Talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Aviation / Aviation accidents (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.
WikiProject Poland (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / History / Politics and law (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Disaster management (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Death (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.


New government policy section[edit]

Shouldn't we try to keep a resemblance of chronological order? The subsection about the change in policy of the new government can be upgraded to top-level section, if felt necessary, but it should really stay after the 'Subsequent investigations' section, otherwise a reader going through the whole article is going to lose the plot. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have "Subsequent investigations" section -- especially so far down the outline -- and it makes no sense to have all the petty stuff under the "Investigations" section, let alone a "New Government" section under "Subsequent...". The whole current scheme is a mess difficult to follow and confusing in terms of what's there and what has happened. It used to be a decent outline, which was logically organized and easy to follow. We need to revert to the old version again, but I don't have the time right now to make sure that all the updates are in proper places.Thebiomat (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The work of the L&J parliamentary commission took place largely after the official investigations (and the L&J report has been published years after the official ones), and you say that it makes no sense to title that work "Subsequent investigations"? It seems pretty elementary to me. What "petty stuff" are you talking about, exactly? if it's that unimportant, feel free to delete it altogether from the article; I won't object. If you are objecting that the L&J commission's work should be placed in a more prominent place in the article simply because you think that it's important, then it's not a good reason (aside from logic, because of WP:UNDUE).
The current structure of the article is broadly thus: crash → official investigations → reactions and aftermath → everything else that occurred afterwards (including parallel investigations and new political developments); sounds pretty logical to me. There will be inevitably some chronological overlapping between some sections, but that's hard to avoid, in an article this complex.
Which old version are you referring to, that you want to revert to? that version won't contain all the stuff that has been added subsequently: new sources, new conservative government policies etc. --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
There were different investigations and some of them were "after" other, while some of the other were "before" some. You can also say that some were "earlier" and some were "later". Now, when an investigation is concluded its members draft a report, which is "subsequently" reviewed and approved. Get it? There is no real "subsequent" between two different independent investigations, even if one is earlier and the other is later. You could insist on saying it this way but it's clumsy and has the wrong connotations (and even the associations don't feel right). However, that's semantics, and I was not even eluding to that, but rather to the fact that in total there were just several investigations and that they should be all listed as subheadings under one heading to be transparent and easy to follow. The fact that one was earlier and another was later is obvious from the dates, and it is implied by the order of the subheadings. As far as I am concerned you can even have the liberty of pushing your agenda by starting a paragraphs with something like: "After MAC of 2010, two years later, in 2012...." if this is what it takes for you to appreciate that one committee operated latter in time than the other. Again, you don't understand the Wikipedia rules: UNDUE is not about how much vertical separation there is between different headings, or about how many destructing topics are between sub-topics of the same subject, but about the extent of detail description and about not glorifying or emphasizing any subjects beyond what their significance may reasonably dictate.
The logical organization of the article should be that all investigations, as project organizations, are in subheadings under the heading of "Investigations", and different causes should have headings under the heading "Causes". The problem is that the original version of the article was design with having just one process of investigation in mind under the heading of "Investigation", and that is awkward now with the other investigations in the context. However, if that structure were to be kept, then a still reasonable version was at the end of December 2013. Having the organization as it is right now with "Investigation" listing a Committee, Actions, Recorders, etc., and then section Causes with two committees subheadings, and then Notable... and several headings further "Subsequent investigations" with subheadings of committees, is self-contradicting, and totally incompetent from both editorial and contents points of view, and it evidently looks like deliberate sabotaging of the information transparency.
