Talk:2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Multiple versions of the same audio

From what I've found, it appears there are at least three versions of the same Turkish audio recording, differing by voice tone, pitch and background sound: BBC version, Euronews version and The Aviationist version. Were they sent from two different F-16, different crew members or there's some other reason? Brandmeister^talk 19:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: it wasn't the F-16 pilots at all, in fact. David Cenciotti here says: "Furthermore, it’s worth noticing that the entire “ambush” was monitored by the Syrian Air Defense and that, once again, the Russian MoD said that the F-16s did not make an attempt to radio the warning, but did not mention the GCI station that actually radioed the warnings." I have now added this detail to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Turkmen Factor Needs To Be Mentioned More

Even though the Russian jets had violated the Turkish airspace for several times and the jet had been shot because of it, another reason for Turkey's intolerance is the Turkmen factor in the Bayırbucak area. Turkey sees the Turkmens as a frontier checkpoint and has condemned Russia's attack on both Turkmen civilians and fighters intensely for the past 2 weeks. Turkmens advance after the jet's downing and a sub-section about Turkmen's history which dates back to 11th century and Turkmen's role since the start of the civil war and their role today needs to be created. See: Seljuq Empire, Seljuq dynasty, Syrian Turkmen, Iraqi Turkmen

I also think that Erdoğan's speech about the shootdown yesterday is necessary to mention, he said "Turkey and its allies are intended to clear the area from Mediterranean in the west and to Euphrates River in the east from all terrorist organizations and we will be side-to-side with our Turkmen brothers and brave rebel fighters until the end". Erdoğan 24 November 2015 speech stating the above-mentioned part

Just after this speech, Obama stated his support for Turkey's self-protection rights and criticised Putin for a 3rd time (this time openly) to fight with ISIL, not with Rebels and Turkmens, as the ISIL grounds are located more than 120km away from the Bayırbucak area. Obama supports Turkey's downing

This morning, after NATO also declared support for Turkey's self-protection right, stating "Turkey's reports about Russian violation are consistent with Turkey's rightful action", Erdoğan expressed that Bayırbucak area is free from Islamist terrorists and ISIL is more than 120km away from the region and again stating that Turkey and its allies will support the Turkmens and Rebels until the end. NATO stands in solitary with Turkey's decision

Turkmens are an integral factor now especially in Bayırbucak and north of Aleppo, on Euphrates-Mediterranean line, when compared with how Kurds advanced in eastern Syria(even though they exiled Turkmens and Arabs, burnt villages and destroyed homes as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reported), it is necessary to mention Turkmens more now.

Thanks. Berkaysnklf (talk), 10:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

See above.Lihaas (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Lihaas is blocking inclusion of this for reasons I don't really follow. But I don't really understand why. Your thoughts in the section before this would be welcome. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

See above. We can resolve this pretty quick.Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"a sub-section about Turkmen's history which dates back to 11th century and Turkmen's role since the start of the civil war and their role today needs to be created" ← this sounds like a lot of WP:COATRACK to me and I'm strongly opposed to it. People can click on the relevant linked articles and learn about this people's history, but it certainly doesn't need to be retold on this article about an aircraft incident. LjL (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed that.Lihaas (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe not Syrian Turkmen's history but their role in the Syrian Civil War and this event alone is worth a mention under a sub-section since they are on the focus lately and Turkey has recently stated that "Bayırbucak is bonded with Turkey with unbreakable ties."

Also, reports suggest that the helicopter was also shot down by Syrian Turkmen, I'm adding that part to the infobox with references. Berkaysnklf (talk), 00:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The information about the helicopter was already in the article body. I'm not entirely sure the infobox should contain very detailed information about the entire set of events: we have the actual article for that. LjL (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Turkmen are al Nusra/al Qaeda/CIA, right? --79.223.10.52 (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

weird graphic confusion

File:Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown_Syrian-Turkey_border.svg

