airports, military retiree, Polish Airports State Enterprise, Director of the Operational Office of the F.Chopin Airport in Warsaw
31. Wiesław Wypych, M.Eng., aviation engineer, LOTPolish Airlines
32. Marek Żylicz. Ph.D., lawyer specialized in international aviation law, retiree, teacher at the Academy of Economics in Radom, Poland
33. Stanisław Żurkowski, Ph.D., Eng., engineer, Head of the Technical Committee at the Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents

vs:

1. Binienda, Engine specialist
2. a guy considered to be among the best experts in the world in the things that go poof
3. someone who apparently designed some Boeing planes

and now prove the latters credentials or disprove the formers credentials. noclador (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

First, as for noclador, "someone who apparently designed some Boeing planes" is dr Waclaw Berczynski, engineer, constructor of Boeing with 21-year experience: [23] . It looks like you haven't even read the section you've removed... Regarding to the access to the black boxes, please read that Russians handed over transcripts of records of black boxes. on Polish Wikipedia based, inter alia, on Polish government's site. And I suggest to read about some of the results of reading the transcripts: Black boxes stopped working above the ground and Gen. Błasik wasn't in the cockpit of Tu-154 M. If you refer to the final report and the sentence "...at the presence of Polish specialists and a Polish military prosecutor", it is like the lies of Ewa Kopacz about the fake-autopsies: "Polish and Russians worked side by side". And it came out that In the documents of autopsies there are no polish names signed and the parameters of bodies coincide with the real at about 3-5%... About Binienda, he was awarded by the American Society of Civil Engineers for "outstanding technical contribution in the development of modern space design with applications in civil engineering" and NASA: [24] and others and presented his researches on ASCE "Earth and Space Conference" - Pasadena CA (watch here ) with the presence of 204 scientists from 13 countries. He cooperated with NASA in designing of an engine applied in Boeing 787 Dreamliner, read here with the refs. He explained many times about the data in his simulation model and appealed for a joint conference/researches with other specialists and officials: I invite the prosecutors to the USA. And it was Artymowicz who actually didn't want to confront his arguments in a discussion. And if you are screaming about "Newsweek Poland" as it is supposed to be an immaculate, high-reliable source, its editor in chief is known of his political views and I won't comment that... Voyt13 (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

More, about the Binienda's researches, please get familiar with it here. The simulation of the collision with the tree made with different initial parameters, also with increased diameter and endurance of the tree and decreased the endurance of the wing. But it should not be even considered if the plane flew over the birch, as it was in the trajectory: [25]. And as for Buckshot06, I just want to find a rational explanation, which MAK's and Miller's reports are absolutely not, containing all the internal contradictions. Let me ask you, do you really believe in all that things, like that the plane with wingspan over 37m flying at the height of 5m hits the "armored birch", loose its wing, turns arround (actually some parts are moving under the ground!), suddenly accelerates up with 8-10 g, hits the ground and breaks into many thousands of pieces and the wing fragment is found at an inexplicable distance of the tree? Voyt13 (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Blockador, just curious here, isn't your expert, Colonel Pilot, Mirosław Grochowski, M.Eng., military pilot, Head of the Inspectorate for Flight Security at the Ministry of Defence, the guy who along with his psychologists heard the "voices from beyond" in the cockpit, only to detract this whole hoopla as an outright lie later - I am talking about the lie about the drunk general, and the incompetent Polish crew that was heralded to the world? Did I get it right? Grochowski and his psychologists "experts" got caught with their panties down on this one, didn't they? Did I get it right? Can anyone confirm please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.243.205 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

200.55.243.205, despite the fact that you are a single-purpose account who has suddenly appeared since other users were blocked due to sockpuppet usage, I have allowed you to take part in this discussion. If you however continue to make WP:Personal attacks by distorting others' usernames, you may find yourself blocked. Discuss the issue, not the person who holds particular views. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It is sad to say it, but at the moment this article is being held to ransom by a proven sockpuppet, creating a generally bad atmosphere. There is little support in reliable sources for the claim that the accident was anything other than a crash in bad weather. The attempts to inflate alternative theories are classic WP:FRINGE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Voyt13 please - take it a notch down! 1) Waclaw Berczynski is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the article, so it was hard for me to spot his name when reading the section. 2) Why is the source for all your claims the right-wing niezalezna.pl site? It is known for its right-wing/extreme right-wing/radically rightist views and its close ties to the Law and Justice Party... and its editor in chief wants to prove his view that President Lech Kaczynski was murdered (his viewpoint brought to you via socketeer Robert Warrens homepage!) Is that all you can provide as a sources?? Aren't there some other Polish papers that also say that the plane was brought down by explosives?? and if possible provide some sources in English! but not freepl.info as it only translates material from niezalezna.pl! Also provide a some sources for the claim "lies of Ewa Kopacz about the fake-autopsies", because all mentions of that I can find are: niezalezna.pl, freepl.info, Robert Warrens homepage and topix.com, which copies from freepl.info... As you do not provide coherent arguments for including the section in the article I urge you to find some sources that do make the argument for you, because they are such mainstream respected news publications that nobody will ever challenge the section again! So, do yourself a favor and find such sources! Because otherwise there is still no foundation to include this WP:FRINGE theory in the article. noclador (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Waclaw Berczynski was at Boeing Rotorcraft Systems in Philadelphia... yeah, helicopters fly too... and his "extremely strong internal explosion"... the wing contains the fuel tanks, those fuel tanks contained around 11 tons of fuel... the fuel tank extend all the way to the tip of the wing... Fuel is consumed first from tanks 2, then tanks 3, then tank 4 and last tank 1.[26] so even if tank 1 and 4 were filled to the brim the tank on the wing tip would still be filled with over 500kg of fuel... noclador (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources I brought up, except all the media group connected to niezalezna.pl, are also: wp.pl, rp.pl, uakron.edu, gazetaprawna.pl, sejm.gov.pl, naszdziennik.pl, stefczyk.info, videos on youtube and some others. I could also bring sources like uwarzamrze.pl, wpolityce.pl, wprost.pl, onet.pl and many others. But niezalezna.pl seems to provide the most of information on that investigation, the most detailed. You can always say they are political, right-wing, etc., and you can always call every investigation of any crime a “political game” because there is almost always someone who could benefit on it… But there is an interesting thing: If the Law and Justice party and all the “right-wing extremists” are pushing a fake-theory of an assassination, then why they are all demanding an international investigation on it and all the others are so afraid of it? What do they have to hide? Why the Law and Justice party runs the risk of an international shame and loss of all the voters support if it was really an accident?

