Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 007

Good Article

Thought I'd nominate it for Good status, it seems to meet all the requirements. Anynobody 23:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? This article is horrible. It's filled with unexplained US military jargon, and has strange punctuation and grammar in the timeline section. It takes too much "interpretation" to be understood. Perhaps someone would be willing to start re-writing this? It's too tall an order for me. 130.15.114.24 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review

My comments:

• "269 passengers and crew, including US congressman Lawrence McDonald were aboard KAL 007, there were no survivors." - second comma should be a semi-colon I would think.
• "...test it's military..." - grammar.
• Great drawing, but it should be made clear that it is a drawing of KAL007, not real picture.
• Slightly confusing with "KAL 007" & "KE007" in lead with "HL7442, the KAL 747 lost during Flight 007" in infobox.
• "Cause Shoot down" - should that be shot down?
  • Actually, "shootdown" is the noun form and is technically correct. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Cool, that's why I asked the question. Thanks for clearing that up for me. The Rambling Man 16:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Citations need be placed in accordance with WP:CITE (e.g. ref [1] needs to be moved outside of parentheses).
• When stating "...31 August..." in flight information - add a year to it for context.
• No citations for Flight information section other than the the registration.
• Drawing of the Sukhoi, why not use a photograph?
• "Korean Air Flight 007" or "Korean Air Lines Flight 007" or "KAL 007" - consistency.
• "...was closed after the accident on September 2." - which September 2? Which accident - the shooting of the airliner?
• Wikilink DC-8.
• Write out the similar incidents as prose, not just a list.
• Link 727 and 707 to the correct pages.
• "Flight Data Recorder", "Cockpit Voice Recorder" - why capitalised?
• No citation for conspiracy theory section. It needs expanding as well - the daughter article is heavily tagged with POV issues, lack of citations, poor quality, so this article should not rely on the daughter article.
• Popular culture section needs to be prosed. Also, it needs citation.
• Are any of the Other references actually used in the article? If so they should be appropriately cited.
• Cut down external links per WP:EL.

So I'm afraid with so many issues I'll have to fail this article for the time being. Please do fix these issues and re-nominate in the future. All the best. The Rambling Man 11:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cold War effects and the Aftermath

I find it odd that there is no mention of the Cold War in this article, even though it was a significant point of tension in the Cold War. The event is linked to and cited as a precipitating factor of Able Archer 83, yet the KAL007 article itself fails to offer even the slightest hint that the shootdown resulted in international, public, and military tensions. Nominating the article for GA review seems ridiculous when the article lacks pertinent historical perspective and placement - specifically, the international aftermath.

It also seems a bit odd that the article does not mention the search or the lack of debris/remains directly. Although the lack of remains sparks numerous conspiracy theories on passenger survival and Soviet coverup, it remains a significant fact in and of itself that there was an unusual lack of debris and remains in the vicinity of the crash site. The lack of remains and debris in addition to the lack of Soviet cooperation significantly contributed to the escalation of international tensions. Woofer99 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with Woofer. The lack of remains is taken up in the sister KAL 007 Conspiracy article but should be part of the main article as it is certainly not in contention, and is just another fact pointing to mysteries involved in the shootdown and aftermath. May I point to this Photo Essay of the search and rescue/ salvage operation and the seaman's comment about the lack of wreckage that they encountered - [1] 89.138.147.180Bert Schlossberg89.138.147.180 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:41, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Apparently "Conspiracy article" has been deleted. I'm not arguing that we need 2 separate articles but the information has to be kept. The lack of wreckage in international waters doesn't support the conspiracy theory of a "Soviet coverup". In fact it indicates the plane was shot down where the Soviet Union said, not where the USA claimed.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What Happened?

What happened to all the passengers and crew? 122.2.98.171 03:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Camille32 11:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

They were all killed. Do you mean what happened to their bodies? Anynobody 05:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It can no longer be maintained that all were killed. I refer you to [2] and [3] 217.132.141.58Bert Schlossberg217.132.141.58 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.141.58 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a massive recovery effort by Soviets and locals were given rewards for anything they could pick up of the aircraft. As some of them were fishermen, they dragged the net on the seabed likely picking up a huge rewards. In fact, ships would have been primed and ready anyway for the last fishing season of the year, so they would have been out in full force without any order. The current in this area generally goes north or north west so everything would have traveled through Soviet water before going anywhere else. It was rather easy for Soviets to clean up the area completely. --Revth 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Michel Blum makes the point that if KAL 007 had come down in International waters north of Moneron, then the Tsushimo current would have taken the debris northward, as that is the flow direction as noted above. But no debris was found in international waters around Moneron and none anywhere else northwards. But some debris showed up southward on the shores of Hokkaido. This is the reason that Michel believes that KAL 007 came down south of Sakhalin along the coast of Japan, and from there the debris was carried northward until it hits the eastward flow of the Tsushimo branch of the Soya Straits. But there is, indeed, a southerly flowing current that is well known to the both Russian and Japanese scientists, that runs not in international waters but in Soviet territorial waters and this current is west of Sakhalin and east of Moneron. This current flows about 1 NH per hour for the 35 miles from the area of setdown to the tip of Sakhalin and from there flows east to the shores of Hokkaida. Thus the setdown east of Moneron in Soviet territorial waters well explains how debris wound up on Hokkaido (Whereas the setdown in international waters, as Brun maintains, could not explain it). The reports that came in to Israel of a setdown and of survivors also place the setdown in this southerly flowing current to Hokkaido. It should be noted that the Soviets prevented the U.S./Japanese search to enter their territorial waters. Here is the location for the scientific research about that southerly flowing current - http://www.pices.int/publications/scientific_reports/Report12/kantakov_f.pdf 85.250.199.235 (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg85.250.199.235 (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, there were no bodies reported recovered, although significant amounts of baggage and other debris, in addition to the Flight Recorder, were recovered, leading to the various Conspiracy theories. 67.86.230.187 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

neglected to login to sign the above. Woofer99 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Website in External Links section?

Akredecki, do you think that the website could be posted again (it once was but it was taken down) under External Links? It is the only source I know of to view the Soviet military communications appended to the ICAO '93 report, as well as articles, such as from the Deputy Director of Russian Archives of Recent History, etc., that are related to the shootdown of KAL 007. It can be worded in such a way as to alert readers to the fact that commentary and interpretation appears alongside of the transcripts and articles. I say this with the understanding that even as is, the transcripts such as in the Story section are easily distinguishable from my comments, and are valuable in and of themselves. An example of the way it can be listed judiciously in the External Links: "Website of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors - [4] . Transcripts of the shootdown and aftermath with accompanying commentary and interpretation." What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.141.58 (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor POV

I would like to point out that this article says that in a 1996 Washington Post article it was "revealed" that the tapes presented at the U.N. had been edited to present bias. It would be better to say "alledged", "claimed", or "asserted" because so far it is just his word for it. 216.201.12.176 04:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, "his word" is the word of the man who (allegedly!) did it. What more confirmation do you need? What else could you expect?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just the point, he alledgely did it! This is simply his word, and other people that were there have disputed this, Jeane Kirkpatrick did in one interview, furthermore he claims that on the one hand he manipulated information and then on the other that he was only given selective information.

