This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Page moved to 1933 Imperial Airways Dixmude crash. There was some discussion. What was clear is that the old name was not acceptable. However the target page was not clear. I made a decision based on the comments. If there is a better choice, feel free to nominate. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, link amended above. Mjroots2 (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is the common name, then it should not be moved to the suggested title. However I feel the current title is insufficiently disambiguous, as it could refer to a disaster in the city of Liverpool. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or to a disaster to a ship named City of Liverpool (should one have happened). The move request means that the existing title will remain as a redirect until such time that it is proved that it needs to be converted into a disambiguation page. Mjroots (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good reason to move it to your suggestion mjr. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. When I saw the article, I thought it was a disaster that happened in Liverpool, England, not on an aircraft named City of Liverpool. The title, as it is, is extremely misleading and ambiguous. I mean, Quezon City disaster and Texas City disaster are not articles about aircraft named Quezon City and Texas City that crashed. A better name would be 1933 Imperial Airways crash, I think. 1933 Imperial Airways Armstrong Whitworth Argosy crash is really kind of long. And I really don't think a single source calling it a certain thing makes that a "popular name." --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 04:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not the only Imperial Airways accident in 1933. Avro Ten G-ABLU collided with a radio mast at Ruysselede, Belgium in December with the loss of 10 lives. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Infobox states that there were 12 passengers, 6 crew and 15 fatalities (all). If all perished then shouldn't it be 18 fatalities or am I missing something? 151.170.240.10 (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article recounts the accusations made by Albert Voss' estranged brother, but does not say if there was any supporting evidence, or if these claims were unsupported. If the police had been investigating him, there should be records of the investigation, but we learn nothing more of that claim. The reader is left hanging. What's the skinny? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Times has extracts from the inquest, Hugo Voss (one of the sons) was asked "Do you know whether there was any criminal proceedings pending against your father? he answered No. He was also asked about carrying drugs and the son replied "I absolutely deny it". He also said he was convinced that his father could have deliberately ended his life but was incapable of setting fire to the airliner. His other son Alfred Voss said he had never known him to purchase or traffic drugs. He does mention that Dearden discussed the dropping of smuggled items by parachute, the coroner infered they were possibly drugs but Alfred denied that. He didnt believe his father committed suicide. It does appear that a lot of rumours had been in the newspapers and the coroner was trying to get to the bottom of them but didnt really get far with the sons. The jury came back with an open verdict so they thought something was fishy enough not to give an accidental death verdict but there doesnt appear to be any proof. Part of the coroner summing up he said the relatives of Mr. Voss had suffered a form of persecution from some misguided people. He regarded it as mean and cowardly, and quite unjustified, and he hoped these people would now cease that sort of thing. So the London Times reports do not quite agree with the article as written about the brother making the accusations. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sad post script is the Voss's wife died aged 45 a few months later when "she was found dead in the Rochdale Canal". MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
