Talk:Smolensk air disaster

Conspiration

Are there any news considering sabotage of the aircraft by the Russians? I believe we should include that Russians could be motivated to do such thing because Poles accepted to install the american missile shield on their territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.175.173 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Wikipedia is not the place for frivolous speculation. EdenMaster (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would hold off mentioning it in the article right now as there is no evidence, but there is certainly suspicion, especially given that Putin is taking personal control of the investigation. I think it could be wise not to completely discount it . There's also suspicion that Ukraine were in some way involved, particularly given the 2001 Black Sea crash with the same model of plane, that is usually attributed to Ukrainian missiles. 86.137.166.151 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, 17:40. It shouldn't be underestimated how Russians - nothing against the people, but the ones in charge of gov - tend to lead with conflicts. Let's see and hope that some investigative body from US or/and Europe can look into this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.175.173 (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"I would hold off mentioning it in the article right now as there is no evidence" <-funny [it has to even be mentioned that complete speculation is out of the question]. i.e. If you want to start WikiPropaganda based on no evidence, go ahead.--Leladax (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion would require a Reliable Source. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Tu-154 - correct, TU-154 wrong. Merge? --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, see Tupolev Tu-154 for reference on how the title of this article should look. Mieciu K (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, entirely my fault, was in a rush to get the article started so that it could appear in ITN. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, this was a very important news so the rush was understandeble 89.76.31.29 (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The organizers of the commemorations chose the Soviet-made Tupolev aircraft as a mark of good will towards their Russian hosts.[8]"

I've read the article but I haven't found any confirmation of the fact (about a mark of good will). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.40.245 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Highly unlikely it is the normal presidential aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Russian TV the Prime Minister raised the question about buying a new aircraft but that was not done. It was also mentioned that the aircraft had been used during the presidential visit to Mongolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.40.245 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly do you assume so? Because of a purported inferiority of the Tu-154 in comparison to Western aircraft? I can imagine that this particular aircraft, having been the presidential carrier, was well-maintained and perhaps refitted several times, and it certainly must have met the safety criteria of the EU - so perhaps there simply was no reason to change yet (since I assume that acquiring a new airliner would incure tremendous costs). Is a Boeing or an Airbus inherently more "prestigious" than a Tupolev?

Regardless, all of that is speculation and irrelevant to the article. If there is no source explicitly claiming that the Tu-154 was chosen as a "sign of good will", the sentence stays out of the article. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Time

If the accident happened at 10:56 Moscow time, wouldn't that be at 7:56 UTC and not 06:56 UTC? I know BBC claims it happened at 06:56 GMT, but I guess they are wrong. Närking (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

They may be wrong, but for now we'll have to stick with what they say. No word yet on Aviation Herald or JACDEC. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

10:56 Moscow time is indeed 6:56 UTC. Don't forget the Daylight saving time. — Marvin ^talk 09:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but anyway 10:56 in Moscow is 8:56 here in Sweden which would be 7:56 in London. The GMT or UTC is confusing more than help I would say since that's not the time people follow. Närking (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the time that civil aviation works on worldwide though. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Herald now covering the story. Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this chart I found in a BBC article, the aircraft lost communication at 0640 GMT. 16 minutes later, at 0656 GMT the plane was reported to have crashed. Is this information genuine, or it's a BBC blunder ? Was there a 16 minutes communications blackout ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.70.94 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Destination

Infobox states a military airfield, Aviation Safety Network gives a civil airfield. This needs to be checked and amended when further sources and details are known. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Russian Wiki says that this airfield using both for military and for experimental civil aviation purposes (for testing aircrafts made on Smolensk Aviation Plant)--NikitaKa (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

actually it says the last regiment based there had been disbanded 16.10.2009 and one can only guess level of maintenance after this step. Now, cynical question - why Il-76 with president's guard hasn't landed (due to fog), and then this Tu-154M with whole king-and-his-clout had risked (and failed) about landing? And who decided to go ex-military airfield as landing zone? Who made decision about landing airfield before flight took off? Who wrote flight plan and what they knew about landing site during planing? And who ultimately asked for this place as destination in first place, which side Polish or Russian? questions, questions, questions, no answer... silpol (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture

The picture of an aircrash in the information box is not from the Smolensk crash, the registration number is indicating a Cuban plane. If used as just an illustration, it is still a bad choice of picture, while it shows buildings in the background, implicating fatalities or injuries at ground. I will change the picture. Yiwa 09:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The current image is problematic and will probably be speedied. -- samj _in^out 10:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the current picture an image of THE plane that crashed? If not I reccomend we replace it with one of the accident site - WackyWace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wackywace (talk • contribs) 11:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

— As an alternative to the photo currently used in the article, this appears to be the same plane. Jared Preston (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Death Toll

>"The aircraft was carrying at least 88 passengers and crew as the latest reports by Polish officials have indicated.[4] It is feared that all were killed in the accident."

>Fatalities: 87 (all)

Surely these two facts should match up?

Moreover, this source (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/3569743/Polish-president-dies-in-Russia-plane-crash, their source is AP) has the death toll at 132. 122.57.15.141 (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As is usual in these accidents, details are sketchy at first, and become clearer later. Whatever death toll is quoted needs to be sourced. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This source is possibly useful if you're working on this section. -- samj _in^out 10:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we should keep all the figures which could be properly sourced, and then later remove the ones which prove incorrect. Of course, each figure should have an inline ctation. Timbouctou (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and amended the toll to 132, as AP is a trustworthy source. And thanks to Rambling Man for finding and adding a BBC source for that fact to replace my earlier one. 122.57.15.141 (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This manifest was dumped into the article - moving to talk page. -- samj _in^out 11:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There are now four conflicting numbers of passengers/fatalities: ≥88, 96, 130, 132. These should be all in one paragraph with their respective sources. It's no problem to have conflicting sources, but the infobox shouldn't contradict the article. If, as the infobox says, the 132 deaths are indeed confirmed, the lower numbers and the It is feared part should be deleted.--87.162.45.118 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There have been mixed reports of the death toll. Most seem to be reporting that there were 96 people who perished. This article says that there were 97 deaths, however only few sources say that the death toll was 97 rather than 96. Does anyone know that correct number? I'm sure the answer will come out eventually. -Kylelovesyou (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ministry of Emergency Situations confirms[1] death toll of 96, 88 members of the Polish delegation and 8 flight crew members, in this crash. Arseniy V FreeAtNet (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There is official list on Ministry of Emergency Situations's site [2]. It's 97. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alemand (talk • contribs) 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Polish government is saying 96 dead: 89 memebers of the delegation and 7 crew [3] [4]. Physchim62 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

97 according to updated information. EMERCOM added Krzysztof Ardanowski to the list. Source in the article. Elk Salmon (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

4th attempt?

I strongly doubt the plane crashed on the 4th attempt at landing. Most probably, it is yet another mistranslation of the Russian aviation term "четвёртый разворот" (literally "fourth turn"), which corresponds to "final turn" in English terminology. I think the mention of the three failed attempts and the fatal fourth one should be removed until we have a better source than Guardian.

Dvv (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly attached to it and you may well be right - 3 failed attempts to land at a closed airport seems a stretch, particularly given they apparently had fuel to redirect. -- samj _in^out 10:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold the phone - apparently the BBC are reporting multiple go arounds. -- samj _in^out 10:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

TVP Info says that the plane was floating about the landing place 3 times, and at the fourth times it started to land and wing of the plane got stuck in a tree and the plane exploded. Kubek15 ^write/sign 10:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a not so trust-worthy source - if you are citing correctly...a plane cannot be stuck in a tree, possibly be slown down and damaged by impacts with the trees, see the Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751. In the SAF751 Incident the plane was gliding without motor power, still it cut the trees down and continued to glide for some hundred metres. Yiwa 10:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.137.107 (talk)

It was just reported on television (France 2) that there were indeed three failed landing attempts. -- samj _in^out 11:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I bet anybody a dollar that all the reports about "three failed attempts" are based on the same mistranslation. Dvv (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This is almost certainly true. I think the "three failed attempts" quote should be removed from the article. Unfortunately, many Wikipedians distort the reliable source policy to mean that if a reliable source makes a statement, then that statement should be included in the article. The reliable source policy actually just means that if a statement is made in the article, then it should have a reliable source to back it up, not that every ridiculous thing mentioned in a reliable source should be mentioned in the article. Ketone16 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Of course "final turn". Source : [5]. But Guardian and Sky News just retranslate incorrect sources (perhaps based on bad translation).--Ll0l00l (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa

Can anyone think of a proper translation for this group? There's no wiki article for this group in EN Wikipedia.

Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa

I have no idea where to start with this translation.

If you're wondering why I'm mentioning this here, it's because the boss of this group was a victim in this crash.

Podagrycznik (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked up their website and they haven't got an English page, which means they do not have a standardised translation we could use. I am not a Polish speaker myself so I can't be of much help, but you could start looking what is the common translation used by reliable third parties (for instance, if the Polish government mentions them in their English-language news service, or perhaps what other English-language news sites translate the group as). Most countries have national news agencies with services in English and you may want to look up their archives to see whether the group was mentioned before. Timbouctou (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've found this source, a book at Google Books about Katyn massacre. It lists various organisations and it translated the group as Council for the Defence of the Memory of Struggle and SufferngTimbouctou (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Google Translate gives: Council for the Protection of Monuments to Struggle and Martyrdom--NikitaKa (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I trust a published book by an English-speaking author who probably either speaks Polish or had hired translators for the book much more than I trust an automated translation service such as Google translate. Timbouctou (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The BBC gives "Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites" Physchim62 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK then let's go with BBC. Timbouctou (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

instrument landing system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smolensk-North

According to the satellite images from [Google Maps], the airport doesn't have an ILS. The ILS instruments should be visible in the fairly good satellite pictures. Wooshcz (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

NDB is completely different type of radio-navigation system. It is used to navigate planes on their route, but it's useless during the IFR landing. Please read the article about Instrument landing system. Wooshcz (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

granted what I read on ru:Смоленск-Северный (аэродром) it used to be airfield for military cargo aviation regiment (regiment disbanded Oct'2009, confirmed in various mass-media), they can land and take-off without ILS, with only basic landing support in normal mode, and even just on simple field without ANY support. My formal education is exactly in this area (soviet military radio communication and navigation for aviation), so you can assume it partially as WP:OR . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silpol (talk • contribs) 12:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So... this is military base of this little puppies. i mean BIGGEST fucking planes in the world! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76

26 of IL-76. So I seriously doubt they land those mammuts on some short airfield without guidance! lets use logic for once! 71.99.91.247 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no ILS, but there's an NDB at the airfield (отдельная приводная радиостанция, ОПРС), source: [6], there may or may not be an NDB (non-precision) approach associated with it (my educated guess is there is one). Unfortunately, I don't see this airfield in my copy of Russian AIP, and I have no idea if Jeppesen has it either. Dvv (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Renaming page

I think is not very important the type of the airplane. Other possible names:

• Smolensk disaster
• Polish President air crash

Seems to be the standard naming convention. I've turned these into redirects. Lugnuts (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

An example is Munich air disaster. SiMioN.EuGeN (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If in doubt just give it some time to see what the media decides. There's precedent for both kinds of naming schemes. Joshdboz (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Also I think Katyn massacre curse, Polish Black Saturday or Polish presidential airplane disaster could be another names. SiMioN.EuGeN (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Tusk in tears

I'm a bit confused about the information that confused that Tusk start crying. I only heard in German media about it in German media, but not in english or polish.

Tusk was reportedly in tears when he given the news of the fatal air crash. He has called an emergency meeting of ministers.