At any rate weather or not the tape was doctored has not been established, so far all we have is this mans allegation written in print and very little fallow up, so until we have something more definate it should read "allegedly" or "claimed" to reflect a non-POV article. Otherwise it violates wiki's POV standards.

At any rate I think its interesting you are willing to state as fact what so far amounts to little more than an un-proven allegation. 216.201.48.26 (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Amplification of information in Interception Section

This may be apmplified for a better understanding: "Just prior to being attacked, the 747 had been cruising at an altitude around 35,000 feet. After the missile strike, KAL 007's tail was pushed downward which at the same time lifted its nose causing a brief altitude gain before the aircraft began to descend from 18:26 until..." To this: At 6:15, 11 minutes prior to missile strike, Capt. Chun requested permission from Tokyo controller to ascent from 33,000 ft. to 35,000 ft. At 6:20 permission was granted and KAL 007 began its 3 minute climb to 35,000 ft. As the Jumbo jet climbed, its speed decreased, engine power being diverted from velocity to lift. The Air Combat Controller ordered Maj. Osipovich, the Sukhoi 15 interceptor pilot, to open fire, "805 (interceptor call sign) open fire on target." Osipovich replied, "It should have been earlier,how can I chase it?. I,m already abeam of the target." At 6:22:37, Osipovich reported. "I am dropping back. Now I will try a rocket." At 6:25, the Air Combat Controller again orders Osipovich to destry the target, "Launch!" At 6:26:20, Ospiovich relies, " I have executed the launch", and at 6:26:22, "The target is destroyed."

List of passengers and crew by nationality

Is there a source bearing a list of passengers and crew by nationality? WhisperToMe 04:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found one that gives a full break down, Time said there were something like 61 Americans aboard, and several other nationalities. Anynobody 23:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Off hand, I have these figures, which represent the most passengers according to nationality in descending order (the full listing is in ICAO '83)- South Korea - 76, the U.S. - 61, Taiwan - 28, Japan - 23, the Philippines - 16. Many other countries are represented with only a few to each country. For passenger names and seating and stories, see [ http://www.rescue007.org/passengers.htm] 85.250.199.235 (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg85.250.199.235 (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy Curse

Since the airplane was from John F. Kennedy International Airport, it was cursed by the famous Kennedy curse, sealing its fate. Pikazilla 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

2nd reference is dead

just to let you know, i attempted to open the link in the second reference (numbered 2...) and was greeted with a page suggesting i tell the referring page, so here i am.

       sorry, make that the sixth link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.141.13 (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 

Major POV problems

The basis of this article is the acceptance of the official US line. Any dissenting view is ignored, marginalised, or dismissed.

• There is no attempt to distinguish between US government claims and established facts.
• The heading "Conspiracy theories" is calculated to denigrate any dispute. Logically we could take the Soviet line as the official version and label the US version as a "conspiracy theory". After all, they claim that Soviet forces deliberately shot down a civilian airline, making no attempt to make radio contact or even force it to land. I have therefore changed this to "Controversy".
• The "conspiracy" page mentioned above seems to have been deleted.
• The details of "conspiracy theories" are conveniently reduced to a Times article and its retraction. Serious problems with the US line are ignored. (For example, the missing remains mentioned above, the discrepancies in the flight path etc.)
• The reference to the doctoring of the Soviet air force intercepts confirms the untruthfulness of the US government, but this is buried in the article, with no connections made to the "conspiracy theories"
• I have deleted the sentence saying that after the release of the black box transcript "mainstream" coverage of the "conspiracy theories" ceased. I don't think there ever was much "mainstream" coverage. But the controversy remains. Last year the American Airways magazine produced a three part article on this. In any case, the transcript raises more questions than it answers and the response of some "mainstream" news services was to say "The Russians still haven't come clean".

To deal with all these issues would require a major overhaul of the article...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

You clearly seem to believe that Time is either not a very strong source or that there are equally reliable sources which discuss the conspiracy aspects. If you have problems with Time, they are the only source that I found which discussed the conspiracy in any detail. If you feel there are sources being ignored, then please link us to them. Anynobody 23:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

To make the changes you are suggesting would butcher the article. One of the main reasons it failed the good article nomination...was because of the unfounded and un-cited claims made in the "conspiracy theories" section.

And as for the doctoring of the Soviet Airforce intercepts...Indeed they show some intent of deception. I'm not trying to attempt to justify it. But the un-edited version hardly paints a different picture. As it only left out the so called "internationally recognized warning symbols" include only bursts of machine-gun fire (already explained as impossible to notice due to the lack of tracers) and the fighter tipping his wings. Which alone can easily go unnoticed. ONE act hardly translates into "internationally recognized warning symbols". Especially when there was NO attempt at radio contact (verified by aircraft and ground monitors monitoring those frequencies)

No major overhaul is needed. As your apparent bias appears to show through in one of your first statements when you say:

"There is no attempt to distinguish between US government claims and established facts."

The problem with that is that the INTERNATIONAL Civil Aviation Administration (read:not U.S.) investigated the incident and generally supported the "US Government Claims" and condemned the Soviet Union's use of force as "a violation of international law" and deplored them for failing to cooperate with ANY other countries in search and rescue efforts (they took control of the crash site and refused entry to US and Japanese Search and rescue teams) and for failing to cooperate with the ICAO investigation by refusing a visit from it's Secretary General, and refusing to provide any information relevant to their investigation. That's all from the INTERNATIONAL report. The basis of this article is the official International line. (not just the U.S.) If there is to be a conspiracy theory section, we should limit it to that which can be supported by (and not overwhelmingly contradicted by) some degree of fact. If you cannot put aside your anti-American or anti-government bias (whichever it may be), you should refrain from making changes to the article . Abalu (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Abalu

I agree that making the mooted changes would "butcher" the article. This is because the article as it stands is clearly biased. The pilot of KAL 007 was a fighter ace, so it seems unconvincing that he failed to notice a MIG fighter was trying to force him down. Just as it is unconvincing to believe that he had strayed into militarily sensitive territory without noticing it. And that the USSR would not contact a plane that had strayed into its territory but wait several hours and then abruptly shoot it down.

If the crash site was indeed in Soviet territory this is in contradiction with the US Government's version. As well as that, I doubt that the US Government would have allowed Soviet operatives to search its territory, so the claim of non-co-operation is again biased.

