Talk:Lufthansa Flight 181

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

why do facts relating to the SAS, pertaining to the events keep being deleted?[edit]

It is now a matter of public record that the mission was SAS developed, SAS ran and SAS led with support by GSG9. You can easily find the public records which have been released at the National Archives here: [1] SAS members received the Distinguished Service Medal for their bravery and skill and you don't get that for 'observing'. So please, let's do the right thing and help stop people laughing at Wikipedia for inaccuracy by updating the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

References


Possible factual inaccuracy relating to the deployment of flashbangs?[edit]

The article indicates that the GSG-9 commandos threw the new flashbang stun grenades into the plane during the storming. According to the book "Assault on LH 181" (Bary Davies, one of the SAS members who were assisting the GSG 9 unit, who I think got the DSM), the SAS provided the flashbangs but that they were never thrown into the plane, instead being thrown over the wings to generate the flash and bang (and accompanying distraction) outside of the plane. The GSG-9 commandos had never had an opportunity to train with these new munitions before this event and there were fears about their own ability to perform if they were detonated inside the plane during the storming. As it was, the flashbangs appear to have served as sufficient distraction.

"Assault on LH 181", Barry Davies, ISBN: 1898125724 (can't give you a page citation until I find the book). If there is a primary source that contradicts this, I'd be interested to know if it was someone who was in a more authoritative position than Mr. Davies. 64.26.142.194 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC) by TomB

This would be consistent with the German version, where is says that the SAS stun grenades were used outside the plane directly before the storming. Additionally, the grenades were used by SAS personal and only Germans boarded the plane.--129.241.49.86 19:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the SAS members were only observers in Mogadishu, they were not directly involved in the operation. The GSG9 used a complete different plan to enter the plane than the SAS suggested them (enter through all doors and not only through one single entrance). Also the flashbang stun grenades were not used by the GSG9; they rejected the SAS's proposal because they never trained with the grenades. A trustable source for that is an interviwe with Ulrich Wegener, the GSG9 commander, from 10-13-2007 in "Die Welt"(look at the reference in the article). -- 94.219.56.197

Please do not make claims about facts when there is direct evidence to the contrary in the television documentary cited.Daffodillman (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To Daffodillman: The Television documentary which was created and aired in Britain was a complete fabrication. Television documentaries are not good sources for "evidence". as the saying goes, "Don't believe everything you see on TV." personally, i believe that we need more reliable sources then TV documentaries for the purpose of this wikipedia; Because TV programs sometimes tend to be biased towards the local population(e.g. Dog Fights, SAS Heroes and others.) I'm not hating on your for it, simply providing some constructive arguments. I will concede provided you can find multiple sources that say the SAS was directly involved, sources that do not relate to TV, such as a scholar or news source. Friedrich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.100.173 (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The british TV-broadcast "SAS Heroes" is absolutely no reliable source. If you are watching attentively the episode about the "Landshut", you will realize the sensational and faulty character ot this show. There are a lot of mistakes: For example, the GSG 9 is storming the airplane with submachine guns, in fact the GSG 9 was just using pistols. One hijacker is being shot by the GSG 9 from outside throw the emergency hatch, which wasn't the case too. If you are watching the interviews with Barry Davies attentively, you will realize that he is never ever maintaining that the SAS was leading the Operation. Only the re-enactment scenes are conveying the impression that the SAS was very, very important before and during the raid. For example, the SAS-actors are yelling the "Go, go, go" when the storming starts (very, very important when you are staying outside after that). The character of the broadcast is no surprise. The title is "SAS-Heroes", and not "GSG 9-Heroes". You just cant't take it serious. There is no question about the fact, that the Operation was a GSG 9-Operation (see below the second comment under the point "SAS led operation") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.44.180 (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, calm down, the TOP SECRET facts were recently released under the British 30-year rule, you can find them here: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C11478984. Essentially it was a SAS operation; however for diplomacy and a need to send a message that western governments had expert anti-terror specialists the British suggested that Germany take the credit. At that time only the British (SAS and SBS) and a few British-trained Israeli operatives had any expert anti-terror units. The article should be updated to include the new pertinent facts. Twobells (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
What a pile of chauvinistic b/s. 46.115.151.34 (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I fail to understand, how is a matter of public record 'chauvinist'? Just because it reveals that the SAS led the op? And why call it 'bs'? It's a matter of public record. The above editor clearly laid out the facts with citations in June 2014 yet here we are in May 2017 with the record unchanged, why exactly is that? Has Wikipedia become what we wish history to be or an encyclopedia reflecting the factual record? Shockingingly poor editing and where is admin to set this straight?

