Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 902
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on April 20, 2008, April 20, 2011, and April 20, 2013.|
- 1 More sources
- 2 Tangible change
- 3 Additional source
- 4 The artist's illustration should be removed.
- 5 Russian photo
- 6 Korean text
- 7 Finnish translation of the Rovanniemi Air Traffic control centre comments
- 8 Use of the phrases "shot down" and "Airliner shoot down"
- 9 Is the course on the article map accurate?
- 10 Bad style
here is two more articles from Time magazine - their value is that they were written in 1978 from point of view those years, Cold War moods, etc
- The Mystery of Flight 902 - Monday, May. 01, 1978
- Aboard Flight 902: "We Survived!" - Monday, May. 08, 1978
I'm about to make tangible change - add (relatively) precise WGS-84 coordinates in wikiformat for lake where landing had happened, and modify distance to Finnish border as current one is based on source which appeared to be not reliable. It is all based on thorough study of source found in Russian article for same topic [ru:Инцидент_с_южнокорейским_Боингом_(1978)] silpol (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather avoid using this site as authoritative source, at least for this particular case. For landing site they used only toponame, not even bothering themselves to figure out that there are 3 lakes with same name in this area. Moreover, they relied on Google geo-coordinates resolving, as result it shows landing site on map in wrong place, i.e. another Korpijärvi lake, MUCH closer to border with Finland and far from initial village/town Loukhi which is mentioned in every other public source. silpol (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The artist's illustration should be removed.
I think the artist's depiction is WP:OR and should be removed. Were the fighter planes flying that close in that attitude? Did they have the markings that are in the illustration? Nobody knows, and the artist is just guessing. It is a depiction of a scene that never occurred. Tempshill (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Artistic depictions are not original research. This has been established in discussions. If you want, I can show you an archive. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Finnish translation of the Rovanniemi Air Traffic control centre comments
It has been requested that citation #1 in the article be translated into english. The article is quite long so I chose the applicable section of the article:
Korealaisversion vahvisti jo tuoreeltaan oikeaksi Rovaniemen aluelennonjohto. Siellä kuultiin ja tallennettiin hätätaajuudella KAL 902:n puheet, jotka annettiin kansainvälisille lentoviranomaisille.
KAL 902 toimi nauhoituksen perusteella asianmukaisesti. Kone ilmoitti juuri ennen ampumista hävittäjälle kolmesti olevansa Korean Airlines 902.
The Korean version strenghtened the case made by the Rovaniemi air traffic area control centre. There heard and stored were the speakings of KAL 902, which were provided to the respective countries' air governing body.
KAL 902 behaved, according to the recordings, as per standard procedure. The aircraft notified the fighters, just before the shootdown, three times that it was Korean Airlines 902. Leeveraction (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Use of the phrases "shot down" and "Airliner shoot down"
Since, the aircraft wasnt technically shot down (for example like the Korean Air 007 or the Atlantique Incident where the plane was destroyed by the interception), wouldn't "interception" be a better phrase? From what I can read in the description, it was intercepted and fired at, and was forced to make an emergency landing. Only 2 out of the 109 people on board were killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate Horlicks (talk • contribs) 12:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Changed to "interception". Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the course on the article map accurate?
Someone questioned the accuracy of the map used for this article on the image's Talk page. At the very least, the drop-shadow on the course is highly misleading, no matter how neat it may look, and the huge displacement between the course line and its shadow makes it tough to know where the actual course is supposed to be. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- The map is incredibly bad. There is no way to deny it. Wereldburger758 (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this page need a lot of work relating to clarity, specifically tense agreement and basic grammar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)