What you are trying to defend here is a theory of a ghost-plane flying under the ground, smashed by one of the armored birches that grow only in Russia… And you don’t say it’s a fringe, conspiracy theory, it’s an official, true version! Just because the terrorists ruling in Russia (responsible for many other political murders – will you deny that?) said so, because they led an investigation on it and the Polish government confirmed it and all the mainstream media repeated it and then all the international media repeated after them (what else should they do?). And the only other investigation with a rational conclusion with a hypothesis of explosions is a “fringe theory” that has to be removed... Also one thing I have to add here: do you know anything about the war between Georgia and Russia in 2008 and the role of L. Kaczynski there? Do you know that he gathered four other countries leaders (Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Latvia), went to Tbilisi and forced Russian army to stop the attack on Georgia? See: [27] Do you know there was already an assassination attempt on him right there, in Georgia? See: [28]. Do you know that the Katyn_massacre was also a revenge?

However, after all, I’m glad that you finally focused on merits and try to find some other explanation for the explosions, that about the fuel tanks. (then the official reports must be lies, too.) As I know, the fuel has to be mixed with air/oxygen in some proportion to explode, otherwise, with a surface-contact with air, it fires slowly. However, It is all to be investigate by an international commission. And, about the balance in the article, the only reliable theory is about 5% of contents and you say it’s too much... Voyt13 (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But why kill a leader that is anyway going to lose the next election? and why kill him in such a visible way? and how to make the plane explode? and how to make sure nobody finds out... you know - there are so many logical errors in your theory: just the first (simple) error: why kill Kaczyński and not Saakashvili??

Besides: Every other Aviation Safety Committee/Agency in the World has read the Polish report. They have to under the (EU) No 996/2010 regulation... and all of the European, Asian, American Aviation Safety Committees/Agencies... none of them pointed out any error in the Polish and Russian commissions work... What's your explanation for their silence? noclador (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"But why kill a leader that is anyway going to lose the next election?" - First, I repeat: revenge. Second, you forget about all the other passengers, 9 NATO's generals, leaders of every types of army in Poland, forcing to build the American Missile defense system in Poland, other important political officials. "why kill him in such a visible way?" - and why Politkovskaya or Litvinenko or others were killed in such a visible way? "and how to make the plane explode?" - a good question that has to be investigated. As it is known, the plane was "repaired" in Russia before, in Oleg Deripaska's facility. "and how to make sure nobody finds out" - again, like "why kill him in such a visible way?" - It's like other political murders in Russia - officially an accident, but who has to know - knows it and is terrorised and "warned" not to oppose. "why kill Kaczyński and not Saakashvili" - I don't know, ask Putin - it's not an argument in this discussion at all.

I don't know any opinion of any other "Aviation Safety Committee/Agency in the World". But, politically, who in the world, from all the most important countries, is suppose to care? Maybe Germany - deeply related to Russian officials with common interests ( eg. Nord Stream )? Maybe all the EU - same... Maybe USA with Democrats ruling and their "politics of reset" with Russia and, again, common interests in oil/gas production? Voyt13 (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Some sort of a final-ish report. [29]. Apparently, the new version is that the plane didn't hit the tree. Just blew up (but who broke the tree, then?... whatever...) Also, there are some charges, typical for extreme-right politians, against Donald Tusk, who is declared a traitor and conspirator against his country's president, interests and Honor. 37.144.138.38 (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not actually the final report yet, but it summarizes the work so far. The original source: [30] . "but who broke the tree, then?" - is it a problem to cut a tree? Voyt13 (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

there were dozens of cut tress... so you propose the Russians cut all those trees??? you think they managed to have the time to do that after the crash??? It's is getting from ridiculous into the absurd now... noclador (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No limits of time, not only after, but before the "crash" also... But first, try to refer to the absurds of MAK's and Miller's reports. And show me the "dozens of cut trees". For example, I've found this: [31] . And why the tree is cut if the wing was supposed to be cut? Either tree or wing, not both... And maybe to realize something, just take a look on this picture: [32] . Voyt13 (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