[7]

--Boris 11:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The BBC repeats the info. I've read it in some other English-language media as well, but I can't remember where. Matbe the Polish media think it's relatively unimportant, given all the rest... Physchim62 (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This information is true and it was mentioned in polish media, for example here (polish site): http://www.gover.pl/news/szczegoly/guid/sikorski-premier-placze

Move proposal

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash → Death of Lech Kaczyński —

• I would like to propose that this article be renamed as Death of Lech Kaczyński, or at least add that page in tandem to cover his death. This is a whole lot more than a mere aviation disaster. This is the death of a fairly prominent head of state. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 12:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose move - current title is in accordance with normal naming conventions for these accidents. Convert suggested title to a redirect. Mjroots2 (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose' (as stated) But equally, it is the deaths of a whole lot more prominent individuals than just the President (tragic as his death is). Would you not have an article dedicated to the crash? Surely the President's individual death could be looked at (as it already is, I would think) in his article. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, perhaps having a separate article specifically for the president's death is more prudent. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 12:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose move as per Mjroots2, --noclador (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - not only Kaczyński died, also many important Poles - [{Ryszard Kaczorowski]], Zbigniew Wassermann and others.
• Oppose article meets naming guidelines and as above many notable Poles have died not just the President, suggest other names be redirected as appropriate. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment If that section of Lech Kaczyński's article needs more space, by all means start a sub-article. But that's irrelevant from what happens to this article. Joshdboz (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose it's an aircraft crash with 100-odd deaths. The Polish president was one of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I do believe that the article should be renamed, simply because the title is largely inconspicous in regard of the actual importance of the tragic event (namely the death of several high-ranking politicans), whereas "Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash" might signify any of a number of Tu-154s of the Polish Air Force that crashed somewhere for some reason. Compare: If, hypothetically, such a desaster were to happen in the U.S. for instance (God forbid), I doubt the article would be titled "xxxx U.S. Air Force Boeing VC-25 crash", but rather something like "xxxx Air Force One crash" or "xxxx U.S. presidential aircraft crash." A WP user searching for up this particular article might not find it. I'd propose a rename to at least something like "2010 Polish presidential aircraft crash" with redirects from "Death of Lech Kaczynski", "2010 Smolensk crash" etc. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with "2010 Polish presidential aircraft crash", people could not see the importance of the matter from the current title--1j1z2 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I also agree that "2010 Polish presidential aircraft crash" or something similar would be better. But as suggested by Joshdboz earlier on this talk page, we might well give it some time to see what name becomes established in media. --Jonik (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mjroots2's and TheRamblingMan's arguments. The current title follows existing conventions and the president was just one of almost 100 people killed. Also, unless the plane had some formal designation (such as "Air Force 1" or some such) it should stay as it is. Calling it "presidential aircraft" might be misleading as the plane is likely to have been used by many different high-ranking officials. Timbouctou (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, Kitch, whatever do you mean by "a mere aviation disaster"?! What kind of person says that? No disaster is "mere"! Above being prominent, these were human beings in the first place that died out there! That's a very cruel way to explain your proposal. How could you?! :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirka80286 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The crash killed a large number of important people, not just Lech Kaczynski, although his death is, of course, the most signficant. Keep the article where it is and make a redirect to it from Death of Lech Kaczyński. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - This event is of significant merit for it to have its own article about the crash, rather than just one about the president. 216.131.90.48 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Although some wikipedians may have not heard of any of the politicians or president. This event is signficant enough and notable enough to be given its own article rather than be renamed into one just about the death of the polish president. It is an event that has effected millions of people, and at least one country. Karun1234 (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

It is inappropriate to include such claims in an article on wikipedia. "a deliberate act of martyrdom" by the Polish President??? deliberate?? what rubbish. --noclador (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not any conspiracy theory is fit for mention should be determined on by whether it is presented in reliable sources citing relevant groups or individuals, not the outrage of Wikipedia editors at the asserted claims. __meco (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