The Soviet determination of the plane's flightpath matched Japanese radar, not the convenient American version. But I guess you are only interested in "international" approval when it matches the US version. A series of three articles in last year's Airways magazine argued that the International Civil Aviation Authority was biased towards the American position.

Finally, the censorship of anything critical of the US Government is clearly biased. The article as it stands only mentions controversy discussed by a pre-eminent American magazine which is undercut by a subsequent apology. In other words, you are unwilling to face genuine debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss the changes you're proposing, but in order to actually implement them we'd need sources to cite.

• The pilot of KAL 007 was a fighter ace, so it seems unconvincing that he failed to notice a MIG fighter was trying to force him down. Barring a source saying otherwise, you're actually incorrect about assuming he saw the interceptor trying to get his attention. (If he had, surely he'd of mentioned it to the rest of the crew rather than discussing a new place in the airport to change currency.) The 747 didn't have a RWR so a radar lock would've been unnoticed in the cockpit, and since the Flagon wasn't equiped with tracer ammunition, cannon fire at night would be invisible.
• And that the USSR would not contact a plane that had strayed into its territory but wait several hours and then abruptly shoot it down. They did try to intercept KAL 007 when it first entered Soviet airspace, and it had already returned to international airspace before action could be taken. Time talks about how the pressure on Soviet controllers was intensified by the earlier failure to intercept it.
• If the crash site was indeed in Soviet territory this is in contradiction with the US Government's version. There was likely a large field of debris, since pieces would have been coming off the doomed plane as soon as it was hit. The fact that some of it ended up in Soviet waters doesn't seem that unlikely.
• A series of three articles in last year's Airways magazine argued that the International Civil Aviation Authority was biased towards the American position. Could you please provide a link to them?
• Finally, the censorship of anything critical of the US Government is clearly biased. The article as it stands only mentions controversy discussed by a pre-eminent American magazine which is undercut by a subsequent apology. In other words, you are unwilling to face genuine debate. We aren't censoring anything discussed in reliable sources, which all seem to have dismissed the conspiracy theories about KAL 007 being on a spy mission or there being any survivors. Anynobody 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(PS Here's the discussion regarding deletion of the conspiracy page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories your initial post indicates you are unaware of why it was deleted. I'm including this just so you have all the information, I'm not trying to use it as an argument.) Anynobody 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to your points:

• Apparently the "conspiracy" article was deleted because it was unsupported, messy, and should be merged with the existing article. I agree with the last point but this hasn't been done. Rather the manoeuvre has resulted in censorship. The other two points could have been remedied, as happens (hopefully) with other articles.
• This ex-fighter pilot was flying over some of the most military sensitive territory in the world. You may be right that he didn't know, but that does need explaining. It seems incredible.
• It is even more incredible that in the hours that this occurred the Soviet Union did not try to establish radio contact or to intercept with fighters firing traces or waggling their wings. If they did, it is again incredible that a fighter ace wouldn't notice.
• The fact is there was more debris in Soviet territory than outside it, a fact that is implicitly acknowledged by almost everyone. Hence the American version is transparently bogus.
• Time magazine is well known as a conservative American source.
• You claim you will accept cited sources but:
  • You demand weblinks - you don't accept my citation of the recent Airways magazine. (I don't think it's available electronically - many reputable sources aren't.)
  • When you got a linked citation to New York Times you deleted it.

In conclusion your favoured form of argument seems to be to delete and dismiss.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This ex-fighter pilot was flying over some of the most military sensitive territory in the world. You may be right that he didn't know, but that does need explaining. It seems incredible. I agree it does, but connecting that he was an ex fighter pilot to the fact that the flight was off course near where the Soviets tested ballistic missiles would be synthesis unless a source makes the connection in that way too.

It is even more incredible that in the hours that this occurred the Soviet Union did not try to establish radio contact or to intercept with fighters firing traces or waggling their wings. If they did, it is again incredible that a fighter ace wouldn't notice. As the sources said, the interceptors weren't equipped with tracers, so it'd actually be pretty incredible if the ex fighter ace had noticed 30 mm cannon rounds whizzing by in the dark night. (Also I'm pretty sure the sources said that the Su-15 was operating without nav lights as it would in battle conditions, it's hard to see wing waggling in the dark and when the controllers never ordered him to do anything like it anyway.)

The fact is there was more debris in Soviet territory than outside it, a fact that is implicitly acknowledged by almost everyone. Hence the American version is transparently bogus. Where does it say it's implicit that more wreckage fell anywhere? The sources say that due to the proximity of the debris field to Soviet waters, extensive recovery efforts were not able to be undertaken by American/western searchers. I understand where you could think this means more debris fell in Soviet territory, but other possibilities like potential Soviet interference (or another shoot down) were also very likely considered.

You demand weblinks - you don't accept my citation of the recent Airways magazine. (I don't think it's available electronically - many reputable sources aren't.) No, I said ...we'd need sources to cite. and asked Could you please provide a link to them? I'm actually asking for something that can be referenced. As you stated it, A series of three articles in last year's Airways magazine argued that the International Civil Aviation Authority was biased towards the American position. doesn't really work for a citation. It would read like this:
...the International Civil Aviation Authority was biased towards the American position.^[1]
References
^[1] Three articles from Airways magazine, circa 2007. Anynobody 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not demanding Internet sources for everything. None of what I've said is original or even synthesised. I'm sure much of the information is carried in the extensive biography (which is not reflected in the text). I'll try to source as much as I can.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of things.

1) It doesn't matter if someone's a fighter ace or not. You CANNOT see weapons fire at night without tracers. And to clear up something you seem grossly misinformed about here. He was NOT a fighter ace. He was a show pilot. There is a huge difference. The term "ace" implies a great deal of combat experience. And it wasn't a MiG that tried to force him down, it was a Su15.

2) You're upset that no one will accept your sources. But you equally dismiss every source out there that says that there was no conspiracy theory as being "biased towards the Americans"

3) The black box (which was held by the Russians for years so don't try saying that it was "altered" by Americans) was released years later, and showed normal conversation that you would expect on a civilian passenger plane.

4) After the collapse of the Soviet Union, five Top Secret Soviet memo's were released by President Yeltsin showing that the Russians in fact made NO attempt to contact/warn the plane. Initially mislead the US and Japan into thinking they had not recovered the Black Boxes. And intentionally mislead the Americans and Japanese search efforts in an attempt to disinform the U.S.

5) Let's not forget also...that this was the second passenger plane the Soviets had shot down. The first one, the passengers survived, so it was much harder to claim it was on a "secret spy mission"

Believe me. I believe in many conspiracy theories out there. Who they make look bad and who was behind it holds no meaning to me. But this one is just out there. And has only circumstantial evidence and guesswork at best, against pretty well established fact.