the wing was partially broken and there where still the the landing gear and fuselage ripping through the trees! Even the album you linked shows dozens of trees affected by the plane plowing through them. The wing is over 15m long, so even if a third broke off, there were still 10m of wing left to slice through the trees. but this discussion is senseless; it is clear by now that you believe in a conspiracy theory... and most arguments are utterly absurd (i.e. if the Russian cut the trees before the crash... how did they know which trees to cut? They surely must have had major clairvoyance as they knew the plane would be to the left of the glide path on its approach...) and if it fits your image you twist facts. That all points to a battleground mentality, which will not accept anything but your view as the right one. There is until now nothing that makes it even remotely probable that the theory of a Russian murder plot, the theory of Russian-Polish cover up and the idea of international conspiracy of silence is more than just some fringe theory or worse some right-wing political smear campaign. You discredit yourself totally by things like showing photos of the Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise Flight 514: that was an emergency landing, were the plane overshot the runway and rolled into the trees at a much lower speed and after having been on the ground for 1km already! To compare this with the loss of a wing tip during approach of the runway - if you need to resort to such distortions to prove your point you have not understood on what principles the work on wikipedia are! noclador (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The picture of Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise Flight 514 was to imagine how a collision of wing and tree could look and how could it be possible if the plane with 37m wingspan hit a tree at 5m height and turn around... But the discussion of the collision with tree is indeed senseless, because the plane flew over the birch, 18m above the ground there, that's from the trajectory. Voyt13 (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that trees in that photo are much, much smaller, than the tree that took down TU? [33] If you want something comparable, see this [34] 89.178.59.133 (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

in the video a 12 inch telephone pole rips away the wingtip of the plane... that's 30.5cm and the tree in Smolensk was 30-40cm... and the plane in the video slides along a runway, crashes into some sand, then hits the telephone pole... in Smolensk the plane hit at much higher speed the tree! noclador (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, but in the video the wingtip is ca. 1/12 of the DC-7's wingspan (36m) which gives 3m long compared to 6m of Tu-154m's wing (2x longer means ca. 4x larger cross sectional area of the wing) and we don't know the construction details of the both planes' wings. So it's not comparable, too. Also, the wing broke off the second, larger 13-inch telephone pole and wasn't ripped away at this point. The collision looks like in the Binienda's simulation: [35] . But I repeat, there is no discussion of the tree if the plane flew over that. Voyt13 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And if you think that Russians wasn't able to prepare the place for the crash, you can see how they were well prepared for destroying the wreckage (the main evidence!) right after the crash on the same day: [36] . Can you explain, for example, what was the purpose of knocking out the windows like here: [37] ? Voyt13 (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

(The author of this documentary film, Anita Gargas, was fired from the Polish Television right after it was broadcasted) Voyt13 (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Questioning Buckshot06's handling of proposal - Cont. Is The Washington Examiner and Cleveland Plain Dealer Banned From Wikipedia?

I asked very specific questions regarding a multitude of issues with this article, and yet aside from "because I can" you have not addressed my concerns. Specifically, why is Diana West from the "Washington Examiner" banned from Wikipedia? She has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Post, The New Criterion, The Public Interest, and Women's Quarterly, The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Times, and had frequently appeared as a CNN contributor. West also frequently appeared on the Lou Dobbs shows. Clearly Miss West represents the mainstream media. Similarly, why isn't Voyt13 allowed to quote the Cleveland Plain Dealer, or the University of Akron Press? Is it Wiki's official policy, which you in this case represent, to ban these mainstream media outlets? This is very troubling, and I hope you'll feel obligated to respond to my questions, or should the press ask you these questions directly? Respectfully yours, --Vladnot (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Vladnot is now blocked as a sock of Robert Warren. If RW is reading this, please don't insult the intelligence of other users by making the same points through multiple accounts. It just makes you look stupid and it won't work anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The hypothesis of explosions is confirmed, claims Nowaczyk

An expert of the Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe, prof. Kazimierz Nowaczyk, says that the hypothesis of the explosions on the plane, which crashed on 10 April 2010 near Smolensk, has more and more confirmations. According to Nowaczyk - who took part in a meeting of the group - the distribution of the pieces of the wreckage, characteristic arrangement of the sides of the hull after the crash and a series of major accidents that have occurred at a height of over 30 meters, more and more justifies the hypothesis of explosions.

He added that the list of breakdowns that had been read from the Polish black box, contradicts the conclusions of the report of the committee, headed by the then Interior Minister Jerzy Miller.

- We were able to read from the ATM black box a list of 11 breakdowns, which occurred at a height of over 30 meters. These included damage of the engine, power generator, ILS system, flaps on the wing. (...) Hypothesis about the explosions, which destroyed plane in the air, is more likely to report, the probability of it increases - Nowaczyk said.

The expert said that the moments of events TAWS 38 (data of the obstacle warning system) and FMS (Flight Management System - eds.), when it came to these failures, they were hidden in the trajectory set out in the annex to the report of Miller's committee. In his view, the times of the events were deliberately manipulated or hidden so that the final cause of the crash was consistent with the MAK report.