Please fix this graphic -- it does not make sense! The red Russian line and the dark Turkish line tell a clear story. But the lighter colored Turkish line that loops back around across Turkey is just bizarre. Please remove it or add an explanation.-71.174.188.32 (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that the user-created graphic does not seem to tally wholly with the other three. The confusion is not helped by the fact that it shows one Russian version and two Turkish versions, when the three official graphics are for two Russian versions and one Turkish. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The graphics is based on a publication by the BBC as indicated in the image description. The initial Turkish report described two Russian airplanes. This version may be called "bizarre" but it has nevertheless been the official Turkish version of the event (see here). The graphics correctly describes the initial reactions. The official versions may later on have changed. --Furfur^{⁂ Diskussion} 10:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems that all later versions of events have only one Russian aircraft? I think the graphic may have been useful at the start, but has now been made somewhat unnecessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

As I think I may have said already, publishing as released all the multiple versions of all the maps all the participants have released is a bit rubbish. It would be preferable to refer to them and the differing claims they support, citing the comparison to reliable sources, with one decent summary map illustrating the competing claims. There are many editors here who could prepare such a map. I see we are down to three maps now from four, which is progress, but really zero or one would be the best number. --John (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Davutoğlu's order

Zaman presents a video where Davutoğlu said verbatim: "Bu gelişmeler eğer Türk hava sahasının ihlali sonucu doğurursa her türlü tedbiri alacağımız dile getirilmiş, o toplantıda silahlı kuvvetlerimize gerekli talimatlar bizzat tarafımca verilmiştir". Does it mean he issued the order to shoot down? The newspaper claims he did, I just want to confirm before adding this as Google Translate is somewhat ambiguous in this case. Brandmeister^talk 11:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No it does not mean that. The meeting was a few days ago from the action. It means that if any vehicle breaks the declared rules of engagement, all units can take necessary actions without the need of asking orders. This instructions are not for this specific case. Alicamci83^talk

Thank you for your explanation, Alicamci83. Might I ask, are you a native Turkish language speaker? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

Yes, i am. Alicamci83(talk)

That's useful to know. Nasıl Türk dilinde diyorsun: "senin üst simge metnini kapatmak unutma"? Teşekkürler! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC) (Sadece dört "tilde" işaretleri kullanarak imzalamak için genellikle en kolay).

Radio Incompatibility?

An important part of this story is that the Turks claimed to have issued several warnings to the Russian planes, and that the Russians claim there were no such warnings. This article http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/27/turkish-air-force-f-16s-ambushed-the-su-24-fencer-heres-russias-version-of-the-controversial-shootdown/ has a long description of the Russian version of events, but interesting commentary at the end: The radio channel used by the Turks was mutually agreed upon with the Russians but the Su-24 *could not* monitor this channel due to radio equipment compatibility issues! I want to add this to the article, but I feel that some feedback on where to add it, and if this can be backed up by a second source, would be important. Observer31 (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Add it to the article.Lihaas (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. I hope it's clear! I note that the analyst's explanation is at the bottom of the reference, but I'm not really sure how to indicate that in the reference format. Observer31 (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Good addition, it is pretty important factor. Also: In soviet Russia, radio listens to you. ViperFace (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

And maybe they choose the pilots from deaf people.Alicamci83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Without trying to act as a jury (or edit-war), the Russian Federation is part of the International Civil Aviation Organization which chose the frequency. A previous reference suggests the Russian military aircraft is incapable of receiving that frequency...which seems inconceivable to me (I can receive that frequency with a $12 antenna). Also, the quote in the referenced article seems awkwardly punctuated -- the statement, "the Su-24M is not able to monitor with the current radio equipment", is a statement by the author, and the owner of this self-described "blog site" from which is was taken, which does not seem to meet WP:RS standards. I have not seen any credible source indicate this particular Russian military plane was incapable of receiving transmissions on the Aircraft emergency frequency (maybe Janes says it's "optional equipment" for that model, but all that really matters is what that specific plane was equipped with at the time).

Can @Observer31: provide a reference that the Su-24M which was shot down "could not monitor [the guard channel]" on the internationally agreed upon frequencies? Velojareal (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Military fast jets don't often make do with "a $12 antenna"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC).