And it's not that I'm "unwilling to face genuine debate" it's just that I'm not really interested in carrying on a debate with someone who sees only what he wants to see. And refuses to back down, despite overwhelming evidence.Abalu (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Abalu

RE: Quotations from the later released top secret Soviet Memo's.

After the plane was shot down:

"Imitation search efforts in the Sea of Japan are being performed by our vessels at present in order to disinform the US and Japan. These activities will be discontinued in accordance with a specific plan."

And later after Soviet Analysis of the Black Boxes failed to reveal ANYTHING supporting the idea of a spy mission but (at best) circumstantial evidence (i.e. their equipment appeared to be working so they should have known where they were going )

"In connection with all mentioned above it seems highly preferable not to transfer the flight recorders to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) or any third party willing to decipher their contents. The fact that the recorders are in possession of the USSR shall be kept secret.

As far as we are aware neither the US nor Japan has any information on the flight recorders. We have made necessary efforts in order to prevent any disclosure of the information in future".

:D.Ustinov, V.Chebrikov ____ December 1983

There were mistakes. There was sloppiness. There was negligence. They shouldn't happen, but they do. Many civilian airliners have gone down over the years because of those very reasons no matter how skilled the pilot, so you can't say it doesn't happen. However, this one was shot down. With no real interest or attempt at any other outcome. Abalu (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Abalu

Thank you for your response. With regard to Wikipedia, I think the discussion has to proceed with cited sources. But with regard to your points:

• I contend that tracers were fired and that an experienced pilot would know he was straying into sensitive territory.
• I never said every source was biased - just Time magazine. That's well established.
• The supposed Soviet memos etc need to be treated with scepticism.
• The previous Korean Airlines incursion into Soviet airspace merely establishes there was a pattern. Was it a pattern of probing radar defences or merely a coincidental pattern of accidents???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

About the tracers. You keep saying you contend they were fired. It's not a matter of contention. It's well established that no tracers were fired. The fighter pilot himself has stated this, in more then one place. Abalu (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Abalu

Also: Link to site that has the memo's: http://www.rescue007.org/TopSecretMemos.htm

If you doubt their authenticity, you can find them, or references to them on other sites also. Abalu (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Abalu

Just a quick fyi to anyone who might wonder why an aircraft would have ammunition without tracers, because the aiming was (and probably still is) done by radar. Pilots don't need a visual cue when shooting by radar, and thus they don't need to give away their position by firing tracers. (Don't forget those pilots were trained to intercept B-52s, and if they had to get close enough to use cannon then giving the rear gunners a nice target by letting them follow tracers back to the gun firing is kinda dumb. If they hadn't been using radar too that is...)

Plus, on a side note, I'd expect an experienced fighter pilot to know he can't get away from interceptors in a 747. So if there had been tracers, and the Flagons had been seen, the argument that an experienced fighter pilot would entertain thoughts of escaping seems like an oxy-moron Anynobody 05:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinion column as a source?

In 1996 a The New York Times article revealed that South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan accepted $4 million from Korean Air in order to gain "government protection" during the investigation of the shootdown. ^{"Korean Bribe Rekindles Flight 007 Issues," The New York Times}

The inclusion of a published opinion as an actual article seems problematic, as it seems like if we include the piece then we should also discuss aspects like The United States should investigate whether Hanjin companies are beneficiaries of Government contracts or subsidies. What does everyone else think? Anynobody 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I will change the citation to reflect your complaint.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't quite understand what was going on, so I just posted it. Thank you for clarifying this. :)

How many people boarded in Anchorage

Okay, how many people boarded in Anchorage?

In order to get the number of people who departed from New York, we need to know how many people boarded in Anchorage.

The number of people who boarded in New York would be determined by taking the number of passengers who died (240), adding the four people who boarded in New York and left in Anchroage, and subtracting the people who boarded in Anchorage. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I've removed this -

Larry McDonald died when Soviet fighters shot down Flight 007 after the plane entered Soviet airspace, and was found with bullet hole in head after trying to uncover world wide conspiracy.

- because it was misplaced, unsupported by citations, and raises more questions than it answers (who shot him? what conspiracy?). There's no reason it can't be returned if these issues are addressed.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Movies

1. Tailspin: Behind the Korean Airliner Tragedy (1989), an HBO Original Movie with Michael Morriarty and Soon-Tek Oh
2. The British Granada Television documentary drama Coded Hostile (1989 - US title Tailspin) detailed the US military and governmental investigation, highlighting the likely confusion of Flight 007 with the USAF RC-135 in the context of routine US SIGINT/COMINT missions in the area. An updated version of Coded Hostile was screened in the UK in 1993, incorporating details of the 1992 UN investigation.

Are these the same programme? AlexJ (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it probably is, however since they may be different versions (edits) it's probably best to leave the entries separate. Anynobody 07:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Interception timeline / Investigations division

The interception section was very hard to follow and lacked references. I cleaned that up. The investigations section seemed to confuse the 1983 and 1993 reports with other info so I divided those 2 Hutcher (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, good job :) Anynobody 07:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the 1993 report should be placed later? As it is we jump back to Reagan in 1983...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the section is about the investigation which happened to have concluded only after a second report ten years later. I tend to prefer a chronologically ordered article but to keep things simple for readers the investigation should be in one section. Anynobody 05:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a case of what just "happened". The 2nd investigation was based on materials released after the collapse of the USSR. Its chronological placement is not a small issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a small issue, however the second investigation proved that indeed the course deviation had been an accident as postulated by the first. If it had revealed that the CVR was full of dialog about how to penetrate Soviet airspace or that the FDR recorded intentional programming of a course to doom rather than an inadvertent failure to switch autopilot modes then there would be enough information to create a separate section about the second report. If so, I'd argue for the chronological approach too, but as it stands moving the second investigation to the end to create a new tiny section rather than the tiny sub-section it has now isn't a good idea IMHO. Anynobody 07:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Recovery of debris

The section about the recovery of debris seems unnecessarily complicated. It would be simpler to give the grand totals collected by the different governments. And to add, if you wish, that the USSR was criticised for being tardy.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's terribly complicated but there is always room for improvement. Tardiness is about 10% of it. The "crash site" was much closer to Soviet territory so for the Japanese to recover a vast majority of the debris is very suspicious. That was the point made in my source material but I think I lost that inference. Hutcher (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Crash site" was within Soviet Territory - so, with 95% confidence says Admiral Piotti who commanded Task Force 71 of the Seventh fleet which conducted the SAR/S mission in the unclassified After Action Report adn so indicates the last recorded location (Soviet radio transmission) of KAL 007 in its spiral descent over Moneron Island. (See the Time Table of the Interception Section). See also below ICAO transcripts of documented missions of Soviets to Moneron Island minutes after the shootdown and in particular order from General Strogov for the civilian ships that were "near" Moneron to go to Moneron itself. All of this makes understandable why the SAR/S missions in international waters proved futile.89.138.50.118 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