- All event times are shifted so that the plane was as low as possible, at the place where the birch grows. These damages were recorded by an ATM box still during the flight, contrary to Miller's committee thesis that the plane was operational to the end. It was not, no collision with the birch would lead to such breakdowns - Nowaczyk said.

- The plane simply did not crash with the birch, the nature of damage of the left wing and the height saved at that point proves that the plane was flying above - he added.

In his opinion, the Tu-154M crash was due to: detached fragment of the left wing, a series of critical breakdowns, explosion and collapse of the fuselage and hit to the ground. [38] Voyt13 (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

As I did not have the wiki markups when I wrote the first proposal (thanks to the WMF's decision to create a new edit window...) the refs have not been properly referenced. I changed that now and request the proper refs to be inserted into the article. I also request that the title of the section should be shortened. The whole section to insert follows below (note: not a single word of text was changed - only the refs!) noclador (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Polish Parliamentarian Investigation

On 8 July 2010 MPs and senators of the Law and Justice parliamentary group formed a group to investigate the causes of the crash. The chairman of the group is Antoni Macierewicz. The group based their findings on three Polish scientists living outside of Poland: Wiesław Binienda from the University of Akron, Kazimierz Nowaczyk from the University of Maryland and Gregory Szuladziński from Australia.

According to these three scientists the direct cause of the crash was not a collision with an obstacle, but two explosions in the last phase of the flight: first on the left, by which the plane lost part of the left wing, then another inside the hull. These theories have been used by Antoni Macierewicz to declare that the crash in Smolensk was actually part of Russia's war against Poland, while Jarosław Kaczyński claimed it to be an assassination and part of a coup . Macierewicz also declared that Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, Defense Minister Bogdan Klich and Interior Minister Jerzy Miller are involved in the Russian cover-up and "were acting according to Putin's decree.".

The three scientists, the investigation and the claims made by Antoni Macierewicz have come under intense criticism in Poland. The President of the Polish Episcopal Conference bishop Józef Michalik said referring to Antoni Macierewicz: "a man of conscience should consider every word and care not to violate the truth.". Polish foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski called called Macierewicz a "hysteric and bungler". The main stream Polish news media also criticized the investigation sharply: none of the experts involved has any experience with plane crashes and Polityka magazine went as far as saying that the three experts "violate basic standards of science". The investigation is seen as a political smear campaign to discredit Prime Minister Donald Tusk. Newsweek Poland stated that "the theory of the assassination, is calculated for.. political benefits.".

September 2012 page lock

For the record, if anyone thinks that Buckshot06 should not have locked the page per WP:INVOLVED, I would have done locked the page myself in this situation had I not been asleep. This third investigation is now showing itself to be in FRINGE territory. The statement that the aircraft would not have been so comprehensively destroyed is contradicted by the crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 981, which was also a crash into woodland. That aircraft was reduced to smaller pieces than the Tu-154 involved in this accident. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It is the same old problem with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The theories of the Parliamentary Group are not the ones accepted by the Polish or Russian governments and should be treated with caution.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I had a run in with the single editor pushing this fringe theory above and retired from the discussion as the arguments went so widely into fantasy land, that I just did not know how to argue with things like "The Russian cut the trees before the plane came, and then blew it up with bombs placed in it months before in revenge for Kaczyński having flown to Georgia during the Russian-Georgian war."... I just read the German version of the article, which has a short section about this investigation too: the section says that the whole thing is a right wing conspiracy theory and that Antoni Macierewicz is a conspiracy theorist; furthermore it points out that Grzegorz Szuladzińskis company Analytical Service Company Ltd., which gave the expertise about the "two explosions" is just he, his wife, in their suburban home and with a company capital of 2 AUD, and that he did his research based on photos and eye witness accounts... [39]. Furthermore the German wiki article references this press conference [40] in which Foreign Minister Sikorski called Macierewicz a "hysteric and bungler". A sentiment echoed by the President of the Polish Episcopal Conference bishop Józef Michalik [41]. Also there is this recent comment from Polityka [42] which lambastes the whole as a political sham circus. noclador (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for your statement Noclador. I have to remind you that WP runs on reliable sources *added to articles*. I believe we earlier discussed the newsweek.pl story on this. Please, draft some text which reflects the newsweek.pl and German WP information, and place it here so it can be added to the article. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Noclador, you still didn't refer to the most of the facts like the falsified trajectory proven in this report by Nowaczyk. You have no arguments so you bring up things like amount of Szuladzinski's company capital as it is supposed to be an argument of anything (?). Will you base on that political crap on German version of the article? "Where is Szuladzinski's company registred and what this and that thinks about Macierewicz?" No word about Binienda, Nowaczyk, Berczynski and their reports... And, if it's necessary, even a bishop can become your aviation accidents expert! Furthermore, how about destroying the wreckage by Russians visible in this movie with knocking out the windows? How about the fake autopsies and replaced bodies of the victims? Voyt13 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There was an incident ca. 2 hours before the crash of Tu-154m on the Smolensk-Siewiernyj Airport - two failed landing approaches of Russian Ilyushin Il-76 aircraft described in the article on Polish Wikipedia Airport Smolensk-Siewiernyj. It says: "The first approach was aborted at a dangerously low altitude (wing tip was according to witnesses at a height of about 3-4 meters above the runway surface)". Couldn't it cut the trees? Voyt13 (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