German press title for the incident[edit]

Yooden reverted back to his own translation of the phrase "Landshut hijacking" into German without discussing, ignoring several of my attempts to discuss with him (supposedly male). I argued namely that "Entführung der Landshut" though grammatically correct is very long. It was used of course to explain the events in articles, but as a title generally "Landshut Entführung" was used as a shorthand. If there are any other opinions on the topic please voice them. Thank you. Ben T/C 21:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

(Supposedly male? WTF?) First of all, there are no "several attempts to discuss", there was one.
About the translation itself: I can't remember that I ever heard 'Landshut Entführung'. I'm also not suprised since this expression is (I think) grammatically wrong, at least bad style. So I checked Google, which has more hit on "Entführung der Landshut". So there. --Yooden
How can I know your gender? I can just suppose for ease of expression.
There were several explanations given in the edit summaries (compare yours), at your talk page, and on the talk page here, mostly ignored by you. I advise you against arguing with German native speakers about German grammar. You reverted me repeatedly without addressing my arguments (read your talk page, e.g.). The difference in google hits is hardly statistically relevant, even less so, if you take into account [copying from my comment above] that "Entführung der Landshut" though grammatically correct is very long. It was used of course to explain the events in articles, but as a title generally "Landshut Entführung" was used as a shorthand
First I reverted you back and then, after considering my experience with you, decided to move the article to a new title (avoiding any necessity for a German press title). Please stop edit warring in the future. Except for being bad style, it could be considered vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Civility. Ben T/C 20:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I can see no explanations in the edit summaries. Is this a simple misunderstanding? Which edit summaries are you talking about?
Second, I reacted promptly to each of your attempts to talk about this. Against the facts, you deny this for the second time. Why?
Third, I advise you against arguing with German native speakers about German grammar. The reason must be that we Germans are always right if it comes to our grammar. (For the ironically-challanged: This is not really what I think.) Oh, and we never argued about it, I stated that it would be wrong and you did not object.
Fourth, if my answer seemed rude to you then because it probably was. I don't always see when a short answer is sufficient and when a longer one is necessary. Sorry. I did however address your arguments (read my talk page).
I'm not sure if 50% difference are statistically relevant, but the longer expression should, if anything, be hampered by its length; if Bild wants to save some mm, they would use the wrong, shorter expression.
I don't see why the new title changes anything, but then I don't see why the German expression is required at all. While 'Entführung der Landshut' is correct in German, 'Landshut Hijacking' would be right expression in English.
Please stop edit warring in the future. Except for being bad style, it could be considered vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Civility. (And in case it's still not clear, don't assume you have the moral high ground in this one.) --Yooden
I didn't expect we would agree on anything. As this conversation is over, I see no need in proving anything to you what you can simply find by clicking on the history button, nor do I see the need in asking you to explain your third point, nor in minding your condescending attitude, nor in correcting your calculations. Ben T/C 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If you say it it's true, if I say it it's condescending. Figures. --Yooden
Sorry, I wasn't fair and I was condescending. I just wanted to change my comment but you came first.
Let's agree that both variants were in use. I don't know how you calculated your fifty percent but you have to admit that I also have my point. I was not reading newspaper yet at that time (see my user name) but I remember always hearing the short title when there was some documentary. Let me apologize also. I should have stopped earlier, just waited, and should have assumed good faith. I admit I got angry after you reverted me the second time and I read your comment. As for the edit summaries: my mistake. I was over-reacting and emotional. Please forget it. Ben T/C 00:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let's forget it and let's both take more time next time. --Yooden

Aircraft Regrestration[edit]

The Article lists D-ABCE as the regrestration of the aircraft in question. In November of 2003, I was an aircraft loader in Louisville, KY working for an air charter company that worked for Ford. We had a Ameristar charter 737, N737TW, that had a load of parts for us. When I arrived in the cabin to begin offloading, I noticed the signage was in German and inquired with the flight crew why this was so. They advised me that this was the aircraft that had been hijacked in 1977. On an external inspection of the aircraft during a break in offloading, I noted many patch holes which would be consistent with the damage received by the aircraft when stormed by GSG-9.