One of Our Guys

There are some excellent points of information in the conservapedia article on KAL 007 [5]. How about one of our guys incorporating the info for our approach in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.77.173 (talk • contribs)

Why don't you do it yourself!? Or at least note the points that should be worked into the Wiki article...?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Interception Reconstruction Warning a bit odd

Hey guys, each point in the Interception timeline has a citation so I don't know why we need a warning such as "The following reconstruction of events is largely based on information provided by the US State Department and the CIA." I'll leave it but will need to replace CIA with ICAO whose report is most cited in this section and is a child of the UN ... not a direct relation of the CIA. There was an earlier note claiming bias but this section is heavily cited Hutcher (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unjustified Deletion

The following edit has been unjustifiably deleted by Anyeverybody from the Crash Scene section on the grounds of faulty citation and unreliable source (Rescue007):

Here are the After Action Report statements, though, of the Commander of the U.S. Search and Rescue/Salvage Task Force 71 of the 7th Fleet, Admiral Walter Piotti, to his belief that KAL 007 had not come down in international waters but rather in Soviet territorial waters: "Had TF [task force] 71 been permitted to search without restriction imposed by claimed territorial waters, the aircraft stood a good chance of having been found.”...“No wreckage of KAL 007 was found. However, the operation established, with a 95% or above confidence level, that the wreckage, or any significant portion of the aircraft, does not lie within the probability area outside the 12 NM area claimed by the Soviets as their territorial limit.”

This quote and attendant info is NOT from "Rescue007" but directly from the unclassified After Action Report of Commander Walter T. Piotti Jr., dated Nov. 15, 1983, which I have in my hands. I will gladly fax cover page to you and the relevant pages for the quotes. Here is the full citation - Department of the Navy, Commander, Surface Combat Force Seventh Fleet. CTF75/N32:kpm,4730,Ser 011, 15 November,1983, Concluding Observations - Pg. 11 and Operations Involved - pg. 28.

I ask that the above deleted section be reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.50.118 (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that point does not cite or refer to that rescue website so I don't understand how WP:RS might apply. Does that document live anyplace else on the internet? Hutcher (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the After Action Report is on the Web but I can't imagine anything more authoritative and reliable concerning the crash site than the actual report of the Commander that conducted the Search and Rescue operation. The After Action Report, though , is referred to often enough by students (scholars) of the KAL 007 shootdown. Just two places of mention are the Republican Staff Study of the Committee on Foreign Relations itself, and the article in our Reference Section number #11. In fact, the quote from the After Action Report in Maier's article is the exact quote, except for his introduction, that I had edited in our article and which had been deleted. in any case, very clearly, I have NOT quoted from Rescue007, but from the After Action Report itself. It is a mystery to me why it was deleted. Here is the quote as found in Timothyt Maier:89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

our Reference # 11:

Maier, Timothy (2001-04-16), "Kal 007 Mystery - Korean Airlines flight 007 incident", Insight on the News, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_14_17/ai_75819892/pg_4>

"The U.S. Navy classified Task Force 71 report stated: �The operation established, with a 95 percent or above confidence level, that the wreckage does not lie within the probability area outside the 12 nautical mile area claimed by the Soviets. � Had the Soviets permitted the Task Force to search within their territorial waters, the aircraft may have been found." 89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Unjustified Deletion

The following subsection has been unjustifiably deleted from the Interception section:

"The secret Soviet mission to Moneron

Though the Soviets would claim that they had no knowledge of where KAL 007 had come down (Marshal Nicolai Ogarkov press conference of Sept. 8,1983), they in fact did know where, and had sent at least 2 documented missions to Moneron Island well within Soviet territorial waters. This was at the same time that they were joining with the U.S. in the Search and Rescue operations in 225 sq. nautical miles of international waters to the north of Moneron. The existance of these missions was made known in 1992 with the handover to ICAO by Boris Yeltsin of the real time Soviet military communications requested of him by Senator Jesse Helms of the Committee on Foreign Relations [3]

The first of these missions was at 6:47 a.m. local time, just 21 minutes after missile detonation and nine minutes after KAL 007 had reached 1,000 ft. altitude in its spiral descent over Moneron. It involved the KGB Border Guard boats and rescue helicopters (Khomutovo air base). " Lt. Col. Novoseltski: prepare whatever helicopters there are . Rescue helicopters. Lt. Col. Titovnin:Rescue? Lt. Col> Novoseltski: Yes..." (ICAO, '93, page 93)

The second mission was at 6:55 a.m., 29 minutes after missile detonation and 17 miniutes after KAL 007 had reached 1,000 ft. altitude, and in addition to the borderguards and helicopters, civilian ships "near" Moneron were sent to Moneron itself."General Strogov: The border guards. What ships do we have near Moneron Island, if they are civilian. send [them] there immediately." (ICAO, '93, pages 95,96). General Strogov was the Deputy Commander of Soviet Far East Military Command."

The information about the Ogarkov press conference is accurate and well known and the information about the missions to Moneron is exact and directly taken from the source (ICAO '93 Report). The quotes (Lt. Col. Novoseltski, Lt. Col. Titovnin, General Strogov) are exact, and the citation of the source (which are also before me) is correct, howbeit in the acceptable shortened form. I here give the full form from the most certainly reputable and authoritative (as is considered throughout the article) ICAO report of '93 - "Report of the Completion of the Fact Finding Investigation Regarding the Shootdown of Korean Airline Boeing 747 (Flight KE007)on 31 Aug. 1983. Information Paper no.1. United Nations Security Council-139 Session, 1993, p.93,95,96"

I ask that the above deleted section be reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.50.118 (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you can save this section if you re-write the text to sound more "encylopedic" and keep your references tight. Hutcher (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can try again - to make it more encyclopedic, but it seems pretty much encyclopedic, and clear, the way it is. Do you think that that is the reason it was deleted? The deleter gives no reason for his deletion.89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet other Unjustifiable Deletions - External Links

From the External Links, I see that the Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors has been deleted and from the Further Reading, I see that "Rescue 007: The Untold Story of KAL 007 and its Survivors" has been deleted.