It is at the bottom of the article I used as reference (the bulk was the russian version of events, followed by commentary by analysis)Observer31 (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

My (sub)point exactly, if I can monitor something with a $12 antenna, why can't a multi-million dollar military government financed piece of equipment do it? Not the crux of my rationale, however (no credible source says that specific plane was not properly equipped to receive Aircraft emergency frequency). No Staw man, please. Velojareal (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: this topic also touched on above in "Recording of warning to Russian jet". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the radio capability is related to the questionability of a recording. Are you arguing the Turks never broadcast any warnings or that they weren't receivable by the Russian's equipment? Pick one. Although, this isn't a forum... Velojareal (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to pick one. They could both the perfectly true. And both perfectly valid for inclusion, if supported by sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I took the text out. The reference appears to be no more than a blog, and the claim made has no particular standing. As noted above, there's reason to think that the emergency frequencies for warnings were agreed on by various, including the Russians, which makes the claim not only poorly sourced but also implausible William M. Connolley (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's not at all believable that a bomber would "be unable" to tune to a simple, standard frequency... LjL (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This "just a blog" is the blog if David Cenciotti, an italian freelance journalist and well quoted expert on military aviation issues. He is frequently quoted by several media sources. Is he right about this? I don't know, I'm not an expert in Russian communication technologies. However, he does appear to be a reliable source. I will note however that it isn't quite clear from the way the sentence is written if he meant the "agreed upon frequency" or the guard/emergency channel Observer31 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"Frequently quoted" - Can you provide one or two such quotes, it may help support a WP:RS claim? Simply you believing he appears to be reliable does not meet WP:RS standards. Velojareal (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

When I said frequently quoted, I was writing this in good faith. The site has a page with all his news citation, which you can peruse here: http://theaviationist.com/newstand/ There are dozens, if not hundreds of quotes Observer31 (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There may have been more than one agreed upon frequency, but as a member of International Civil Aviation Organization, the Russian Federation agreed upon the Aircraft emergency frequency - which is one of the frequencies the Turks claim to have broadcast the warnings on. So it doesn't really matter since the Russians should have heard it on both (why agree to a frequency you can't receive, and why can't you receive the frequency the international committee Russia was a party of agreed upon). Velojareal (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Can someone tell us how many frequencies an Su-24 pilot and navigator can monitor at any one time? Simple question. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but it's likely two be no more and no less than two (one of which being the active frequency, and the other the backup frequency), like is usually the case with aircraft. LjL (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't even know if front and rear cockpit radio controls are independent, do we. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this should only be included if it's supported by a strong reference. It seems unlikely that Russia would agree to a common radio channel for aircraft with Turkey which its main strike aircraft in Syria can't receive, though stranger things have happened. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's mostly the point I was trying to make. Without reference to support a statement, the statement should not be made. So we cannot and should not say they were unable to hear something based solely upon a blog article. Specific, possible OR and common sense don't jive with the presumptions made here. That same $12 antenna I referenced earlier can pick up 100+ different frequencies simultaneously thanks to software defined radio. Velojareal (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Software defined radio?? I thought the Russian Airforce still used lightning bolts? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You keep calling it an "antenna" but if you're referring to the RTL-SDR that's not an "antenna", it's a pretty complex receiver. You attach an antenna to it, though... LjL (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, "receiver" is a better term for the entire item - although an antenna is included. Does it detract from my point? (Straw man). Funny/sadly enough, no one has offered a single WP:RS indicating the downed war plane was not capable of receiving an emergency message on the internationally agreed upon channel(s). WP:1RR Velojareal (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, using terms that aren't grossly incorrect might make you more credible, and being less combative about "sadly nobody has provided an RS" (about something that we're simply discussing as a possibility) might make people like me less likely to point out your errors in terminology. LjL (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I also proved that the author is highly cited. So it was a good source. And now we have an article from Janes.com which is *certainly* a valid source. So while it does seem ... peculiar... that a warplane can't receive some emergency signals, there are now two WP:RS backing this up. I'm adding it back to the article. Observer31 (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm just not seeing it, but can you reference where you proved the author is highly cited in response to this comment? Velojareal (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above: The site has a page with all his news citations, which you can peruse here: http://theaviationist.com/newstand/ Observer31 (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What about this short article? LjL (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU. Not only have we established that the original reference was more than "just a blog", we also have this. I'm going to reinsert this in the article, with this reference added. Observer31 (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

How does that article prove the plane that was shot down did not have that optional piece of equipment installed? I believe it is important to get the facts right. I also missed how the Jane's article proved the "just a blog" isn't a blog, when "The Aviationist is run by David Cenciotti (cenciotti@theaviationist.com), a journalist based in Rome, Italy, who launched the blog in 2006" is on their about page Velojareal (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