the article given as source does not mention anything about this "deliberate act of martyrdom" and what outrage? There is no place for this kind of pure rubbish (added twice by an IP) on wikipedia! Wikipedia is not a forum, where you can make up your own conspiracy fantasies. EOD. --noclador (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove that bullshit, its plain retarded. There is no such info in reference link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.230.150.9 (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There's not a shread of evidence for these hallucinations. They should be removed and anyone replacing them should be blocked for vandalism. Physchim62 (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn straight, Physchim62! I was wondering if the loonies 'misguided' editors might leave this one alone, no such luck. The political fallout from this, considering the circumstances(Katyn massacre commemoration) and number of notable people killed would seem to be very high. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this should be deleted, it's ridiculous and there's no evidence that anyone seriously has suggested anything to that effect. 128.243.253.108 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's undue weight at this time, and happily is gone now. Evercat (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Meco's right. If conspiracy theories are reported sufficiently in reliable sources, then they are relevant regardless of how crazy they might be, but otherwise they don't belong here at all. Joshdboz (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, non-notable conspiracy theories have no place here. And unbelievable claims need very strong evidence for them. Plus it seems that the supposed source for this conspiracy theory does say any such thing. In short, it was vandalism, and fairly sick vandalism at that. Physchim62 (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The "moon landing lie" is a noteworthy conspiracy theory, for instance - this "theory" is not, not in the least. On a side note, I'm positively shocked that already, just some 8 hours after the event, "conspiracy theories" start to emerge. Truly, the delirious mind knows no rest. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would hold off mentioning it in the article right now as there is no evidence, but there is certainly suspicion, especially given that Putin is taking personal control of the investigation. I think it could be wise not to completely discount it . There's also suspicion that Ukraine were in some way involved, particularly given the 2001 Black Sea crash with the same model of plane, that is usually attributed to Ukrainian missiles. 86.137.166.151 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if he wanted to die in order to turn Polish opinion against Russia, I doubt the other ~80 people on the plane were as suicidal. It makes no sense, not even as a conspiracy theory... 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

flight

does anyone know what the flight was designated in the air traffic control system? The serial number and tail number of the airplane?

65.94.253.16 (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Tail number was 101. Kubek15 ^write/sign 12:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it is true for this flight but the aircraft normally uses PLF101 as a flight number and uses POLISH AIRFORCE 101 as a callsign. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

what is source of geo-coordinates? if you look on google maps in sat mode, you can easily see that point had been put as if they were precisely targeted on landing strip axis, while it is not always that perfect even in clear visibility. I tried to roll down history of page down for 500 items but still can't see who and why put those coordinates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silpol (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

They seem to be the coordinates of the airport, not the crash site. Physchim62 (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Airport coordinates usually point to the geometrical center of main landing strip. Moreover, if you look left on google maps, it has that little point. So current assumption is that point is taken by guess, without real measurement or GPS reading on site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silpol (talk • contribs) 13:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the mixed map/satellite window around Smolensk, you'll see that many of Google's coordinates are off by a good couple of hundred metres (or the satellite image is not correctly set). I assume the coordinates for the airport were taken from the Google satellite image (I doubt any Wikipedian or OpenStreetMapper went to the geometric centre of the runway of a military airport to take a GPS reading!) Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we know only that we don't know. Nobody had been on actual place with GPS or anything precise. My interest had been caused by the fact that point targeted exactly on line of landing strip axis, just few hundred meters before end of landing strip. silpol (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and with coordinates given to hundredths of an arcsecond (accuracy of about 30 cm, or one foot!). I don't even think that's the right point – it's going on the 300 m from the end of the runway, whereas the wooded area about a kilometre further out seems more like the photos, and fits with the "about 1½ km from the airport". Physchim62 (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Split up passenger names

I noticed the French version of this article has divided up the names of the passengers by category to make it a bit more comprehensible. Any interest in doing that here? Joshdboz (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea - but lets first establish a consensus before beginning to divide the passengers by category, --noclador (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: Divide the passengers by category?

• In favor, --noclador (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agree, it's a long list... Physchim62 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. Kubek15 ^write/sign 15:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• In favor That would be more handy. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• In favor, However, the rector of a university (albeit a Catholic one) is not a religious figure IMO GdB (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How's this list look: Joshdboz (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. Let's use it. Timbouctou (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Presidential and governmental figures

• Lech Kaczyński, President of Poland
• Maria Kaczyńska, First Lady of Poland
• Mariusz Handzlik, Undersecretary of State in the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland
• Ryszard Kaczorowski, the last President of the Polish government-in-exile
• Andrzej Kremer, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
• Sławomir Skrzypek, President of the National Bank of Poland
• Władysław Stasiak, Chief of the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland
• Aleksander Szczygło, head of the National Security Bureau
• Paweł Wypych, Secretary of State in the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland

Military figures

• Andrzej Błasik, Chief of the Polish Air Force
• General Franciszek Gągor, Chief of the Polish Army General Staff
• Vice Admiral Andrzej Karweta, Commander-in-chief of the Polish Navy