A subsequent search of Airliners.net resulted in the determination that D-ABGE was the aircraft in the incident. If ABGE is the Landshut from the 1977 incident, a search of Airliners.net resulted in the following history of the aircraft:

Purchased from Boeing and registered as D-ABGE, which was a QC aircraft. Flown as such untill the incident in 1977. After the incident was repaired and placed back into service. Served with Lufthansa untill sold to German Cargo in the early 1990's. Reverted back to Lufthansa when German Cargo was purchaced by Lufthansa Cargo. Aircraft sold to Air Atlanta Icelandic in the late 1990's and registered as TB-AFX. After this, sold to Ameristar as N737TW.

After a further search of airliners.net, the name "Landshut" appears on not only D-ABCE (Airlines.net photo ID: 0374190 and 0495440), but on D-ABHM (airliners.net photo ID 0528336) as well.

Additional References:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/dod/part6_ct_analysis_course.htm

Spacestevie 21:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

inappropriate category[edit]

I am removing the Category:Palestinian terrorist incidents in Europe category as the article does not mention Palestine or Palestinians at all. --Abnn 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

it mentions the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Misheu 05:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, you are right, it was pretty hidden as it was using an acronym and it wasn't mentioned in the lead (which I will fix), I was using FireFox's build in text search for "Pal", which usually catches everything. I'll post another message regarding the category as a whole, because I think it is problematic IMHO and I would like to rename it or substitute it. --Abnn 00:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Abnn did not restore the category even being informed of the error - so I edited it in back again. That's some really honest behaviour right there, Abnn. 109.66.40.80 (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up[edit]

The numbers mentioned in the article don't add up.

  1. Summary box says there were 84 passengers + 5 crew = 89
  2. First paragraph of Initial events mentions 91 passengers and crew. This is backed up by the external link http://britains-smallwars.com/SAS/Mogadishu.html
  3. Operation Feurzauber section says Of the four terrorists, Zohair Youssif Akache, Riza Abbasi, and Nadia Duaibes were killed while Souhaila Andrawes survived. A GSG 9 member and a flight attendant were injured. 86 + 1 flight attendant + 4 terrorists = 91
  4. That section goes on to say All the remaining 86 hostages were rescued. The hostages would be crew + passengers - 4 terrorists. Remaining 86 + 4 terrorists + 1 flight attendant + 1 Schumann mentioned earlier in article is 92. Maybe the flight attendant is meant to be in the "remaining", but it doesn't read like that.
  5. Summary box says there were 80 survivors

Additionally, I think the summary box is confusing since the different numbers refer to different groups. In particular Injuries = 2 includes a soldier who isn't part of the rest of the counts. I think a line should be added to show how many soldiers were involved in the rescue; I haven't done this myself since the external link source isn't clear (30 GSG9 + unknown number of SAS; and were they all actually involved in the operation on the plane?)

Lessthanideal (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Allegation of sorting out of Jewish passengers[edit]

This article in Le Monde claims that Joschka Fischer understood the importance of renouncing violence as a means to further political goals when he learned that the Mogadishu commando had begun sorting out Jewish passengers.

The article does not mention that. Are there other sources? David.Monniaux (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fischer is misunderstood by Le Monde, he commented the sorting that took place at the hijacking to Entebbe. SaRa (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
nevertheless the terrorists on the Landshut searched for jews. They just couldnt find any as German passports do not show religion. They threatened to shoot a woman which had a pen from the company Montblanc. The logo looks similar to the star of David. The terrorists were talked out of it by the captain.--85.180.22.154 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The "palestinian" terrorists searched for Jews, indeed. They intended to kill the Jews first. One woman was singled out by the leading hijacker in Cyprus - she possessed a pen of the the famous brand "Montblanc", which got a company logo that resembles a Star of David. Therefore he thought that she was a Jew, and threatened to kill her. The authorities of Cyprus, where the plane had landed at that time, gave in to the hijackers' damands following this threat, and so the plane was able to continue its journey to Somalia and the life of the "Jewish woman" with the Montblanc-pen was spared. I will look for a source later and include this in the article. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know there was also a man who has been "accused" of being a Jew by the terrorists because he had a watch from Junghans. The Junghans logo shows a capital "J" in a yellow star, one of the terrorists destroyed the watch. I heared this in a talk show, I will try to find some information on this. --Ragoro (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The man wearing a Junghans branded watch was the co-pilot Jurgen Vietor. He was castigated by Mahmud for owning a 'Jewish' product. He was ordered by Mahmud to destroy the watch by stamping on it whilst the aircraft was on the ground in Dubai.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Corbynz (talkcontribs) 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Alteration to date formats[edit]