See above for evidence of Relevant source. You've asked the question I've answered it twice now. The Jane article doesn't establish relevance of source, it adds further evidence that the analyst's opinion had basis Observer31 (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You are correct however that we cannot be certain of the exact configuration of the Su-24's radio equipment. Observer31 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: "Contents of this blog/website may not be used without author's prior written permission." [2] Velojareal (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That's just a copyright disclaimer, it cannot have any more or any less legal effect than any other copyright disclaimer, or simply the lack of an explicit license (like Wikipedia's) to use material. WP:NONFREE. LjL (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know if theaviationist is really necessary with the Janes article (neither speak to this specific aircraft, just the model), but I wanted the mention the potential copyright conflict (I'm new here, please bear with me) Velojareal (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume we are talking about a single channel ("UHF GUARD") with a single i.e. military frequency of 243.0 MHz. I have removed the mention of the civilian frequency 121.5 MHz. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: re this edit, I don't think that's correct. 121.5 and 243 are entirely different channels, there is no such thing as "a single channel with two frequencies" (unless we're talking duplex radio). They just happen to both be used for emergency transmissions, in different contexts. In addition, the things I've read (and which we've discussed on this page) seem to indicate they had a third mutually agreed-upon frequency, specifically for Russian operations near Turkey (possibly because some Russian aircraft can't tune into 243, although that part is still speculation). LjL (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think there was a third frequency, and you have a source, then I think you need to add that very quickly. Otherwise the whole explanation is entirely confused and compromised. Or are you suggesting we re-add the civilian frequency?? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the source for my memories about this is among the ones we have discussed here, or the ones in the articles, but I'm not entirely sure which - I'll have to scan a few. But the thing is, while the Russian aircraft was probably only listening to a single "special" frequency (meaning aside from the ones they were using to talk to their controllers), it's normal for an emergency message like this to be transmitted over several frequencies that they could plausibly have been listening to. So I wouldn't be surprised if it had been broadcast on 243 and on 121.5 and and whatever special channel they had agreed on for the purpose... and in fact, this had been my understanding so far. LjL (talk)

Aircraft emergency frequency suggests this is possible, but is not entirely clear. A reliable source would be a good idea, I think - both for simultaneous transmission on VHF/UHF (was it only the UHF for which the Su-24 may not have had the required part fitted?) and for the agreed third frequency. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a link to the radio model which Reuben F Johnson says was fitted on the Su-24, in case you're thinking of buying one. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I thing you are trying too hard to acccept Russian's claims. Russians knew the Turkish side's precisions. But we talk about that if their radios were not capable to hear warning. Their air base can see the Turkish jets too. But you can question that their radars capacity. Maybe they couln't see Turkish jets or they saw but their radio was not capable to warn their pilots about the danger. Missiles can hit the targets with radar lock. But Russian jets may not have a radar to identify a radar lock. I wonder that how these damn Su-24s can fly wtih these rubbish equipments? Alicamci83 (talk)

Yes, I wonder too. Apparently, some of them never even manage to land safely. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Shootdown?

The word is downing. The title and lead sentence are so atrocious I am going to unwatch this article and come back to yell a wee more once I have stopped by the pub. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right. And in this case a specifica variant of that has been used --Errant ^(chat!) 21:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The title scope is too narrow. The pilots were killed by rebels after Turkish planes shot them down, and a Russian helicopter searching for the pilots was shot down by rebels later. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, "shoot-down" is common parlance in American English for the "act or instance of bringing down an aircraft by shooting at it." So I guess you either change the US variation of English or you deal with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, given this was between two non-US countries, far away from the US... (e.g. MOS:TIES). I'd be inclined to title it how Russian sources are referring to it. Just my 2p. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Which brings us to the shootdown." http://www.wsj.com/articles/turkey-shoots-down-a-paper-tiger-1448406008

Downing is a street, in't it mate? ;)

Kortoso (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're a cabbie, yes mate. But it's also a college, dontcha-know. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Shootdown is common American slang. It should not be used in an encyclcpaedia.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOVE then. However, I see that even US Congress Committees or US Information Agency use it. Brandmeister^talk 20:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

According to ODE, it's North American, but not "slang". On the other hand, "downing", while not North American, is classified as "informal". LjL (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again, we get the absurd "blame the Americans" argument. I have never heard the term shootdown before this article. "Downing", & "to down" are perfectly standard:

a few American and a Canadian press source for "downing"