there are no trees on a runway. noclador (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That was genius, really. But I guess there is a forest before the runway... Voyt13 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a forest once before the runway, but evil Putin donned his commie-super-cape, flew to Smolensk and sawed the trees into nifty shapes the night before the Il-76 attempted to land on the runway! Jokes aside - if you were to read just once the report about the crash you could see a security cam screen capture of the Il-76 hight above all trees during the runway approach. Also on a runway there is no dangerously low altitude to abort a landing attempt; there are only either touchdowns that are too late or the plane is off to the side of the runway axis; the second of which happened to the Il-76. You know, just be assuming, guessing, etc. you are as thorough in your work as Szuladziński, who said himself he came to his conclusion by looking at photos, then mailed Macierewicz about his "findings", heard nothing back for months and then suddenly was told to make an expertise, which he based on guesswork, as nothing in all his publication ever had to do with an airplane. As you refuse to provide proper arguments and make up ridiculous theory after ridiculous theory, there are forums for that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and by now this article has a longer conspiracy theory section then the September 11 attacks... as much as you wish for Macierewicz political theater to be relevant, it is not! neither for the Polish press, nor for wikipedia and not for the world, not history and not the Polish people. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE do so fully fit your theory and as I tried in vain to reason with you all September, now we have October and the discussion is over. To debate until eternity with the aim to keep WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE material on a highly visible article is disruptive! noclador (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There were two landing approaches of the Il-76. And only one cam screen of it. Also, to specify what you didn't understand exactly: "above the runway surface" doesn't mean "directly above the runway" but "above the level of the runway" (can be outside) - just to specify the height. Still, I can see no refer to the report by Nowaczyk and others. You only focus on insulting and move away the matter. Voyt13 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The TA Flight 981 crashed with a speed of 800km/h after coming out of a dive. The Polish aircraft was preparing for a landing and therefore almost level and very slow when it, presumably, hit the trees. This comparison therefore seems flawed and should not be relevant to the decision to censor information about investigations into the crash. Fancypants1982 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest to replace the section Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe with the following text:

In the years after the crash, politicians of the opposition Law and Justice party, most notably parliamentarian Antoni Macierewicz, have made unsubstantiated and generally ignored claims that the plane crash, was actually a long prepared Russian assassination of Polish leaders in Russia's war against Poland.

And then we reference it with Newsweek Poland, the Polish Foreign ministry, the interview of bishop Józef Michalik and the Polityka article. noclador (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Strongly Support, the proposal, noclador (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose in current form. Too short. Cannot use pejorative language such as 'generally ignored.' Needs to briefly expand on why the think this. A brief summary of the fringe theory is required. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose - the way to handle this is to cover the report, then cover the dismissal of the report by others. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Noclador, please review your text and expand it a bit; that's the way forward here. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal II

On 8 July 2010 MPs and senators of Law and Justice parliamentary group formed a group to investigate the causes of the crash of Tu-154M. The chairman of the group is Antoni Macierewicz. The group based their findings on three Polish scientists living outside of Poland: Wiesław Binienda from the University of Akron, Kazimierz Nowaczyk from the University of Maryland and Gregory Szuladziński from Australia.

According to these three scientists the direct cause of the crash was not a collision with an obstacle, but two explosions in the last phase of the flight: first on the left, by which the plane lost part of the left wing, then another inside the hull. These theories have been used by Antoni Macierewicz to declare that the crash in Smolensk was actually part of Russia's war against Poland [43][44][45], while Jarosław Kaczyński claimed it to be an assassination [46] and part of a coup [47]. Macierewicz also declared that Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, Defense Minister Bogdan Klich and Interior Minister Jerzy Miller are involved in the Russian cover-up [48] and "were acting according to Putin's decree." [49].

The three scientists, the investigation and the claims made by Antoni Macierewicz have come under intense criticism in Poland. The President of the Polish Episcopal Conference bishop Józef Michalik said referring to Antoni Macierewicz: "a man of conscience should consider every word and care not to violate the truth."[50]. Polish foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski called called Macierewicz a "hysteric and bungler"[51]. The main stream Polish news media also criticized the investigation sharply: none of the experts involved has any experience with plane crashes and Gregory Szuladziński was selected only after he had informed Macierewicz of his theory of onboard explosions, a theory which he came to by looking at photos on the internet. Polityka magazine went as far as saying that the three experts "violate basic standards of science" [52]. The investigation is seen as a political smear campaign to discredit Prime Minister Donald Tusk [53][54], with Newsweek Poland stating that "the theory of the assassination, is calculated for the political benefits."[55].

Is this version better? If need be I can find more Polish sources noclador (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal III

On 8 July 2010 MPs and senators of the Law and Justice parliamentary group formed a group to investigate the causes of the crash. The chairman of the group is Antoni Macierewicz. The group based their findings on three Polish scientists living outside of Poland: Wiesław Binienda from the University of Akron, Kazimierz Nowaczyk from the University of Maryland and Gregory Szuladziński from Australia.