Changing date formats to suit a particular regional preference is not typo fixing, have reverted, please discuss before editing.Daffodillman (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Translation of "Feuerzauber"[edit]

This has gone back and forth a couple of times between 'Magic Fire' and 'Fire Magic'. The later is the proper and correct version. The root of the word "Feuerzauber" is "Zauber", i.e. magic. The prefix "Feuer" describes what kind of magic this is, namely 'fire'. Therefore, 'Fire Magic' is the correct way to translate "Feuerzauber" and it ought not be translated any other way. This is from a professional translator, Alandeus (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with a good grasp of German grammar should know that the proper way of translating "Feuerzauber" into English is 'Fire magic'. Absolutely no need to reverse the word order here. True, there are also many references to 'Magic fire' out there, but they must have been perpetuated from a mistranslation. By the way, another, older meaning of "Feuerzauber" is 'fireworks'. Unfortunately there is no (more) reference on the official GSG site to this.

Unless someone has some compelling reason to the contrary, please leave the proper translation of Fire magic.

See also: Referenced book by Barry Davis: http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Magic-Mogadishu-Barry-Davies/dp/0747519218.

Some other encyclopaedic and reference entries, besides Wikipedia's own GSG 9: http://swat.frogoo.ch/germany/gsg9/gsg9.htm, http://en.allexperts.com/e/g/gs/gsg_9.htm, http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/GSG-9, http://www.bice.eu/gsg_9_en.html, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA427693&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf. Alandeus (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fire magic may be the literal translation into English of the German word Feuerzauber but it does not represent the correct Use of English. In English this would be spoken or written as Magic Fire. There is no real purpose served in being pedantic on this issue ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corbynz (talkcontribs) 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also stick to Fire Magic - as far as I'm concerned, the meaning of Magic Fire in German would be Zauberfeuer or magisches Feuer, but not Feuerzauber. Küchenkraut (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the translation problem is that some people think that "magic" respectively "zauber" is used as an adjective in the German word. Then for sure the translation "magic fire" is correct. But this does not catch the German meaning of "Feuerzauber" because this word is a noun composed of two single nouns, namely "fire" and "magic". So the correct translation ist "fire magic". Otherwise, if you translate it as "magic fire", the German translation would be "magisches Feuer". --> a German user on 30 May 2009, 14:16.

Translation request[edit]

I request the translation of this very well crafted image.

Danke schön.

--Nnemo (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Bold text== SAS led operation ==

On 9th March 2012 Sky News security correspondent Sam Kiley who has extensive links to the intelligence services over 20 years stated that for the sake of international relations West Germany was reported to have led the operation however the actual facts are the reverse, it was the SAS who lead the operation and GS9 who operated a rear flanking position. 82.31.236.245 (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? There were TWO SAS-men in Mogadishu: Barry Davies and Alistair Morrison. Do you think these two men stormed the "Landshut" whilst the GSG 9 "operated a rear flanking position"? It was never disputed by anybody that the GSG 9 alone was storming the aircraft! And about the question who was leading the operation: I would say that the men who are storming the aircraft do lead the Operation, or not!? Do you think you can "lead" such kind of Operations from anywhere but from the frontline!? And apart from that: Not even Barry Davies has ever maintained that the SAS was "leading" the Operation! If they would have led the operation, the Stun-Grenades (or Flashbangs) would have thrown INTO the airplane! The fact, that the Flashbangs were ignited OUTSIDE the airplane, under the cockpit window, is the most significant evidence for the GSG 9 leading the Operation, bescause the SAS usually preferred to ignite such grenades INSIDE of the aircraft (or building or whatever). But Wegener feared a fire, because of the high phosphorus content of the grenades. And he was right: Some years later the SAS caused a fire on board of an airplane they were using for storming-drills, because they were throwing grenades with very much phosphor INTO that plane. If the SAS would have led the Operation in Mogadishu, they would have done it on their own way, and they would have given a shit on the opinion of Wegener! By the way: Wegener was counselling the SAS during the Iranian-Embassy-Siege in 1980, like Sir Peter de La Billiere suggested in his autobiography. But although he never maintained that he did have "lead" the storming of the Embassy. In 1977 the SAS did have exactly the same kind of experiences with hijacked airplanes and hostage takings than the GSG 9: Namely none! I thought the Brits are the masters of understatement... Mmmm... And who the fu... is Sam Kiley??? He is a journalist, searching for sensational stories, that's it.