I ask that the above unjustifiable deletions be reinstated89.138.50.118 (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed this article WP:EL. Links to be considered #4 "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". I guess the question that remains is: "Links normally to be avoided #2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" Hutcher (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, whether or not my edits "fail to meet criteria for reliable sources", it is really ample in information from reliable sources - like ICAO, like Commander Piotti, etc. Further the info I supply is both factual replete with sources, and certainly verifiable. By the way, from the citations in the article, especially, in the time-line, it is evident that I am not the only one possessing and quoting from the ICAO '93 report. Thank you, Hutcher, for ephasizing the word "YET".89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you are offended that I removed your edits, however there are indeed reasons:
This doesn't just show Helms letter but other questionable documents moreover the point it was used to cite, that Yeltsin turned over the tapes and stuff because of this letter, isn't proven by its mere existence. (A source saying Yeltsin was responding to Helms would be necessary)

COMMENTARY: 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF FLIGHT 007 from jamesoberg.com isn't a reliable source. It might be if www.cdi.org, the source it claims to be published in, indeed published it. However searching on their site I couldn't find it trying different searches. Like Commentary: 20th Anniversary or 20th Anniversary KAL 007. The closest I got was Flight 007

Also, your style of citation is incorrect. Please check out Help:Citations quick reference to find out more. Anynobody 01:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot the WP:EL deletion, rescue007 is essentially a repository of conspiracy theories which amounts to factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, though in this case I'd say mostly the latter reason. (Its whole point is that people survived, that definitely isn't verifiable.) Anynobody 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding.

1. With regard to a source connecting the handover by Yeltsin with the intervention of Senator Helms, here [6] is the FEB.11.1992 letter of Senator Helms' Staff Director on the Committee of Foreign Relations, Rear Admiral Bud Nance stating that the information coming from Israel about survivors was the reason Helms wrote to Yeltsin (DEC.1991) about KAL 007 asking for the requested info. A little of the clarifying context. In this letter of Admiral Bud Nance, he mentions two letters to Boris Yeltsin from Helms. The first was sent on DEC.5, 1991, and was about the American POWs Helms felt were kept in the Soviet Union after the war(s). On JUNE 15,1992, Yeltsin would respond saying "Our archives have shoiwn that it is true - some of them were transferred to the territory of the former U,S,S,R. and kept in labor camps. We can only surmise that some of them may still be alive." The joint U.S. Russian Federation commission was set to investigate. Five days after sending this letter of request for POW info to Yeltsin, on DEC. 10, 1991 Helms sends to Yeltsin the letter about KAL 007 based on, according to his staff director, Admiral Nance, the CIA verification of the info coming from Israel. On March 24, 1992, Soviet Defense Minister Marshal Ustinov admits on Soviet TV to the Soviet recovery of the Black Box, and Oct 14, partial transcripts from Black Box are handed by the Soviets to the delegation of the American Association For Families of KAL 007 Victims, and the following month Yeltsin hands over empty Black Box in Korea and then the handover of the transcripts to ICAO. I think that it is clear that this period of "thawing" for Yeltsin saw him responding directly to Helms in the KAL 007 matter as he had in the POW matter (and in the Anthrax plague in Sverdlok matter)

2. The article itself which James Oberg is commenting on and which is published in full, is COMMENTARY: 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF FLIGHT 007 which appeared in RIA Novosti // September 1, 2003. It was written by Mikhail Prozumentshchikov, Deputy Director of the Russian State Archives of Recent History and it was reprinted on Johnson's Russia List #7308 (2 September 2003) A CDI Project "http://www.cdi.org" . All this information is contained in the James Oberg article referred to. (I believe that James Oberg himself, though not correct in all things, is considered quite a weighty authority).

Just a note - it is not only the Sept. article in question that does not appear in the Johnson's Russia List archives for 2003, it is All of their articles for Sept., Oct. Nov.and Dec. of 2003. Either something is wrong with their website, (and I just wrote to them about it) or something is wrong with my computer. Here is the Johnson's Russia List archive url - maybe you can get through http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2003.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.50.118 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Would you respond to my Objection to your deletion of my "Commander Piotti" edit?

4. Quote from you "though in this case I'd say mostly the latter reason. (Its whole point is that people survived, that definitely isn't verifiable.)" Even if Rescue 007: The Untold Story of KAL 007 and its Survivors were to be considered a repository of conspiracy theory ( which it is not), I re-present this quote from above, with the added emphasize, which shows when such work may still be used "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources'." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.50.118 (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

1. You seem to misunderstand what I mean by a source, something like Time or The New York Times, which by the way says in a Jan 1991 article that others in Congress were writing as well and doesn't even mention Helms: Soviets Raise Hopes on Answers to Korean Crash. A letter from someone on Helms staff to someone explaining how Helms wrote the letter based on his information, also doesn't prove that the tapes were released because of Helms. (I'm sorry I don't have a longer reply for you on this point, given the obvious effort you put into it, but the letters you cite don't back up the idea of Helms being the cause of Yeltsin's actions.

2.All this information is contained in the James Oberg article referred to. There are two separate issues with Oberg:

• 1. his status as quite a weighty authority, I understand you believe him to be authoritative but if we were allowed to add sources by our own personal beliefs there would be a lot more questionable information on Wikipedia. In order to actually be considered an authority, for our purposes, he needs to be identified by a reliable source as such. As it stands right now, he appears to be a self published expert which is not sanctioned in a topic like this.
• 2. The discrepancy between what his site says and what can be verified. As you pointed out they don't appear to list archives for the month this was supposed to be published, (I wasn't able to find it either as I said earlier) which coupled with the self published nature of the oberg source in the first point, leaves open questions about accuracy. However even if it could be located, bear in mind that, Johnson's Russia List isn't news but more of an op-ed or a blog so it wouldn't get the same weight as sources from universally recognized outlets (Almost everyone's heard of Time or Newsweek but much fewer people know what cdi.org is.)

3. Sure, what were your sources again?

4. I must assure you that I read the whole guideline and am familiar with both the types of site to include and avoid. From rescue007: The evidence, however, tells another story. Japanese radar trackings, Soviet ground-to-ground and ground-to-air communications, KAL 007's flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, the debris (and lack thereof), eye-witness testimonies... All these and more, when pieced together, tell of a plane which was, indeed, damaged, but which managed to land safely, and of passengers who survived and were rescued by the Russians -- only to be imprisoned to this day. I've never seen a major source which backs up these assertions, sure I've seen them mentioned and dismissed. If CNN or The LA Times ran a story actually supporting this (saying that they believed there were survivors too), as opposed to just reporting that some people think there were survivors.