Senat members

• Krystyna Bochenek, Deputy Speaker of the Senat
• Stanisław Zając, member of the Senat

Sejm members

• Leszek Deptuła, member of the Sejm
• Grzegorz Dolniak, member of the Sejm
• Janina Fetlińska, member of the Senat
• Grażyna Gęsicka, member of the Sejm
• Przemysław Gosiewski, member of the Sejm
• Izabela Jaruga-Nowacka, member of the Sejm
• Sebastian Karpiniuk, member of the Sejm
• Aleksandra Natalli-Świat, member of the Sejm
• Krzysztof Putra, Deputy Speaker of the Sejm
• Arkadiusz Rybicki, member of the Sejm
• Jerzy Szmajdziński, Deputy Speaker of the Sejm
• Jolanta Szymanek-Deresz, member of the Sejm
• Zbigniew Wassermann, member of the Sejm
• Wiesław Woda, member of the Sejm
• Edward Wojtas, member of the Sejm

Religious figures

• Archbishop Miron Chodakowski, Orthodox Ordinary of the Polish Army
• Tadeusz Płoski, bishop of the Military Ordinariate of the Polish Army
• Ryszard Rumianek, Rector of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University

Others

• Janusz Kochanowski, Polish Ombudsman for Citizen Rights
• Janusz Kurtyka, Historian and president of the Institute of National Remembrance
• Piotr Nurowski, President of the Polish Olympic Committee
• Maciej Płażyński, President of the Polish Community Association
• Andrzej Przewoźnik, Secretary-General of the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites
• Anna Walentynowicz, free trade union activist, member of Solidarity

The organizers of the commemorations chose the Soviet-made Tupolev aircraft as a mark of good will towards their Russian hosts.

Polish goverment has got only Russian VIP airliners, so that information is stupid... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.165.2 (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it - as the IP says it is the normal presidential aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Photos of the victims

Are these photos really that necessary? If someone wants to know what these people look like, they could just click on their respective entires, as these photos have been pulled straight from there. Seems like unnecessary clutter. Podagrycznik (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's removed the photos. Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Just a list is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

i disagree! put the pictures back!

71.99.91.247 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC).

I think that the list was fine, it should be returned.--Avala (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How the photos benefit the article? It's not a fair use to use them as decoration. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The photos are unnecessary and just clutter the page. If you want photos, they are in the individual entries of the people involved.Podagrycznik (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Meteorological Service

By information from president of consultative and analytical agency "Flight Safety" Valery Shelkovnikov: After disbanding of Aviation Regiment (in autumn 2009) airbase has no Meteorological Service... Link:(Russian)[8]. Add?--Ll0l00l (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"Black box"

Who confirmed the recovery of the first flight recorder? Who are those ominous "Russians"? The media, government officials, members of the recovery team themselves? Please clarify. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, a cameraman from TVP who was at the crash site claimed that he saw the black box. Kubek15 ^write/sign 15:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I not found infos about the first flight recorder, but about second flight recorder reported with link to "Region Administration", it's government officials.[9]--Ll0l00l (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Russia's Emergency Minister Sergei Shoigu said both of the plane's flight information recorders had been found and were being examined. BBC. Physchim62 (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