Turkish President 'saddened' by downing of Russian plane but ... CNN-Nov 28, 2015

Russia and Turkey refuse to back down in row over jet downing In-Depth-Reuters-Nov 25, 2015

Tsipras Pokes at Turkey on Twitter Over Russian Jet Downing Bloomberg-Nov 30, 2015

Physicists from Belgium have used mathematics to show that neither Russia's nor Turkey's version of the downing of a military jet adds up. Story image for downing russian jet from Breitbart News

Lebanese Official: NATO 'Okayed' Downing Of Russian Jet Breitbart News-Nov 27, 2015

Russian jet downing boosts oil prices CNBC-Nov 24, 2015

Crude surges, as energy markets react to downing of Russia jet in ... Investing.com-Nov 24, 2015

Su-24M fighter jet is seen in flames in a mountainous area in northern Syria after it was shot down by Turkish fighter jets near the ... Story image for downing russian jet from Washington Post

Turkey remains defiant over downing of Russian jet Washington Post-Nov 30, 2015

The downing of a Russian jet fighter over Syria's airspace was undertaken by Turkey in consultation with Washington and Brussels. Turkey did ... Story image for downing russian jet from Eagle-Tribune Eagle-Tribune

Turkey said on Monday it will not apologize for downing Russian fighter jet last week on the Syrian border, as the Russian leader has rejected a ... PM: Turkey won't apologize to Russia over downing of jet Eagle-Tribune-Nov 30, 2015

On November 24, the Russian Su-24 aircraft was downed by an ... to an alleged violation of Turkish airspace by the Russian military aircraft. Kazakhstan urges Russia, Turkey to probe jet downing, restore ties Reuters-Nov 29, 2015

Story image for downing russian jet from Reuters Turkey downs Russian warplane near Syria border, Putin warns of ... Reuters-Nov 24, 2015

A U.S. official said U.S. forces were not involved in the downing of the Russian jet, which was the first time a Russian or Soviet military aircraft ... Story image for downing russian jet from The Nation The Nation

Turkish PM: No apology to Russia for downing jet Macleans.ca-Nov 30, 2015

BRUSSELS — Turkey's prime minister says his country won't apologize to Russia for shooting down a warplane operating over Syria that ... Story image for downing russian jet from Bloomberg Bloomberg-Nov 25, 2015

Russia said Turkey may have planned the downing of one of its ... Wall Street Journal-Nov 24, 2015

Russia has right to military response after jet downing: Naryshkin Reuters-Nov 27, 2015

And there's also 1880 ghits for "downing of KAL 007" Korean Air Lines Flight 007 but only 89 for "shootdown of KAL 007". "Shootdown" has to go. I suggest 2015 downing of Russian Sukhoi Su-24, although even "incident" as suggested below wouldn't be as bad as the current state of affairs. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I must say that μηδείς makes a very good suggestion here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC) ... before he gets harshly criticised

I still can not understand why this incident is called a "Shootdown". As far as I know, similar cases should be named in a similar way. As for this one, we have the "June 2012 interception of Turkish aircraft" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft) article which should be used as an example. I suggest "November 2015 interception of Russian aircraft" as the right title for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.133.91 (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, the noteworthy event is not that an aircraft was "intercepted", but that an aircraft was shot down - meaning that missiles were fired at it and that it crashed on the ground, regardless of what term you want to use to describe that. I am against merely calling it an "interception". I think that other article is poorly titled. LjL (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Grey Wolves, sources in English

Sources have been deleted again and again. The sources, which have remained are not being read. C'est la vie, right? May I try it this way?

Source Eng.!: http://www.ibtimes.co.in/syria-photos-alparslan-celik-rebel-leader-turkey-who-shot-russian-pilot-go-viral-656993 → "Alparslan Celik is the leader of the Syrian Turkmen brigade, which is supported by Turkey and he shot into the international limelight after he appeared in a video detailing the killing of the Russian pilot. He even showed-off some of the belongings taken from the Russian pilot, Lieutenant-Colonel Oleg Peshkov. [Read: Syria rebels rob dead Russian pilot] A graphic video posted online shows a gang member of Celik's group standing over the body of the dead Russian pilot, with his foot over the chest of Lieutenant-Colonel Oleg Peshkov. It is now being reported that Celik is a Turkish national and his father was the mayor of Keban municipality in Turkey's Elazig province. Celik, who has earlier appeared in numerous propaganda videos of his group, is also the member of The Grey Wolves, which is an ultranationalist group that has carried out several political assassinations."