According to these three scientists the direct cause of the crash was not a collision with an obstacle, but two explosions in the last phase of the flight: first on the left, by which the plane lost part of the left wing, then another inside the hull. These theories have been used by Antoni Macierewicz to declare that the crash in Smolensk was actually part of Russia's war against Poland [56][57][58], while Jarosław Kaczyński claimed it to be an assassination [59] and part of a coup [60]. Macierewicz also declared that Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, Defense Minister Bogdan Klich and Interior Minister Jerzy Miller are involved in the Russian cover-up [61] and "were acting according to Putin's decree." [62].

The three scientists, the investigation and the claims made by Antoni Macierewicz have come under intense criticism in Poland. The President of the Polish Episcopal Conference bishop Józef Michalik said referring to Antoni Macierewicz: "a man of conscience should consider every word and care not to violate the truth."[63]. Polish foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski called called Macierewicz a "hysteric and bungler"[64]. The main stream Polish news media also criticized the investigation sharply: none of the experts involved has any experience with plane crashes and Polityka magazine went as far as saying that the three experts "violate basic standards of science" [65]. The investigation is seen as a political smear campaign to discredit Prime Minister Donald Tusk [66][67]. Newsweek Poland stated that "the theory of the assassination, is calculated for.. political benefits."[68].

Would all interested editors please comment on the proposed wording (Proposal III) above. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference between II and III please so we dont have to compare every word ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed some of the more pejorative wording in the third paragraph, which was too critical of the three Polish investigators in question. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Support as nominator. I have changed the wording, because there's only one crash at issue here.
2. Understood, I think III is better and support inclusion although I would change plane to aircraft and crash of Tu-154M to crash of the presidential Tu-154M. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose. To be precise, there is no such statement: "the crash in Smolensk was actually part of Russia's war against Poland" by Macierewicz. The quote is: "What else is a situation when the whole elite gets killed, when the head of the nation is cut off? This is a declaration of war (...)". If we bring up such quotes, we can also recall the statements of the ruling party, Civic Platform, politicians threatening and suggesting that "if Law and Justice comes to power, there will be a war". Therefore, I think all these opinions from both sides should be ignored in this article. "Jarosław Kaczyński claimed it to be an assassination" is not precise also, the quote is: "At this time, the only theory that explains it all together, is the theory of explosion, assassination" (which can mean that after MAK's and Miller's reports being totally discredited, there is no reliable hypothesis other than the assassination). The qoute "the three experts violate basic standards of science" is an opinion of an astronomer given in an interview, not worth of mentioning in the article, same as Sikorski's invectives addressed to Macierewicz. Voyt13 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Support fully, fully - truly support! noclador (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:ARBEE and WP:IAR I am hereby adding this text to the page. Any complaints can be directed here or to my talkpage. Voyt13, please take a look at WP:ARBEE; welcome further discussion on my talkpage, but not here; I do not believe I am alone is being very tired of incessant pushing of a WP:FRINGE theory not supported by effective reliable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Questioning Buckshot06's handling of proposal

Can some grownup with real journalistic training please get involved in this silliness? If there ever was a reason for anyone to doubt why information served by Wikipedia is explicitly banned from use in schools, they should read through this nonsense. What has the user Voyt13 brought to the table that hasn’t been reported in the media? Shame on you Wikipedia for not policing yourself against the idiocy that has gone on with this article since day one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.254.26 (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As an administrator acting to protect the integrity of this encyclopedia, I have scored out the above section. This page has been the target of a number of (often anonymous) editors who have been relentless in pushing WP:FRINGE theories to a WP:UNDUE extent. In any reputable print encyclopedia, none of their views would have pass a rigourous Peer Review. Several of these editors were banned for WP:Sock abuse, and return to comment as IP-only (numbers-signature) editors. Any complaints, comments, or questions can be made here, to my talkpage, or directed to a WP:Bureaucrat. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are to defend the integrity of this encyclopedia, you should allow all news reported by reputable outlets to be featured, and not pick and choose. As it stands, a lot of what have found its way into this article would never see the light of day in any reputable publication - and not only an encyclopedia. Can you please be more precise as to what you have scored, and how you have scored the above section, and what methodology was used to derive at your conclusions? Also, can you please document why some sources are clearly preferred over the others, eg. sources used by Voyt13 vs. those used by the others who hysterically insist that nothing at all was ever reported? What criteria, if any, is employed by Wiki, as its official policy, in weighing some sources against the others? Thanks. Vladnot (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account created this very day, in accordance with WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:IAR, I question your motives for turning up and using emotive language (WP:POV) to attempt to distort the discussion here. Multiple editors have explained to Voyt, and other banned sockpuppets, many times, that WP:FRINGE mean that some news sources are mainstream, and some are not supported by the consensus of scholarly discussion on the subject. Specifically on your question, read, please, WP:FRINGE. Once you have done that, you should understand why the consensus of multiple editors have decided to emphasis some things, and not others. Again, feel free to raise concerns about my actions at the appropriate admin noticeboards, or with any Bureaucrat. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