Wrong, it's actually all true, the British government released the documents following the '30-year rule', you can read what were Official Secrets at: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C11478984. There was even a Discovery Channel documentary, google it. Twobells (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
A Spanish documentary about the operation on YouTube here: [1] but not speaking Spanish myself someone else will have to watch it and see if its the same one. It does mention the SAS though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.223 (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
At the time in 1977 the West German government was specifically forbidden by the terms of the 1945 surrender documents and the then-current West German Constitution from carrying out any offensive military or similar activities outside the borders of West Germany. It would not have been legal under German Law therefore for GSG 9 to control the operation. If the operation was actually British SAS-led however they would not be breaking the terms of the 1945 and Constitution documents.
The post-1945 West German Constitution was specifically drawn-up to exclude the possibility of any 'legal' (under German Law) German military escapades outside German borders. The reasons why this was thought necessary ought to be fairly self evident.
By including such a clause in the Constitution it enabled opposition members in the Bundestag to possibly challenge any such military or similar operations by a sitting government as unlawful under German Law, which it had not been possible for previous oppositions to do before 1945.
At the time the British Army had since 1945 been involved in conflicts in Korea, Suez, Malaya, Brunei, Borneo, Aden, Radafan, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland, whereas the last time the German Army had been in action was in-and-around Berlin in 1945. So there were perfectly good operational reasons why the operation might be British-led.
Either way, Schmidt's government handled a tricky and difficult situation very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Zohair Akache ("Mahmud") was dead immediatly after being shot[edit]

Zohair Akache did not die "hours later". It was Wabil Harb who died later. But not "hours later", he died on the airfield. Akache alias "Mahmud" was dead immediately after being shot, he fell over the throttle control in the cockpit. There is a photograph, which is showing him at this position, published by the "Spiegel". The documentary "Todesspiel" is showing a photograph of Akache, who is dead and lying on the airfield, shortly after the raid.

Civilian killed??[edit]

The box below says that a civilian was killed in the operation "Feuerzauber". According to everything I know, there was no civilian victim, except one mildly wounded by a hand grenade. Maybe this alludes to the killed captain of the aircraft? But he wasn't killed in the operation, but had been killed by Mahmud way before. So, I think this is wrong and should be fixed. Otherwise, it should be added in brackets who this killed civilian was, because the information that most people have - including myself - is that there were three killed terrorists, one captured, one GSG9 man with a shot through his throat, and a woman injured by a hand grenade. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.237.70 (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Right - Number of civilians wounded corrected in table changed to match text. Alandeus (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm planning to re-write this article[edit]

The article about the hijacking of LH 181 is in dire need of a cleanup (to me, this looks like a complete rewrite is necessary). The main issues I can identify are:

  1. The two sections "The Lufthansa crew" and "Key German rescue personnel" need to go because they are a means of over-dramatization. Such a "list of characters" is something frequently found in drama texts, but not in an encyclopedia.
  2. I'd suggest the article to have it's key content organized in three sections: Background, Hijacking, Aftermath/Consequences (as I have been done at Lufthansa Flight 615). Currently, there is no background part at all, the hijacking part relies on comparatively few sources, and the aftermath section is completely unreferenced.
  3. That comparatively few sources used is a general problem. I'm currently working on compiling a bibliography of a much larger number of sources, including contemporary articles.

It may take some time (several months, I'd guess) to finish that work. Of course, you are all invited to participate. Any kind of input is welcome. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, you have my support - especially your first point made me wonder when I read the article. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You have my support as well. I agree with your analysis above. Zkbt (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lufthansa Flight 181. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lufthansa Flight 181. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the RAF? 50.43.39.82 (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)