Reuters Video, also on The Guardian: http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/11/24/turkmen-says-his-forces-killed-two-russi?videoId=366438602 / http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/nov/24/turkmen-rebels-say-they-shot-at-russian-pilots-ejected-from-downed-jet-video

Source Eng.!: https://news.vice.com/article/a-russian-fighter-jet-has-been-downed-over-syria → "One pilot is reported to be in the hands of anti-Assad rebels from the Alwiya Al-'Ashar group, Brookings Doha analyst Charles Lister told The Guardian."

Who is Charles Lister? see: http://www.brookings.edu/experts/listerc → "Charles Lister is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center. His research focuses on terrorism, insurgency and sub-state security threats across the Middle East, especially in the Levant. Recently, his work has been nearly exclusively focused on assessing the status of the conflict in Syria, especially the makeup of the anti-government insurgency and its various jihadi components. This has included a significant program of face-to-face engagement with the leadership of over 100 armed opposition groups from across the entire Syrian spectrum." He wrote The Syrian Jihad, Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Evolution of an Insurgency, 2015.

Source Eng.!: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russian-pilot-search-jet-shot-down-turkey-rebels-turkmen-syria-border-putin-assad-a6746436.html → "... Alwiya Al-‘Ashar (the 10th Brigade) are an FSA rebel group with logistical links to the US-Saudi-Turkey backed “MOM” operations room."

Source Eng.!: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/12013935/Who-are-the-Turkmen.html → "Accounts of whether both were hit and killed from the ground were disputed last night, with some Turkish authorities saying that both men were alive. That would certainly seem to be contradicted by the video of one of them, released by a Turkmen militia called Alwiya al-Ashar. As armed men surround the body - clicking away with mobile phones, the leader says: "The 10th Division has captured a Russian pilot, God is greatest." The chant of God is greatest - Allahu Akbar - is then repeated. [...] They historically objected to the Arab nationalism of the Assad regime’s Baath party, which stressed assimilation to the Arab language and culture. In turn, the regime has frequently regarded them as a fifth column working in favour of Ankara. Around a dozen Turkmen militias have formed, some directly supported by the Turkish government. It is one of these, Alwiya al-Ashar, that is reportedly holding one of Russia's downed pilots. They have been fighting alongside other rebel groups, including the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and more moderate brigades, in Latakia province which runs to the sea along the Turkish border in the north-west."

Source Eng.!: http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-3bac-Grey-Wolves-Fascist-Killed-Russian-Pilot → "THE rebel leader who boasted of murdering a Russian pilot shot down over Syria is a member of the Turkish Grey Wolves fascist paramilitary group. ... deputy commander of the Turkmen Brigade that shot at the parachuting crew of the Su-24 tactical bomber downed in a Turkish ambush — is a Turkish citizen from Elazig province. ... Mr Celik quickly claimed that his supposedly native Turkmen militia had killed both pilots. But Turkey’s Dogan news agency reported last year that he is a Turkish citizen whose father Ramazan was mayor of Keban municipality for the ultra-nationalist National Movement Party (MHP). The Grey Wolves is the paramilitary wing of MHP and has been linked to the murders of hundreds of left-wing and liberal activists since the 1970s. Celik Jnr has posted pictures of himself performing a Grey Wolves salute and his father reported last year that he had gone to fight “until martyrdom, if necessary.”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.55.47 (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Turkish Sources: Alparslan Çelik is a prominent citizen, born in Turkey, Elazığ province. His father, Ramadan Çelik, is even more prominent, he was the Mayor of Keban for the MHP party between the years of 1994-1999 and then again 2004-2009. Ramadan Çelik gave this interview on July 9th, 2014: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/mhpli-eski-baskanin-oglu-isidle-savasiyor-26773883 → Translation: "Ramadan Çelik affirmed that his son went to Iraq. ... “Yes, he is my son, and he is 32 years old. My son said to me: 'Dad, I’m going.' I told him: 'Go. You will fight until martyrdom, if necessary.' 'I am ready to go,' he replied” and he went. [...] Ramadan Çelik stated that he is proud of his son because of his decision."