First, "Voyt, and other banned sockpuppets" - are you using this false, unconfirmed accusation again? "the consensus of scholarly discussion on the subject" - you mean the hysterical attacks on Macierewicz in one-sided media like "Newsweek Poland" or "Polityka"? All the section about the Parliamentary Committee, which is being discussed here is just about the appointment of the committee and reports based on scientific researches published here: Binienda's report on the official site of the University of Akron , Szuladzinski's report , Nowaczyk's report, etc. In these, the thesis of MAK's and Miller's reports are strongly undermined or negated and an explanatory hypothesis is presented. There are no one-sided opinions or accusations. Clearly, noclador is pushing his POV, which is visible in his posts. Also, the statement "politicians of the opposition Law and Justice party" can soon become outdated due to the recent polls: [69] . Voyt13 (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Since we both appear to very much care about Wiki's reputation, can you please take the time, and for the benefit of myself, and others, answer the questions I asked earlier? Since you are Wiki Administrator, I think you have a greater responsibility to maintain and oversee the accuracy of what is being printed here than editors such Voyt13, or myself. I have asked these questions earlier, and still await your answers: (1) how you have scored the above section, (2) what methodology was used to derive at your conclusions (you indicated a scientific, or similar system was used to gauge the ongoing discussion and its outcome), (3) why are some sources clearly preferred over the others, eg. sources used by Voyt13 vs. those used by the others who hysterically insist that nothing at all was ever reported, (4) what criteria, if any, is employed by Wiki, in this instance represented by YOU, as its official policy, in weighing some sources against the others? I have always been under impression that honest reporting doesn't have anything to do with popularity contests, and must be proportional. I seem to be wrong, and would like to know why? Proportional means that you don't favor some sources over the others, only because you like what they say, but then, I may be wrong? Am I? Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. I will be respectfully awaiting your responses. --Vladnot (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You sure like to go in circles, don't you? A quote from the Fringe Theories arcticle: "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." You claimed that the comittee's theories were subjected to rigorous peer-reviews and were reported in reputable international sources. You were asked to support these claims with links more than once, but failed. And now you want to invent your own definition of what a "relaible source" is? Very smart. 128.68.55.127 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This talk page has a remarkable tendency to attract WP:SPA contributions out of the blue. Just saying.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns anonymous editor from Moscow and Ian, but can we please collegially allow the Administrator address my concerns before we move forward? Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. I will be respectfully awaiting your responses.--Vladnot (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vladnot, (1) I have scored the above section because I believe the person was probably a banned sockpuppet, and was using WP:POV language to disrupt the consensus that mainstream editors have reached, (2) my method was based on my experience of wiki over seven years, and being an admin for four years, (3), as I have repeatedly asked to read WP:FRINGE, is the rule in this case. Honest reporting is not proportional, it is covered by WP:UNDUE, which I have been quoting every time I've responded to editors in these cases. Start quoting that language to me in this discussion and I will immediately start respecting your contributions a bit more. In short, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. In addition, WP:POV, which will mean I will have to ask User:Noclador to redraft his proposal a third time, because it is too pejorative.

Now, in accordance with WP:IAR, I am going to have to ask you to NOT repeat your same question again. DO NOT ask me again what policy I am basing this on. This discussion has gone on for far too long - years. I will not allow this stupid silliness over a fringe theory to continue. If you repeat the same question in its essentials again, I will have to score out your text, as well. SAY SOMETHING NEW !!! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The gas supply contract

Activity of President Lech Kaczynski at the EU forum on the Polish energy security (eg. the Nord Stream case) provoked fury of the ruling group in Poland, and has been the subject of numerous games and media attacks. In this context, the words of Vladimir Putin said during a press conference in Smolensk on April 7, 2010 (3 days before the crash) sounded quite unusually. The Russian prime minister assured that "the signing of the necessary documentation will be in the short term," and said that during his talks with Tusk agreed on a long-term supply of Russian gas to Poland. [70]

The Gas Contract signed. After lengthy negotiations, Polish and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Waldemar Pawlak and Igor Sechin signed the intergovernmental agreement in Warsaw to increase gas supplies to Poland. [71]

Poland pays the highest price in the EU for the gas from Russia [72]

Shouldn't that be noted in the article as it is widely commented in the Polish media in connection with the crash in Smolensk? Voyt13 (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. The article is about the accident, not about contracts that may or may not have been affected by the accident or its aftermath. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ugly red messages

I'm working through Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. Would some admin like to fix the ugly red error messages at the bottom of this article by commenting out the 15 unused references? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, list-defined references, doncha just love 'em? Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal IV

Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe

On 8 July 2010 MPs and senators of Law and Justice parliamentary group formed a group to investigate the causes of the crash of Tu-154M, 10 April 2010, chaired by Antoni Macierewicz . The group invited many experts, including: Wiesław Binienda from the University of Akron, Kazimierz Nowaczyk from the University of Maryland and Gregory Szuladziński from Australia. According to these three scientists the direct cause of the crash was not a collision with an obstacle, but two explosions in the last phase of the flight: first on the left, by which the plane lost part of the left wing, then another inside the hull. They pointed to a lot of contradictions, errors and manipulations in the official reports . Szuladzinski’s report stated that: any landing (or fall) in a wooded area, no matter how adverse, and at what angle, could not in any way result in such fragmentation, which has been documented . Nowaczyk analyzed data from FMS and TAWS system and came to the conclusions that the plane flew over the tree and was torn at a height over 30m above the ground . Another expert, Wacław Berczyński, constructor of Boeing pointed to the pulled out rivets of the sheating and claimed that it could be caused only by an internal explosion .