The "Conspiracy theories" section is useful; however, it needs to document instances of such claims not someone's value systems. This section needs to maintain NPOV; and therefore, it cannot side with any parties one way or another. It is desirable to document, for example, that: XX called YY a "conspiracy theorist", but it is not acceptable to write "YY is a conspiracy theorist (see XX)". The same goes for describing the various hypotheses or theories instead of the people. Finally, for the future, there is also a need for a section with "Active Measures and Disinformation" where we can document various efforts of hiding, or distorting, information relating to this subject in various media and by different government officials as well as by biased journalists and trolls. Thebiomat (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I recognize and respect the fact that Deeday is very sceptical as far as independent investigations are concern. However, I'm leaning more towards agreeing with Thebiomat. Current structure of the article is due to be updated to reflect present time knowledge. I think very soon the new Polish government will call an official investigation void anyways. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Even if the new government launches a new, formal investigation (which hasn't happened yet, as far as I know), it won't make the official investigation by the previous government "void"; the two inquiries would be both equally official, from Wikipedia's point of view. When that happens and a new official report is published, the article could have the information from the two investigations placed in two sections titled "First official investigation" and "Second official investigation" or something along that line. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
They’re all “official” and everyone can count: first, second, etc., but if spelling out the redundant “First”, “Second”, etc., or even "first official government...", ..., makes Deeday happy, I don’t care (maybe even there is some value to it...). However, I will repeat again that as a matter of simple tractable and transparent NPOV arrangement, all investigations should be listed consecutively under the heading “Investigations”.
The section “Causes” in theory should be arranged by different types of possible causes, but due to the huge range of theories (including “conspiracy theories”, “coincidence theories”, “wild guess theories”, and even “denial theories”--that nothing has happened in Smolensk…), the arrangement by RS identifiable groups is probably the most parsimonious, NPOV, and responsible. At the same time since the “Investigations” would already list all the RS identifiable groups and their findings, the text under “Causes” subheadings should be kept minimal to avoid repetitions and be consistent with the UNDUE principle. So, in conclusion, the most important thing to do right now is to reorganize the information under the main heading of “Investigations”. Thebiomat (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the section “Investigations” should contain only subheadings with different investigations, including the investigations by the Parliamentary Committee, the Smolensk Conference investigation, and the German investigations, but the new Polish government investigation should not be there, because we don’t know if it is for real or if it is just a talk. Acskian (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
No, they are not all official. When it comes air accidents, an "official investigation" is normally intended as carried out by the competent state authority, like the NTSB in the US, and in this case the MAK and its Polish equivalent KBWLLP. It could be argued that the Law & Justice commission is somehow an official body, since it constitutes a parliamentary group, but the Smolensk Conference definitely is not one, since it's an initiative independent of the state authority (even if the Polish president sends them letters of good wishes). Obviously anything the current government produces through its offices will be official. And where does this "German investigation" come from, Acksian? Are you talking about Roth's book? you must be having a laugh, if you say that it should be given the same weight as the official reports.
This listing of all investigations under a single section might be clearer to you, Thebiomat, but I bet a lot of readers, not just me, would find a broadly chronological order clearer, so such a major rewriting of the article would require a substantial consensus. Plus, far from being required for NPOV reasons, putting all together the official investigations with the alternative ones, and all the theories that you mention, may well break WP:UNDUE.
One thing I agree is that the current 'Causes' section is entirely related to the official reports, so it would probably make more sense for it to be a sub-section of the current 'Investigation' section, rather than a section in its own right. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, then, so in a cryptic symbolism:
Investigations
Official government investigations
MAC
Miller
Parliamentary
Other independent investigations
Smolensk Conference
Whatever else is there (if any)
Causes
MAC and Miller
Parliamentary and Smolensk Conference
Other (if any)
OK now? MAC is first, Miller second, Parliamentary last in government section, lower section has the conference, etc., and the Causes are grouped by types of causes and presenting them individual committees. The MAC and Miller causes are identical, and the P & SC have some overlap and can be described together.Thebiomat (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a sneaky attempt to circumvent WP:UNDUE. To list the Parliamentary Commission alongside the two official investigations gives it undue weight (and it's definitely not a government investigation); the former two are official acts of the state bodies responsible for investigating air accidents, per ICAO rules; the latter is the initiative of an opposition party (as was Law & Justice), with a strong political interest and no recognition outside its own circle of supporters. Furthermore, reserving a section for the Smolensk Conference would only serve the purpose of promoting it, since it hasn't produced anything that is not already contained in the work of the Parliamentary Commission, and it could be just mentioned in that section, as it is now.
There is nothing substantially wrong with the current structure of the article, which also has the advantage of presenting all the developments of the story in a broadly chronological order. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. 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 to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I was not able to confirm the second link.Thebiomat (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Nor me, appears to be a 404 error or similar. Mjroots (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)