This interview has been widely propagated: here, here, here here here here here here here here here et cetera.

And was even propagated in an English version: http://www.worldbulletin.net/haber/140416/iraqi-turkmens-fear-for-families-stuck-in-warzone → "Alparslan Celik, a Turkish national and son of a former mayor, has joined the Iraqi Turkmen front in the fight against ISIL forces. His father, the former municipal mayor in the ciy of Elazig and National Movement Party (MHP) member Ramazan Celik, shared a photograph of his son on the Iraqi Turkmen frontline. Saying that he was "proud" of his son, Ramazan Celik, who served the Keban district as mayor on two occasions between 1994-1999 and then again from 2004-2009, said that he too would join him if necessary. Ramazan Celik said he was aware of his 32-year-old son's intentions, and that he had encouraged him when he was told. "Our brothers there are in a hard situation. If we do not die for this nation and this flag what are we going to die for? My son said 'I'm going'. I told him to go and fight until he is martyred."

The MHP party, the Nationalist Movement Party (Turkish: Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi, MHP), has a "militant youth arm", "unofficial militant arm", and "paramilitary and terrorist wing" → ... the Grey Wolves. --91.10.55.47 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should write an essay? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Mutually agreed radio channel

Assuming our statement on mutually-agreed radio channel is correct, are there any sources explaining why, despite mutual agreement on radio, the Su-24 was not equipped with relevant radio? Clarifying this part would be nice. Brandmeister^talk 20:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

body in custody

[3] If i remember correctly the ritual was reported somewhere near this rebel group area (Aleppo?). I hope now they are more moderate. If so should we add background info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.32.55 (talk) 06:47, November 29, 2015‎ (UTC)

Russian map2

Remove also the so called 'Russian' map2 the discussion was swept under carpet because they are unable produce a legitimate link to this map source. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You can see the link that is the source of the map if you click on the file. It is right at the 'Source' line of the page File:Russian map of Su-24 shootdown by Turkey.png. That is how you see the source of any file on Wikipedia.--Orwellianist (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"Swept under the carpet"? You said: "I can agree on gibberish but the point is partially valid."? Martinevans123 (talk)

Do you mean this link http://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=1206668 ? Yes the link go mil.ru. Do not seem to be victim of domain hijacking. All looks good - but on this domain mil.ru the map2 do not exist. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Despite all, I am still going to assume good faith, and assume that your computer malfunctioned while copying and pasting that link and you did not deliberately tamper with it. The link is http://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12066682@egNews , and it is very easy to see for yourself that the image is taken from there unless you are deliberately doing this. Even the exact time for the frame is given. Now please stop disrupting the page and wasting people's time, IP.--Orwellianist (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You changed deleting part of my last post. This your link also do not show map2 (or similar to map2) located on mil.ru. Chck again the instruction you deleted on how to put get link to image. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC) The map is located on businessinsider.com and is earlier. That was posted by ip70 and deleted earlier.

You should click "submit" after you finished writing your reply, rather than submitting it and then changing it repeatedly, in order to avoid such problems. I have already spent enough time showing you the source, which was obvious in the first place. I don't have anything further to say; just avoid continuing to disruptively edit the article or you will be reported.--Orwellianist (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

IP9 - Good i apreciate. You did see for sure the two maps i show linked to in may deleted post. This is the point. O&M either way can't see it. The 'source' is faked and certainly the cut off map is not on mil.ru but on US server. 70.210.227.196 (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

it looks the contrarguments for deleting map2 are stuned and will not pop again. Perhaps insted of deleting this map it can be moved to new section =deception= or something like where all tricks how to full us around (not us but so caled public) are sumarized. For now deleting it is quick solution to improve the art.70.209.78.211 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

again/reminder/piont: the map2 is not taken from any '.ru' server but from us (.com) server which behind .ru control.

Removed Turkish map of the aircrafts' courses

I guess it is not against any rule if I point all interested parties to the following deletion review discussion
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 10#2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Turkey claim.jpg
Please comment there, if you have anything substantial to add. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer. I agree with the deletion and would support the removal of the surviving two Russian maps on grounds of WP:PRIMARY and now especially, WP:NPOV. It would be easy to produce a neutral non-copyright summary of the two sides' claims. --John (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@PanchoS: Thank you for the notification. Now it is listed at FfD; let me point all those interested to the discussion:

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 17#File:2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Turkey claim.jpg--Orwellianist (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Alleged Turkish arms supply and flow of militants

Is this addition justified? To me it seems WP:UNDUE. Perhaps it belongs at Turkey–ISIL conflict or at Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That conflict is very convoluted with lots of conflicting sources. You were correct in reverting the revision for WP:UNDUE; actually you gave it too much credit, it's not even valid. It is extremely speculative that US supplied Assad with quality intelligence and thus curbed terrorist potential or that Turkey armed extremists with modern weapons; it is debatable if such claims should even be mentioned in an encyclopedia as allegations, and the paragraph he added treats them as facts. Those sources can perhaps be utilized at Turkey–ISIL conflict or at Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War, but that paragraph doesn't belong anywhere, it fails WP:BALANCE, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:LABEL,...--Orwellianist (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Images

Why was File:2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Turkey claim.jpg deleted? And why have the others now also been removed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2015_December_17#File:2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown_Turkey_claim.jpg. A lot of that looks really very silly indeed to me; but then again I'm impatient of all that kind of drivel. The DRV apparently found replacement with File:Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Syrian-Turkey border.svg to be a Really Excellent Idea. They're idiots, but its better than nothing, and better than Russian-only William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I can never get my head round the logical problems in trying to understand, in retrospect, the arguments over deletion, when they say "compared to x". Unless one has kept a local copy of the image (in case to was deleted) or has a very good pictorial memory, the arguments become largely meaningless. I must have missed the useful warning on this Talk Page that the image was up for deletion? Although in this case the statement "This map isn't depicting a geographical area, it's depicting a flight path" seems to miss the point entirely. However, the argument for deleting one was that another one did the same job? Now we are left with none. The bulk of the argument seems to have been that "another one just like it could theoretically be created." But is anyone actually going to create one now? In my view the competing images were vital to an understanding of how the Russian and Turkish "viewpoints" differed, as well as showing graphically where the incident took place. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What we have left appears to be the homemade SVG. I've added that for the moment. Anyone who doesn't like it, go tell the DRV folks William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Nah, you wouldn't want to open a closed discussion, would you? After all, the image has already been deleted. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Real crash site?

How come it hasn't been figured out yet? It should be placed in the description if a reliable source can be found. It would shed some truth to the validity of the paths marked on the map. 84.248.139.33 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV issue with the current map

The map should be removed because while it fails our neutral point of view policy as the treatment of the two side's claims is biased in favour of Russia. The map and our article both show two distinct paths that Turkey and Russia have respectively claimed were the flight path of the plane which lead to two different crash sights. The map then labels the Turkish crash site as "claimed", but marks the place where the Russian-claimed flight path ends as "Area where Su-24 crashes", which would indicates to readers that the Turks are lying about their claims and that the Russian claim is the truthful one. If anyone can point to a reliable source that the crash site has been definitively located, and it's the Russian claimed site, then the map can stay, otherwise, it should be removed per our neutral point of view policy.

Hi. I see what you're saying. I looked at the Commons history, and it appears another editor made a good-faith change to the image from the original that added the hit site and crash site, as claimed by Russia. Since that is still disputed and I can't find reliable sources that go one way or the other, I reverted the change on Commons and I recommend the original Commons author re-upload as a derivative work (since there is substantial modification that makes it represent information quite differently than the original versions. Now the image simply says Russian and Turkish claimed crash sites, which seems to be much better in terms of a NPOV standpoint. Appable (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK the map is neutral now. Thanks! ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151124152949/http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2015/ba_97.html to http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_1_basin_aciklamalari/2015/ba_97.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

significiance of this line

Erdogan announced in an interview that the two Turkish pilots who downed Russian aircraft were arrested on suspicion that they have links to the Gülen movement. And that a court should find out "the truth".[140]

did anyone noticed this ? TWO pilots. since f-16 is one seat fighter it will mean that two planes were involved (contrary to previous info of only 1 plane involved) OR that training wersion of f-16 was used, which will be even more interesing since training planes are armed with live amunities extremly rarery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:9198:E50E:54E:D0CC:5F3C:1BE1 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

See also