On 22 and 23 October 2012, was held a conference with the participation of over 100 professors from Polish and foreign technical universities. The composition of the organizing committee of the conference were Professors Peter Witakowski (Chairman), Andrew Wisniewski (Vice-Chairman), Paul Staszewski, Jerzy Urbanowicz, Chris Cieszewski and Dr. Wojciech Bilinski. Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the conference was prof. Tadeusz Kaczorek, vice chairman prof. Jacek Ronda, members of the presidium: Kazimierz Flaga, Robert Gałązka, Lucjan Piela and Peter Witakowski, professors and members of honor : Janusz Turowski and John Weglarz . The participants have confirmed the hypothesis of explosions . One of them, prof. J. Obrebski presented an analysis of part of the wreck, which according to him could be a place to put an explosive charge. The fragment was torn in a way that is evidenced for the internal explosion.

On 30 October 2012 “Rzeczpospolita” magazine reported that Polish prosecutors and experts that have examined the wreckage have detected vestiges of explosives (TNT and Nitroglycerin) inside of the aircraft, on up to 30 seats , on the wing and on the plating . Later, the magazine withdrew from the statement . However, the author of the text maintained the thesis and claimed it was confirmed by four independent sources .

Reaction in media on the Polish Parliamentary group

Some niche media in Poland like "Newsweek" and "Polityka" tried to discredit the work of the group and Antoni Macierewicz himself, saying that the hypothesis of an assassination is calculated for political benefits. They even threaten that Macierewicz could provoke a war with Russia . The attacks on Macierewicz are seen as being inspired politically . The reasons for that could come from the large contribution of Macierewicz in politics, especially from 1992, in revealing of former communist collaborators and the presentation of the report on liquidation of Military Information Services in 2006 . A lot of politicians point to the great analogy of the Smolensk tragedy and Katyn massacre .

International media are almost completely silent on the work of the parliamentary group. Max Kolonko, a U.S. correspondent for Polish TV, said that the U.S. and international agencies informed about the progress of the investigation from ITAR-TASS because it was led by the Russians. As a result, most Americans have no idea that eg. black boxes and the wreck of the plane, which are Polish property, did not return to Poland - two and a half years after the tragedy, and two years after the completion of the investigation .

Voyt13 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• There is some coverage of this in English from Reuters here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • More: [73] 99.146.121.1 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I maintain what I have written , said Cezary Gmyz, the author of the text in the "Rzeczpospolita" says in an interview with Niezalezna.pl that he supports the thesis of his article. Facts described are confirmed by four independent sources. The publication was preceded by meeting of the text editor of my newspaper with the Attorney General. After talking with me, the editors of "Rzeczpospolita" removed from his statement the words "we were wrong" and I find it rewarding. Voyt13 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
      • An english source: http://freepl.info/3223-examinations-proved-presence-trinitrotoluene Voyt13 (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• I've corrected the info on TNT. I'll make some other small correction and add the refs soon... Voyt13 (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Done. Voyt13 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

The problem with full protection is that it is giving in to the small handful of editors who have persistently disregarded advice about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. This has been going on for months, and it is disappointing that the message has still not been heard loud and clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I am open to advice from any editors except Voyt13 on this issue. How do we deal with this, except by full protection? Note that articles like Barack Obama and others have to use this. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The time has come to get tough over this issue. No material about the Polish parliamentary group should be added to the article without achieving a consensus on the talk page first. Editors who repeatedly ignore this advice should face a block. The news material about the alleged TNT traces is worth a brief mention as it can be reliably sourced, but long paragraphs examining the theories of the parliamentary group fail FRINGE and UNDUE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've played pretty tough about this issue already. You believe I should open the article and then whack/block people who change it away from the current consensus? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's either that or let one or two editors hold everyone else to ransom. They have been doing this for far too long because of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Such action would be in line with my personal preferences about such situations, but before I took such action, I would want it discussed at a reasonably well-trafficked wikiproject. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

One way around this is a formal topic ban for an editor who continues to edit against consensus. This should be proposed at WP:AN and logged at WP:RESTRICT if enacted. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

topic ban sounds like the best resolution to this impasse. noclador (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that Voyt13 was blocked for a week in response to my request for full protection after Voyt's most recent attempt to insert his preferred content. I think we should see what Voyt has to say once his block expires and go from there. Honestly the whole article needs to be gone through as the last major edit was when the Russian report was released. Since then a hodepodge of mostly drive-by edits have been made, and the Polish investigation's conclusions were added. This process is also what caused the introduction to become so long. I'd love to get this article to GA/FA status (not sure if it will ever be stable enough for FA), but much work needs to be done first. Having the article fully protected makes this cumbersome to accomplish, but so does a POV pusher constantly editing in his preferred content against consensus. N419BH 19:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The best way forward appears to be a topic ban for Voyt13. It's best that this comes from a number of editors who have worked on the article (multiple sigs to the request would be even better). Then I can endorse it; otherwise I may appear too involved. Would somebody please draft and submit this? Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)