This theory runs counter to what major sources say happened, which is what we concern ourselves with, therefore it's worse than unreliable but is instead unverifiable research. Again if major sources came out in favor of it, or the Russians came out and said there were survivors as well as what happened to them, then we could talk about the possibility of the whole survivor conspiracy. Right now all the major sources say KAL 007 was shot down with no survivors, so citing something else which says different would quite simply be giving undue weight to a minority view. Anynobody 02:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Anynobody, it looks like we are having our own KAL 007 project here. Just to note - the article that you say doesn;t even mention Helms intervention being the cause of Yeltsin's return of the black Box doesn't deal with the subject at all (the Senators mentioned in the artilce were dealing with other matters such as flight deviation), and, in fact, COULD NOT mention Helms even if it did deal with the subject. The article was published on JAN.7 1991. Helm's letter to Yeltsin was sent on DEC. 10, 1991. Nevertheless, I will rewrite this edit either leaving out the part about Senator Helms or casting it as a possiblity, among others.

"3. Sure, what were your sources again?"

I'll bring it down again. It's embedded somewhere above. I will only stress here that this deletion has absolutely nothing to do with survivors and I see no reason for its deletion.

"following edit has been unjustifiably deleted by Anyeverybody from the Crash Scene section on the grounds of faulty citation and unreliable source (Rescue007):

Here are the After Action Report statements, though, of the Commander of the U.S. Search and Rescue/Salvage Task Force 71 of the 7th Fleet, Admiral Walter Piotti, to his belief that KAL 007 had not come down in international waters but rather in Soviet territorial waters: "Had TF [task force] 71 been permitted to search without restriction imposed by claimed territorial waters, the aircraft stood a good chance of having been found.”...“No wreckage of KAL 007 was found. However, the operation established, with a 95% or above confidence level, that the wreckage, or any significant portion of the aircraft, does not lie within the probability area outside the 12 NM area claimed by the Soviets as their territorial limit.”

This quote and attendant info is NOT from "Rescue007" but directly from the unclassified After Action Report of Commander Walter T. Piotti Jr., dated Nov. 15, 1983, which I have in my hands. I will gladly fax cover page to you and the relevant pages for the quotes. Here is the full citation - Department of the Navy, Commander, Surface Combat Force Seventh Fleet. CTF75/N32:kpm,4730,Ser 011, 15 November,1983, Concluding Observations - Pg. 11 and Operations Involved - pg. 28.

As far as I can tell that point does not cite or refer to that rescue website so I don't understand how WP:RS might apply. Does that document live anyplace else on the internet? Hutcher (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the After Action Report is on the Web but I can't imagine anything more authoritative and reliable concerning the crash site than the actual report of the Commander that conducted the Search and Rescue operation. The After Action Report, though , is referred to often enough by students (scholars) of the KAL 007 shootdown. Just two places of mention are the Republican Staff Study of the Committee on Foreign Relations itself, and the article in our Reference Section number #11. In fact, the quote from the After Action Report in Maier's article is the exact quote, except for his introduction, that I had edited in our article and which had been deleted. in any case, very clearly, I have NOT quoted from Rescue007, but from the After Action Report itself. It is a mystery to me why it was deleted. Here is the quote as found in Timothyt Maier:89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

our Reference # 11:

Maier, Timothy (2001-04-16), "Kal 007 Mystery - Korean Airlines flight 007 incident", Insight on the News, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_14_17/ai_75819892/pg_4>

"The U.S. Navy classified Task Force 71 report stated: �The operation established, with a 95 percent or above confidence level, that the wreckage does not lie within the probability area outside the 12 nautical mile area claimed by the Soviets. � Had the Soviets permitted the Task Force to search within their territorial waters, the aircraft may have been found." 89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)"

Well, Anynobody, it looks like we are having our own KAL 007 project here... make no mistake it's not just the two of us, others are most likely watching. the article that you say doesn;t even mention Helms intervention being the cause of Yeltsin's return of the black Box doesn't deal with the subject at all (the Senators mentioned in the artilce were dealing with other matters such as flight deviation), Again I think you misunderstood my point (but if you want to split hairs I'll address your point at the end as it's not what I was trying to say), that being a newspaper saying a Senator did something is actually a reliable source, an image of a letter is only proof that it was written, not what it did. This was part of your edits I removed, The existance of these missions was made known in 1992 with the handover to ICAO by Boris Yeltsin of the real time Soviet military communications requested of him by Senator Jesse Helms of the Committee on Foreign Relations [3] You have to find a source, like the Times, saying Yeltsin did what you say he did because of Helms letter.

I actually saw your previous post, where it talked about an after action report which I have in my hands. I will gladly fax cover page to you and the relevant pages for the quotes. and was hoping you'd understand that nothing has changed since you said it "Where's your source again?" (It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that we don't work off people's word.) More importantly though, and I apologize I didn't address this in the last post but the after action report is a Wikipedia:Primary source so in order to include it the report should conform to our policy on such sources.

• 1 only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and

*2 make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

The second point doesn't appear to be a problem so far, which is why it's smaller, but how can it be verified by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge?

My problem with your edits about the rescue mission is that I haven't seen any secondary sources (if you read the Primary source link the reason I appear to prefer secondary sources should be obvious, if not please do check it out) cover that part in such detail. (I understand in your POV it's an important detail, believe me I know the frustration of putting aside my personal POV, but neither of our POVs matters like the POV of our sources. If none of them cover this information, and we do, we're essentially adding a new POV to things which is specifically not what Wikipedia is supposed to do.

(As promised to address your concern about the Senators not asking for the same info Helms was, indeed but the point I was making is that 1. they wrote letters too, 2. Russia delivered, and 3. the NY Times said their letters made a difference. As it stands you're working with 2 out of 3, which ain't bad but is also not good enough: 1. Helms wrote 2. Yeltsin delivered 3. ?????) Anynobody 03:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1. They wrote letters but not about military communication transcripts or radar trackings. The Times article points out that they WERE NOT responded to 2. Russia delivered military communication transcripts and radar trackings and the Black Box 3. Helms requested of Yeltsin military communication transcripts and radar trackings. Who do you think were more influential in the return of the Black Box and the handing over of the military transcripts and radar trackings - the "senators: or Helms? see the Interrogatories of Helms' letter for the full listing of requests ato Yeltsin.[7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.50.118 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Again you appear to be focusing on the illustration as if it's going into the article, the other Senators wrote etc. (This would be a valid concern had I actually put in the article that Sen Kennedy and others wrote letters etc.) I'm just pointing out where/how such info as Helms letter making any difference would need to be discussed, by someone else, like the news or maybe if Russia made a release crediting Helms, just not his letter to them because it only proves a letter was written, not what it accomplished. Anynobody 03:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reworked

I have retitled and reworked deleting reference to Yeltsin handing over military communiques, etc. because of Helms' intervention, and I have provided complete ICAO citations, and posted edit following the Time Table of Attack subsection89.138.50.118 (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete this revisied edit of the Mission to Moneron? As you can see, I had deleted all reference to Helms and Yeltsin and have complete citations?

