Talk:Vesna Vulović

Discrepancy in the location of her body

In the linked interview, she says she was in the middle of the plane and not the tail as reported.

PB: The reports say that you fell in a part of the fuselage that remained intact. Some of the reports said that you were in the back of the air craft

VV: No I was not in the back. The man who found me he told me that I was in the middle part of the plane. I was found with my head down and my colleague on top of me. One part of my body with my leg was in the plane and my head was out of the plane. A catering trolley was pinned against my spine and kept me in the plane. The man who found me, says I was very lucky. He was with Hitler's troops as a medic during the War. He was German. He knew how to treat me at the site of the accident.

Vulovic's statement.

2009 report

In January 2009 German ARD radio correspondent Peter Hornung-Andersen together with German journalist Tim van Beveren and Czech journalist Pavel Theiner published a report based on newly found documents, mainly from the Czech Civil Aviation Authority and the Czech Republic's National Archive, concluding that it was "extremely probable" that the plane had been shot down by mistake by the Czechoslovak Air Force. They claim that the plane broke up only a few hundred meters above the ground, not the 10,000 metres claimed by the official investigation. This claim was backed by evidence, e.g. secret reports, in which several eye witnesses said that they saw Vesna's plane flying below the clouds before it crashed and maps drawn by Czechoslovak investigators showing that the largest parts of the plane were found in an area that is rather smaller than would have been expected if the plane broke apart at the claimed altitude. The Czech Civil Aviation Authority nevertheless issued a statement denying the claim without addressing the evidence. The original statement has given rise to more recent reports. Vulović, despite having no memory of the crash or the flight after boarding, has challenged these new theories, denying the claim that the plane descended to a much lower altitude while attempting a forced landing. A representative of Guinness World Records stated that "it seems that at the time Guinness was duped by this swindle just like the rest of the media."

One source does not support such conspirational theories and quotes Czech army expert: "In case of violation of the air space, the incident would not be solved by anti-air missiles, but by fighter planes. Also it would not be possible to conceal such incident, as there would approximately 150 - 200 people knowing about the incident. They would not have any reason to not tell about incident today."

References

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vesna Vulović/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackdude101 (talk · contribs) 20:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: no cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 20:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Sticks to the well-sourced facts.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @23 editor: There were no glaring issues whatsoever with the prose, references, or images in this article, so I am pleased to inform you that it has successfully completed this review and now has GA status. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 21:06, 10 October 2017 (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.

Describing Slobodan Milošević as a "statesman"?

"Vulović was fired from JAT for speaking out against Serbian statesman Slobodan Milošević..."

Describing someone tried at the Hague and found posthumously guilty on four war-crimes charges as a "statesman" is misleading and inappropriate. At best, he could be described as "...Serbian nationalist Slobodan Milosevic..." Carrellk (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)