International response

This section is unnecessary. In any disaster there are typically expressions of condolence and solidarity from other nations. Unsurprisingly, there are in this case, too. Why create a list of countries and quotes? -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors love to see their country get a mention? WWGB (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a valid point. These huge sections don't really bring much substance to the articles compared to the ratio they occupy. __meco (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. The vast majority, if not all, of the entries in a list like this are pretty much meaningless and void of any useful information. We should only include responses here that are particularly unusual or otherwise notable, not the generic "we feel sad that a bad thing happened" that every diplomat on Earth can reflexively generate as needed. Bryan Derksen (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As with all other articles, split it and move individual responses by nations to another article. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I say we do the reaction like over at the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings and follow it up with it's own article like Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings. Personally, I don't like the secondary article, but it seems to make people happy for some reason. --Hourick (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What about collapsing this section, only leaving a summary outside the collapsed tables? __meco (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer this format:[10], but it was changed radically. --Hourick (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's probably best to leave it be for a day or two and then make the move as the interest (and reaction) peak passes. --Illythr (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.139.149 (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely most should be moved, and some is clearly UNDUE. FIFA?! A full article's worth from the EU? That should be summarized or cut. Joshdboz (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the reactions from other countries is predictable and does not contribute any information to the reader of the article. Reaction from Ireland? I can tell you the reaction: Condolences, horror, sympathy. It's cruft and needs to be removed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Its a significant international event and therefore I see no reason for the response section to be removed. Karun1234 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - As its a significant international event, the response of other countries is always important and notable. Simply because many people have not heard of the countries, or politicians does not made it not not notable or important, for other places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.26.4 (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Move or remove There is always a international response to tragedies of this sort, Personally I do not think that they are notable after the event, can we lookup useage stats on these types of pages? Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok please don't put European Union between countries EU is not a country ok? KalrinUE (talk) 23:11 , 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I must disagree. The EU meets all the criteria for being a country. It even has its own diplomatic service. 124.176.26.4 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of edits to this article

I believe when I looked at my watchlist several hours ago this article had more than 600 edits then. Now this number is only about 530. If anyone else made the same observation or anyone could offer an explanation for how this could have happened, please post a reply. Obviously I don't rule out the possibility that I misread the figure earlier on. __meco (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I'm more sure I wasn't seeing wrong earlier on. Currently the number of edits shows 518 whereas that figure was 532 when I wrote the above. __meco (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I figured it out by myself. It's my watchlist's 1,000 entries limit overflowing. It rarely does that in the same day, but obviously this article has exceptionally many edits. __meco (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"at the time it was the most deadly aircraft crash in 2010"

I think that until there IS a more deadly aircraft crash this year, this should be changed to "it is the most deadly aircraft crash of 2010" or something like that. The way it is currently sounds like it's suggesting that there's been another, more deadly aircraft crash already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilcoe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I always forget to sign my posts! :P Dilcoe —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC).

It says "at the time" because 2010 is not over yet. Your version suggests this will be the largest crash for the rest of the year. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How about "it is the deadliest plane crash so far in 2010" 81.135.28.58 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly "As of April 2010 it is the deadliest plane crash of 2010"?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with this sort of thing is standard for WP. It should read "at the time it was the most deadly aircraft crash in 2010" ... That wording is future proof and will never be outdated. Format (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's very encyclopedic. If there turn out to be 10 crashes this year that are more deadly, who is going to care in the future that this crash was the deadliest of the year for a few weeks or months? Ketone16 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Images

Why were the images from Warsaw cut from the article? I think they're even more important than the other ones. If you want some other, they're grouped here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:10042010_Warsaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.14.132 (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Link to year 1943 crash needed

The british sabotaged polish general Sikorsky's plane during WWII. His violent death was needed to silence protest against the anglo-saxon's wholesale transfer of Poland to dictator Joe Stalin's USSR. I think this article should include a link to that famous B-24 crash in Gibraltar! 91.82.33.209 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we go. I vote this 'unconstructive' comment be deleted!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Main image

I know the main image is a picture of the plane involved in the accident, but wouldn't it be more appropriate if we moved this elsewhere in the article and replaced it with an image of wreckage at the accident site? Does anyone know of a licensed image we could use? Wackywace (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian Response

Does anyone know if Australia has responded yet? Ive been trying to search google to add their response. But sadly I have not found any yet.216.131.90.48 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I managed to find a response from New Zealand on their nz herald newspaper. But so far I havent seen any from Australia yet. Karun1234 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm Australian, and I'm working on the Maria Kaczyńska (ex Polish 'First Lady') article. I know that's not what you're after. It was Saturday evening here when the crash occured, so it may take a while for anything official to show up. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Should I make a article called Reactions to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash or responses to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash Venustas 12 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)?

• I think you should put them straight in the article if you want to. 95.49.106.133 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To those working on this article...

I just wanted to congratulate you on putting together this article so well and so quickly. It covers this tragic disaster tastefully and comprehensively. Well done. SmokingNewton (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)