I actually did explain that in my last post here, (The paragraph starting My problem with your edits about the rescue mission is...) and I'm going to guess as a person new to Wikipedia that you might not be aware of the edit summary, and its use to explain one's edits. <Accessible through the "History" tab at the top of the article> In this case here's what mine said: Nixed Soviet rescue section, our secondary sources had info too and didn't cover this in such detail, as I explained on the talk page we can't include what they didn't from a WP:Primary source. Anynobody 03:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PS Actually the citations you've been doing are different than those already on the page. (I was hoping you'd notice that while there are several ways to cite something, to make things more uniform they shouldn't be mixed and matched otherwise we end up with citations like yours which don't use the <ref></ref> next to those that do. Take a look at the interception timeline entries for 18:23 a line which uses <ref>s to refer to the ICAO report and 18:24 one of yours, referencing the same document in a different way. It's nothing against you, but the variety in this case looks sloppy and will keep this article from ever becoming a Wikipedia:Good article or Wikipedia:Featured article. Anynobody 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Anynobody. I guess there's nothing more I can do, unless anybody else has any ideas. Thanks anyway, Anynobody89.138.50.118 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Required secondary sources found for deleted After Action Report (Commander Piotti)

Anynobody...to summarize your reasons for your deletion of my edit (see below), it seemed to come from a doubtful source - Rescue 007 (It does not!), and /or that it seemed to be more of interpreteive or evaluative origninal research rather than the edit being based on reliable secondary sources and/or intelligent specialists. Well, I have now two reliable secondary sources that not only refer to and quote the After Action Report (of which I have already given the complete citation) but refer to and quote the exact points from the report that I am making in the edit! The first secondary source is what is listed already in the references of the article (#11) and the second is from the oft quoted book on KAL 007 by Michel Brun - Incident at Sakhalin. Here are the two secondary sources:

!. Maier, Timothy (2001-04-16), "Kal 007 Mystery - Korean Airlines flight 007 incident", Insight on the News, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_14_17/ai_75819892/pg_4>

"The U.S. Navy classified Task Force 71 report stated: �The operation established, with a 95 percent or above confidence level, that the wreckage does not lie within the probability area outside the 12 nautical mile area claimed by the Soviets. � Had the Soviets permitted the Task Force to search within their territorial waters, the aircraft may have been found." 89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)"

2. Incident at Sakhalin, Michel Brun, Four Walls Eight Windows , New York and London, 1995, pgs. 143,4. Brun writes - "Its Executive Summary [authored by Commander Piotti] states: 'Nothing associated with KAL 007 was discovered. And 'Had TF-71 been permitted to search without the restriction of claimed Soviet territorial waters, the aircraft stood a good chance of having been found'". This is exactly my point and my quote from the After Action Report! Incident at Sakhalin by Brun is listed in both References and Further Reading.

Here is the edit, I want to put up in Crash section in its appropriate place:

Here are the After Action Report statements, though, of the Commander of the U.S. Search and Rescue/Salvage Task Force 71 of the 7th Fleet, Admiral Walter Piotti, to his belief that KAL 007 had not come down in international waters but rather in Soviet territorial waters: "Had TF [task force] 71 been permitted to search without restriction imposed by claimed territorial waters, the aircraft stood a good chance of having been found.”...“No wreckage of KAL 007 was found. However, the operation established, with a 95% or above confidence level, that the wreckage, or any significant portion of the aircraft, does not lie within the probability area outside the 12 NM area claimed by the Soviets as their territorial limit.”

P.S. A third secondary source that refers to Task Force 71 After Action Report - with emphasis on the obstruction and interference posed by the Soviet combatants to the Search and Rescue/Salvage operations - Cold War at Sea, David F. Winkler, U.S. Naval Institute Press, June 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.50.118 (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rescue 007

Anynobody, I want to discuss with you your deletion of Rescue 007" The Untold Story of KAL 007 and its Survivors [8]. It was put up in the External Links section of the article and you deleted it. You write - "Oh yeah I forgot the WP:EL deletion, rescue007 is essentially a repository of conspiracy theories which amounts to factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, though in this case I'd say mostly the latter reason. (Its whole point is that people survived, that definitely isn't verifiable.) Anynobody" I need to ask you - Had you read Rescue 007 to be able to form the judgement that it was a "repository of conspiracty theories"? Had you read reviews of the book that considered it a repository of conspiracy theories? The book does conclude that there were survivors to the shootdown. But that is a conclusion. And that has come from a consideration of the evidence. Had you found that there was factually inaccurate material? If so, which material is that? The book contains a great deal of pertinent facts and information concerning the flight, the shootdown and the aftermath. Much of this information has great value for other matters than the issue of survivors. Has the reason that you have deleted the book been because you do not believe in existence of survivors and so excluded our readership of much of this other information? One other thought. I guess that you must or should realize that whether one believes in survivors or not, that is really an issue that would deal with "cover-up" rather than conspiracy per se. And, of course, what "conspiracy" has to do with, related to KAL 007, has nothing to do with survivors, but plenty to do with why the flight "went diverted" and what that has to say about "intelligenc mission" or "intelligence bonus". Rescue 007 brings these issues to the fore but does not decide either way. I would want to reinstate the book in External Links. Let me know your thoughts89.138.50.118 (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the lateness of my reply, I'm involved with pressing issues on other articles. Anyway, I think you've misunderstood how wikipedia works. It's all about including points of view which are represented in reliable, verifiable sources. A guy that writes a book using accurate information but coming to a conclusion not shared by third party sources is essentially a self published source. On a related note separating the good info from the survivor conclusions is impossible when citing parts of text for two reasons, 1) A book with a minority premise and no third party support is unreliable 2) We're not supposed to selective use texts anyway in order to avoid issues with WP:NPOV. Anynobody 04:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In short the opinion I gave is based on the criteria set forth in our rules

Anynobody, I just saw the documentary-style movie concerning the four aircraft that struck the World Trade Center. It gave me new impetus to write you asking once again, and again for the final time, to let the website of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors and the book Rescue 007 to appear on this article. The author of this book makes no money from it. Neither as director of this organization does he receive pay. He works to bring back the survivors, possibly his own relatives, and, at this 25th anniversary of the shootdown, he works to make people aware of the transcripts that are publically available but are largely unknown. Wikipedia is a vehicle for this. Nowhere, other than this book and this website, have the Russian Federation supplied transcripts of the "shootdown" and the subsequent flight and rescue missions of the Soviets, available, readable, consecutively and in the order that the events occured, with full citation (in the book) culled from the many Soviet military communications, been made fully available. Nowhere! I do not have great hope that you will respond favorably, and I will not be contacting you about this matter further. Perhaps other editors, however Wikipedia sees it, can and will rule to bring this about89.138.50.118 (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC).