Talk:Smolensk air disaster/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

A Russian official told Reuters anonymously that ...

Who is this official? Anonymously? Conspiracy theories are aplenty. Can we do little better than this and stick to the FACTS? Doomed Soldiers (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Make the change and move on. Not everyone who edits the article is familiar with all Wikipedia policies. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the troubling aspect of this entire conversation. I am being accused of disrupting, while in fact it is the furthest thing from the truth. I would like to see this as a collegial endeavour. So far, my comments were received as being disruptive. I genuinely don't know why. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How could you "top" death?

"The crash was one of the deadliest modern disasters in Polish history." What kind of a word is deadliest? Deadly is an absolute adjective - either something is deadly or it't not.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. The word has been changed to "worst".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cant actually see what was wrong with deadliest as it infers that it was fatal, worst could be just a bad day. I have more of a problem with modern as it is undefined as I am sure that other disasters in the 1940s would still be considered as modern by some. MilborneOne (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The it depends what you mean by a "disaster". The list which is linked compares the crash to various mining accidents, not to acts of war. In terms of deaths in Poland, the crash would barely register: the average death rate can be quickly estimated at about 1500 Poles every day. How about we just remove the sentence? Physchim62 (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The entire sentence "The crash was one of the worst modern disasters in Polish history" is of questionable value to the WP:LEAD, and could be moved to a "see also" link without any great loss.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, "deadliest" refers to the number of victims. --Illythr (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. 'Deadliest' is accurate. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But I'm a great believer in having 'size and scope' in the lead: highest mountain, oldest book, deadliest crash.-Chumchum7 (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is likely to be one of the worst transport accidents/disasters in all Europe 'for some time.' Jackiespeel (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You can write about a high / higher / the highest death toll. But dead remains dead, never get's any deader nor deadest. Use words that do exist; "deadliest" just doesn't – because (FYI) "deadly" is an absolute adjective.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You may need to expand your vocabulary a bit, then. --Illythr (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To include the absurd at the cost of common sense? Hardly.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Common sense disagrees. --Illythr (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Common misconception may. But even widespread usage doesn't necessarily equal correctness, much less style. Whether you like it or not, some adjectives just don't admit intensification, such as "supreme", "infinite", "liquid", "extinct", "unique", "perfect", "pregnant", "dead" etc. Why not apply a bit of logic?—Dvd-junkie (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that those are scholarly sources, not random blogs or forums. It's hard to apply logic when you call something that is listed in all modern dictionaries a "common misconception". But okay, let's try again: You are aware of the difference between "dead" and "deadly", yes? A corpse can't be deader than the dead, so to speak, but one catastrophe can be deadlier than another, because it kills more people. And, uh, while we were arguing, the sentence was removed altogether, making the process rather silly. Therefore I suggest to add any further points to a user talk page, mine or yours. --Illythr (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Need for restraint

This is getting out of hands. The incident is presently under investigation. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to exercise some restraint. This article should be either scaled down (please see my comments above) or deleted until the circumstances of this tragic accident are known.

I think that we are all forgetting that this incident remains under investigation, and therefore (provided we want Wiki to be perceived as an accurate and impartial source of information) all that this article should state is: 1) The date and time of the incident, 2) Number of casualties, 3) The Plane Involved, 4) The Purpose of its flight, 5) and the fact that It remains under investigation. Everything else on this page thus far remains a speculation. This is not a news reporting and or news analysis website where all sorts of things get tossed into the same bag. Unless this is scaled down, it should be immediately deleted, because it doesn't make anyone of us look to bright. Can we please show some restraint and decency towards the victims and their families please? Doomed Soldiers (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: Deletion was already discussed once. Also, an expert has been requested to go over the article. So long as the information contained within the article comes from reliable, third party sources it's inclusion is warranted. Restraint however is definitely needed. Nothing is listed as the "cause" of the accident. The most widely reported theories are included and the initial reports from the authorities regarding pilot error are listed at the top. It will probably be a year or two before the cause of the crash is officially announced. Until that happens, all we can do is what is being done. If anything, the theories other than pilot error can probably be deleted. N419BH (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Until the investigation is completed by THE BONAFIDE EXPERTS who are presently investigating the cause of this incident, most of the content on this page are news feeds from various sources and not from the officials investigating this tragic incident on the ground. Until then the only thing we can state with outmost certainty is:

1) ) The date and time of the incident 2) Number of casualties 3) The Plane Involved 4) The Purpose of its flight 5) and the fact that It remains under investigation.

These are the only FACTS we know with a high degree of certainty. This should not be a rumor mill. Can we please show some restraint and decency towards the victims and their families please? Doomed Soldiers (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Partly agree. The media has backtracked on the claim that the plane hit the antenna (non-directional beacon), so it is still early days and things could change. However, articles can always be updated to include new evidence. The article as a whole meets WP:GNG. Proposing deletion at WP:AFD would probably not be successful.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that the section "Initial theories" is to speculative and I thought about paring it back (especially VIP syndrome is highly speculative) and also I wanted to shorten "Instrument landing system incompatibility" and "Technical failure", but I decided against doing so, as the official report of the Russian/Polish commission will be released soon and then we will par it all down anyway. BUT to propose the article for deletion is rude, impolite and unacceptable! If User:Robert Warren has a problem with the article, then the talkpage is here to discuss about these problems! I am ready to discuss a paring back of the "Initial theories", but a deletion request is ridiculous and in my view disruptive and provocative! Therefore, do not do it again and please propose here, how to change the article to improve it! thanks, --noclador (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The "initial theories" section could be renamed to "Early hypotheses" ;) The fact that media sources are backing down on some of these hypotheses is evidence that we DO actually know more than the five simple facts listed by Robert Warren. We have photographs of trees with damaged crests or branches, we have a high-resolution satellite image of the location of the debris, we have photos of an intact antenna... If we waited until we had all the facts about a subject before commencing an article, then Wikipedia would be very small indeed! We can be certain that more facts will come out, but that doesn't prevent us from mentioning the information that is already available. Physchim62 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Tenerife airport disaster occurred in March 1977, and the official report was not published until November 1978. 1-2 years is normal for a full crash investigation, and some of the initial theories about the Polish crash may turn out to be wrong. So although Robert Warren went about it the wrong way, he has got a point.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"An expert has been called?" And where exactly is this expert, on the ground? Sifting through the evidence? Interviewing witnesses? Analysing voice data recorders? I am all in suspense, and can't wait to hear what this "expert' has to say. Give me a break! Doomed Soldiers (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please keep it civil and assume good faith. N419BH (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make any edits which could be perceived as uncivil. What I believe is happening here is that we are turning this place into a tabloid. My understanding of Wiki, and please correct me if I am wrong is that we don't indulge in analysis, but provide Verifiable information. I am going to submit this article for Deletion once again. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is still fairly fluid at the moment. Generally, editors have been editing in good faith. I remember a similar situation when British Airways Flight 38 crashed at Heathrow. That article now has a section titled "Speculation". A possible solution here? Mjroots (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion

Opening Paragraph: "The cause of the crash is under investigation. According to preliminary reports, the pilot attempted to land at Smolensk Airbase in fog which reduced visibility to about 500m." I would like see what follows go away until we have further information: " [...] [6] ignoring the advice of the ground control to divert to a safer airport in Vitebsk, Minsk or Moscow.[7]" Reason for suggestion: This is all still very fluid, and even if we assume that they indeed "ignored the suggestion", in my view, it implies that it was a major contributing factor for the crash. It may or may have not been the reason for the crash. We don't know that yet. Chumchum, can you live with that? Further to my point, and it isn't going to sound poetic, since the air traffic controller's ass is on the line we should approach his statements cautiously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 03:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that the whole communication between the flight controller and the plane was recorded, it would be incredibly stupid for the flight controller to lie, so to me it seems pretty clear that we should believe him. Anyway, this is Wikipedia, where are not supposed to play investigators and judge who is credible and who is not. Hundreds of sources now state that the pilot ignored advice from the ground and the article must include that information at this stage. Sourcelat0r (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The release of the transcripts of conversations between the crew and the air traffic controller is right around the corner. Can we approach this cautiously? We are not judging him, we are approaching his statements with caution. That's all, nothing more. You are absolutely right. These conversations were recorded, and we should know shortly what the content of these conversations was. No, we are not playing investigators, at all. We also don't know what their finding are. All I would like to see here is balance. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Many people around the world were strongly affected by this crash and crave information about it. Wikipedia should provide that information, and it has unique capacity to do so. So I don't agree with the argument that we should wait until official investigation findings are released to write about things which are discussed in dozens of reliable sources. I agree that caution is useful, but I think we already are quite cautious.Sourcelat0r (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Done: Using "Ignored" appears to place blame on the pilot and therefore violates WP:NPOV. The advice from the controllers to divert the airplane is already included more extensively and more appropriately in the "investigation" section of the article. Placing this information in the introduction is inappropriate at this stage of the investigation. N419BH (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Satellite photo of the crash area

There is an aerial photograph of the crash site available at the Gazeta Wyborcza website (with greater magnification than on free sites such as Google Maps) - perhaps the photo can be transferred to Wikipedia under the CC licence? The link: http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/3/7765/m7765863.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.145.91 (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear whether the satellite photo would meet the fair use requirements.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wyborcza attributes it here [2] to the DigitalGlobe [3] site. Arguably it is well worth acquiring, because their photos are current, as opposed to being delayed (the Tu-154 remains will be long gone before Google takes their photo). 83.7.145.91 (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)83.7.145.91 (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added the crash site photo as an external link. This allows people to look at the full size version without any worries about copyright.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I've also managed to trace the photo published by DigitalGlobe under the Creative Commons license (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic) on the Flickr website here: [4] It would seem that Wyborcza editors have trimmed some of the (arguably irrelevant) parts from the original photo. Unless that wing-like white object lying across the road (at the 5th hour, earlier on the Tu-154 path) is also part of the crashed plane... in this case having an unedited image seems rather valuable... 83.7.145.91 (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic volcanic eruption

The news is reporting that the Polish memorial for the aircrash may be poorly attended by international VIPs because of the Icelandic eruption's dust disruption for air travel...

70.29.208.247 (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Smolensk Airport

Are there any reliable sources explaining why Smolensk Airport was not used and whether the weather conditions were the same as Smolensk Airbase? --Espoo (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any. However, as far as I can tell from satellite photos, the two airports are very close together; about 10 miles apart on opposite sides of Smolensk. The weather was most likely the same. Also, the airbase appears from satellite photos to be a much more substantial airport. Security at a military airport would most likely be more robust as well. However, I have no official source on this matter. It is an interesting question, if someone can find a source to more properly answer it. N419BH (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the flightglobal.com source below, the airbase was decommissioned last year and now serves as the sole airport. N419BH (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The other airport is much smaller, with a runway only 1600 m long (compared with 2600 m at the military airport). That's too short for a Tu-154 to land on safely.Sourcelat0r (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the article below, the southern airport was closed when the former airbase opened to civilian traffic. N419BH (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I see it (tangibly) different and I had it explained at another talk-section above based on two Russian newspaper articles from past (before this happened). My point is that XUBS airfield had been NOT used for anything serious after military airbase closed 16.10.2009 and from my POV this flight destination had been improperly planned (they should have been either flying to more reliable airfield or not flying at all).silpol (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

unused reliable source

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/16/340631/questions-loom-over-disastrous-polish-presidential-flight.html and http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2010/04/the-polish-accident.html are from a reliable source apparently not yet used. --Espoo (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional Sources

Interesting read in the "USA Today" pertaining to the "Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS)". http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-04-13-fog-plane-crash-poland_N.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC) This article introduces some very interesting questions (not answers). Would anyone object if we included this link in the "External Links"? Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Terrain awareness and warning system has its own article, and this is an interesting development. If the plane did have a device of this kind, it would lead to further questions about why the crash occurred. No reason not to use the link in the EL section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Those systems are designed to automatically desensitize when the aircraft approaches an airport. Otherwise, the pilot would get a warning every time he or she tried to land. The CVR tape will tell us whether it activated or not. There is also an override switch in the cockpit that will turn the unit off. This is used to prevent nuisance warnings in unusual situations. Depending on the system, a non-precision approach might be considered an unusual situation. Let's look for additional sources on the matter. N419BH (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nearly a week on, things are if anything less clear than they were immediately after the crash. Short of committing suicide, it would have to be assumed that the pilot and co-pilot were unaware that they were about to hit the ground. The altimeter would give the height, but would not have told the crew that they were about 1 mile short of the runway. This image shows the cockpit of a Tu-154 and its controls, but I'm not an aviation expert.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

According to what I read, it appears that this very crew, and this very plane had landed at this very airport around 2 to 3 days earlier. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In the article Scent of Shale Gas Hangs Over Katyn in The Moscow Times, Yulia Latynina says: "...Putin and Tusk landed at the same Smolensk airport just three days before Saturday’s crash to participate in their own Katyn commemoration ceremonies. For their arrival, special navigation equipment was brought to the Smolensk airport to provide additional safety. It is possible that this equipment was removed before Kaczynski’s plane landed. That would add even more fog to the mysterious crash." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufferer44 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Icelanding eruption

Ash from the eruption has been causing major disruption in air traffic: it has been stated that the Polish authorities are considering delaying the funeral so that visiting dignitaries can fly in.

And as for the Georgian film mentioned above - such coincidences are going to occur occasionally (as with the story in which the Titan sank after hitting an iceberg, written years before the Titanic). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

TU-154 Instrumentation Panel

Would anyone have a closeup photo of TU-154 Instrumentation Panel? Was it labeled in Russian or in Polish? Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is one from 2008, before the plane was overhauled . link I can only make out Latin alphabet. Sourcelat0r (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is another one, which also shows flight manuals (in Polish) [5]. Still, a good pilot would have wanted to know Russian to read them in the original language. Sourcelat0r (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that quiet a few dials/gauges are labeled in Russian. I'd love to see hi-rez version of this photo. Thanks! Doomed Soldiers (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's not a standard TU-154M instrument panel at all. Looks like the FMS units and some of the instruments are labeled in English; the panel itself is in Russian, and the manual is in Polish. The pilots are required by international law to know English; as are the controllers. However, none of them are required to speak fluent English, only ICAO English terms. A prudent pilot would want to know Russian in order to fly a Russian airplane, but whether he did or not is a matter under investigation. N419BH (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the Russians have insisted that the pilot was competent in Polish, Russian and English, and was aware of the layout of Smolensk air base, having landed there previously. It looks like some of the questions will remain unanswered until the official report becomes available, which could be 1-2 years.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that some of the instruments are labeled in Russian, one would think that at least competence in Russian would have been necessary to operate this aircraft.Doomed Soldiers (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The pilot, who was 36, would have learned Russian all through elementary school and high school before 1989, so sufficient knowledge to at least read flight instruments is pretty much guaranteed. Sourcelat0r (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The commemorations of Katyn have been occurring pretty much every year for the last two decades and the pilots of the 36th regiment had quite a lot of experience in flying to Smolensk airbase. I can even imagine that the regiment felt some pride in being able to regularly fly highest government officials to an airfield with such primitive navigational infrastructure as Smolensk. It's hard to imagine US Air Force One ever doing something like that, for instance. I wonder how many times Protasiuk landed there himself. He did on April 7, possibly as second pilot on that trip. Maybe it was the extensive familiarity with the airfield which actually led to overconfidence and hence a crash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcelat0r (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That is actually a very good point, and might have something to do with the apparent though unconfirmed descent below minimums without the runway environment in sight. Also, from the satellite images discussed above, it looks like the airport might have an approach light system, possibly an ALSF-1 or similar. Anyone know of a website with russian approach plates on it? There are several for the United States, but I don't know about Russia. N419BH (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI: There is already some controversy and questions pertaining to the "presence" and then "absence" of ALSF-1 (or similar) system at the airport at the time of the accident and thereafter, including photographs. I will refrain from elaborating further on this. All I can and should add is that such controversy does exist. The investigation proceeds; let's wait and see. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

My guess is when the base closed as a military field in October last year a large number of navaids were removed or allowed to deteriorate, as navaids are expensive to maintain and the airport's traffic might not have warranted their continued operation. Jeppesen probably has the plates, but they're copyrighted and I can't find free Russian equivalents. Guess we'll have to wait for the investigators on this one, unless someone has a worldwide Jeppesen account and is willing to look up the plates. N419BH (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear that Smolensk (until recently a purely military airbase) would have publicly available plates somewhere online. It only became (partially) a civil airport in October 2009. Sourcelat0r (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If the airport is open to civil traffic, Jeppesen should have plates for it. Otherwise Poland would have had to specifically request the plates from Russia. N419BH (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Speech That Never Was

It was recently published by "TheNews.pl" (http://www.thenews.pl/national/artykul129342_president-kaczynskis-last-speech.html):

“Dear Representatives of the Katyn Families. Ladies and Gentlemen. In April 1940 over twenty-one thousand Polish prisoners from the NKVD camps and prisons were killed. The genocide was committed at Stalin’s will and at the Soviet Union’s highest authority’s command.

The alliance between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the Soviet attack on Poland on 17 September 1939 reached a terrifying climax in the Katyn massacre. Not only in the Katyn forest, but also in Tver, Kcharkiv and other known, and unknown, execution sites citizens of the Second Republic of Poland, people who formed the foundation of our statehood, who adamantly served the motherland, were killed.

At the same time families of the murdered and thousands of citizens of the eastern territory of the pre-war Poland were sent into exile deep into the Soviet Union, where their indescribable suffering marked the path of the Polish Golgotha of the East.

The most tragic station on that path was Katyn. Polish officers, priests, officials, police officers, border and prison guards were killed without a trial or sentence. They fell victims to an unspeakable war. Their murder was a violation of the rights and conventions of the civilized world. Their dignity as soldiers, Poles and people, was insulted. Pits of death were supposed to hide the bodies of the murdered and the truth about the crime for ever.

The world was supposed to never find out. The families of the victims were deprived of the right to mourn publicly, to proudly commemorate their relatives. Ground covered the traces of crime and the lie was supposed to erase it from people’s memory.

An attempt to hide the truth about Katyn – a result of a decision taken by those who masterminded the crime – became one of the foundations of the communists’ policy in an after-war Poland: a founding lie of the People’s Republic of Poland.

It was the time when people had to pay a high price for knowing and remembering the truth about Katyn. However, the relatives of the murdered and other courageous people kept the memory, defended it and passed it on to next generations of Poles. They managed to preserve the memory of Katyn in the times of communism and spread it in the times of free and independent Poland. Therefore, we owe respect and gratitude to all of them, especially to the Katyn Families. On behalf of the Polish state, I offer sincere thanks to you, that by defending the memory of your relatives you managed to save a highly important dimension of our Polish consciousness and identity.

Katyn became a painful wound of Polish history, which poisoned relations between Poles and Russians for decades. Let’s make the Katyn wound finally heal and cicatrize. We are already on the way to do it. We, Poles, appreciate what Russians have done in the past years. We should follow the path which brings our nations closer, we should not stop or go back.

All circumstances of the Katyn crime need to be investigated and revealed. It is important that innocence of the victims is officially confirmed and that all files concerning the crime are open so that the Katyn lie could disappear for ever. We demand it, first of all, for the sake of the memory of the victims and respect for their families’ suffering. We also demand it in the name of common values, which are necessary to form a foundation of trust and partnership between the neighbouring nations in the whole Europe.

Let’s pay homage to the murdered and pray upon their bodies. Glory to the Heroes! Hail their memory!”

Doomed Soldiers (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

All very interesting, but proper to the Kaytn massacre article. Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource, rather. --Illythr (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

rework begun

I suggest to rework the "Initial theories" section along these line:

First

First I suggest to delete the Technical failure section and move the relevant information (that the plane was fine) to the Investigation section under a new title and with the following text:

The Plane

The aircraft, a Tupolev Tu-154M, construction number 90A837, was manufactured at Kuibyshev aviation plant (No. 18) on 29 June 1990 for the Polish Air Force. It was one of two Tupolev Tu-154s that served as official government jets; this aircraft—with a tail number of 101—was for presidential use, while another—marked 102—is used by the prime minister. The aircraft had undergone a major overhaul in December 2009 and Aleksey Gusev, the head of the maintenance plant that carried out the work, told Polish TV that it should not have had technical problems. The airplane had received a 5-year/7500-flight-hour warranty after the overhaul yet the crash happened after just 138 flight hours.

Aircraft was equipped with TAWS (Terrain Awareness and Warning System) and FMS (Flight Management System). TAWS warns whenever Aircraft comes to close to ground. FMS can determine Aircrafts horizontal and vertical position based on gps, radar altimeter, barometric altimeter, gyrosensors, radio navigation aids.... Although there was no ILS at Smolensk Airport, this equipment should have helped the crew to know about Aircrafts position (including height) with accurance similar to ILS System.

BUT: Smolensk Airport is not in EGPWS Database. Without Airport Data the system warns when aircraft comes to close to ground (e.g. below 500 ft). It can be assumed the Crew inhibited TAWS to avoid siren and vocal warning during approach.

Sources:

TU-154 had been equipped with a Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS) made by Universal Avionics Systems of Tucson: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-04-13-fog-plane-crash-poland_N.htm

EGPWS Database: http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/Products-Services/Avionics-Electronics/Egpws-Home3/Database.html?c=21

for FMS Equipment: Forum Threads and Cockpit Pictures only

--Mb63 (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Second

As second part of the rework I suggest to edit half of the VIP passenger syndrome section away and put the remaining paragraph last in the section Investigation:

Both Polish and Russian investigators have now concluded, on the basis of black box recordings, that the pilots were not pressed by anyone to land the plane. link So maybe this section should be removed completely or, even better, moved into new Discarded theories section. Sourcelat0r (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been some speculation in the press, that the planes pilot was under pressure to land in Smolensk in spite of the averse weather conditions. These speculations were linked to an earlier event in August 2008, when another pilot of the 36th Special Aviation Regiment was pressured by president Kaczyński to land in Tbilisi during the South Ossetian war between Georgia and Russia. During that incident, Pietruczuk was asked by the president's staff to change the flight plan and land in Tbilisi. After consulting with the commander of his unit, Pietruczuk refused, justifying his decision by safety concerns. He was then visited in the cockpit by Kaczyński himself, who tried to convince him to change his mind. Kaczyński later told journalists: "If someone decides to become an officer, they should not be cowardly". Nevertheless, Pietruczuk held his ground and the plane landed in Azerbaijan as planned. A few weeks after this incident Pietruczuk was decorated by the defense minister for following correct procedures in this case and keeping the safety of his passengers utmost in his mind. Pietruczuk continued to fly the president's plane after the incident, even after Kaczyński expressed unhappiness with his performance during the flight to Tbilisi.

Third

Thridly I would shorten the Instrument landing system incompatibility section, rename it and definitely delete the "may be using" part and put the resulting section directly under the the section "The Plane"

Technical Installations at Smolensk Airport

Smolensk Airbase, a former military airbase now in mixed military-civilian use, does not have a Western style instrument landing system (ILS). A non-directional beacon system (NDB) is installed at the airport, but such a system can be used only for a "non-precision approach" to the runway, as its antennas are situated on the opposite ends of the runway and thus give only basic directional information about a landing planes position relative to the axis of the runway. As it is a navigational aid, not a landing aid, it remains the crew's responsibility to keep track of the planes altitude.

this edition looks professionally edited yet slightly not matching reality in next items/facts

• if you bother and search with Google news _in_Russian_ newspapers by keywords "Смоленск северный" (smolensk northern) within range 01-JAN-09 ... 01-APR-10 (i.e. before crash) , you will find this Аэродром «Смоленск-Северный» осиротел from 16-OCT-09 and this Военный аэродром "Северный" в Смоленске будет принимать гражданские грузы from 28-JAN-10 links - they are both online versions of relatively respectable printed media in Russian, and one positive thing is that they contain facts not "adjusted" towards "necessary version". So first fact is - regiment is gone 15.10.2009 and airfield went frozen/hibernated, guarded with авиационная комендатура which means extremely reduced guard and almost defunct navigation. landing and communication. Yes, you have read it right - it had been NOT in condition for safe flights as we know them for civilians in western world.
• airfield and environment had been designed and built for MILITARY purpose only - expecting to have there any tools to make life of westerners easier is naive. This place designed to make them on distance (in peace) or dead (in war), if you need it straightforward. Edition "does not have a Western style ILS" gives reader impression that ILS could have been possible there - that's plain wrong. PLEASE RE_EDIT to make reader sure - it should be NAIVE to expect ILS there.
• Those two articles above - in October 2009 they only hypothetically discuss possibility for civilian use "Мы знали еще в декабре, что нас реорганизуют, только сроки были неясны. Увы, с переходом армии на новый облик и не только нашу часть сократили. Мы обращались к губернатору с ходатайством о сохранении аэродрома «Северный», но ответа не получили.", and in January 2010 they had only started red tape to be done "Администрация Смоленской области подготовила и направила в профильные министерства концепцию развития военного аэродрома "Северный" в Смоленске и его использования в интересах гражданской авиации." ... "Если правительство России разрешит принимать на аэродроме "Северный" гражданские грузы, мы сумеем в кратчайшие сроки привлечь инвесторов для строительства грузовых терминалов и иной необходимой инфраструктуры." In other words, there's NO mixed use of this strip, no western infrastructure, and why BOTH aviation authorities Polish and Russian has allowed these flights - is BIG question mark (for me).
• Now, this is not exactly about airport/airfield ... yet - on one Russian aviation forum I had seen notes that cockpit view of PL101 (available on airliners.net or another public place) has been showing western navigation-and-landing tools already installed and nothing mentioning traditional Soviet tools for that (which could be used on Soviet military airfields too). Unfortunately I hasn't bothered yet to check it myself, hence this is not proven fact. But _if_ it is fact - it means that PL101 flew towards its destiny _without_ adequate environment (granted what could be on receiving side at XUBS), and they could only land at own luck. Why many parties from both sides were silent while should have bbeen whistleblowing - not clear. This version/hypothesis needs analysis and study wrt to airfield and PL101 equipment. silpol (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fourth

Fourth I propose to entirely remove the Language problems section, save for two sentences and put these two into the new investigation section "Airport and pilot communication" (see point 5)

Fifth

last but not least I think that the Air traffic control advice ignored by pilot section can be half the length it is now (and without the Mirosławiec air accident) and this section I would place just ahead of the "Plane" section:

Airport and pilot communication

The Polish military said that the pilot in charge of the flight Arkadiusz Protasiuk knew Russian perfectly, as it was essential to his job as a pilot, given the Tu-154 was Soviet-built and all aircraft manuals were in Russian. Protasiuk landed in Smolensk 3 days before the crash, when he was part of the crew brining Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk to the April 7 ceremony, and at the time no communication problems with ground control were reported.

According to the news agency Interfax, the pilot was told that Smolensk Airport was enveloped in thick fog and strongly advised against landing, but still he decided to continue with the original flight plan to Smolensk and attempt a landing. The controllers in Smolensk did not declare the airport closed, which would have forced the Polish plane to divert elsewhere, fearing that this would cause a diplomatic incident. According to the interview given by flight controller Pavel Plusnin and retransmitted by Polish TVN, it was suggested to the pilot that he land at an alternative airfield and Moscow or Minsk where suggested. However the pilot said, that he would attempt one approach, and if landing were not possible, he would then divert to another airfield.

Alexandr Aleshin, the First Deputy Chief of the Staff of the Russian Air Force, said that during the ensuing runway approach the plane increased its descent rate and went below the glide slope 1.5 km (0.93 mi) from the runway. Controllers instructed the pilot to abort the approach; when he did not, controllers advised the aircraft to fly to one of the suggested alternative landing points. This order was repeated several times but the crew continued with the approach and crashed.

• The reason for my suggestions are simply that we the know known facts some theories can be discarded and that theories are just theories and I believe it would be better to put it all on a sounder, less speculative footing. All constructive comments are welcome. --noclador (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agree: That sounds much better and is much more concise. N419BH (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agree: old stuff needs to be phased out anyhow. Pressure on the pilot seems to be obsolete as well, as no evidence of such pressure was determined after examining one of the flight recorders. --Illythr (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Added all the suggestions above safe point 2, as User:Sourcelat0r is right about the VIP pressure theory. However - since the part of Kaczyński and the pilot on the way to Georgia is well sourced and interesting - should we fork that out into its own article??? --noclador (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. I thought about that myself, but then was not sure whether the incident was notable enough to merit its own article. But maybe now it is. Sourcelat0r (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok- lets do it! What name do you suggest? I would go for 2008 Polish Air Force flight to Ganja as this was the destination of the flight as planned ([6])--noclador (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Sourcelat0r (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok- if no one else jumps to do it today; I will create such an article tonight. --noclador (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

References

a talk page with references

cross section of flight path

Can someone with some aviation expertise tell if http://picasaweb.google.ru/Amlmtr/MWzNeJ#5460739341125857778 is correct? Part of interpretation here: When the Tu-154 hit the first tree it was flying at altitude 245 m AMSL, 10 m below THR elevation! Clearly the crew attempted to use RA to get as low as possible like 50 m AGL, but forgot the rising terrain. The second impact with another tree which cause the left wingtip to be broken away happened when after the crew started desperate climb-out. The altitude was 255 m - exactly the same as THR elevation. --Espoo (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's someone's secondary work and isn't sourceable for this article, but if it should pan out it explains a lot. Further investigation is necessary before we put any of that in the article. --N419BH (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Burial at Wawel

Wawel is a very important place for Poland's history and national identity. Burials there, rare as they are, always have political meaning and are thus accompanied by some controversy. This is also the case now.

The first part of the following sentence, is directly contradicted by sources: "Reportedly on the demand of Jarosław Kaczyński[65], Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz decided that Lech Kaczyński would be buried in the Wawel Cathedral, a burial place reserved for people considered to be heroes of Polish history."

At the moment it is unclear who's initiative it was. It was variously announced that it came from the archbishop of Cracow Stanislaw Dziwisz, from the government and/or family. This confusion may be due to issues with assuming political responsibility or due to wishful thinking in various media. Some media opposed to both Lech and Jaroslaw Kaczynski (notably Gazeta Wyborcza) interpreted the mention of "family" to mean "Jaroslaw Kaczynski" (a former prime minister, now the leader of conservative opposition). Gazeta Wyborcza was the main voice in the protest against the burial of Lech Kaczynski and Maria Kaczynska in the Wawel Cathedral - putting the responsibility for that move on Lech's brother (a politician surrounded by strong emotions and having a large negative electorate) is one way to make this decision seem less legitimate.

In fact, it seems that the family wished initially for a burial in Warsaw, and just agreed to Wawel when presented with this option. This is reported (in Polish) e.g. here, here (basically the same agency news on two newspaper websites), or here. Even the Gazeta Wyborcza piece given as the source of the sentence in question denies an initiative from Jaroslaw, putting the responsibility on his entourage instead.

Please, someone not restricted by semi-protection edit this sentence.

87.204.115.57 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Reportedly on the demand of Jarosław Kaczyński[65] You are absolutely correct. I can't believe we all missed that. This absolutely is nothing more than Spinning this story.

At the moment it is unclear who's initiative it was. Absolutely correct. I haven't seen anything out there that would suggest otherwise. Some media opposed to both Lech and Jaroslaw Kaczynski (notably Gazeta Wyborcza) interpreted the mention of "family" to mean "Jaroslaw Kaczynski. Agree. I am also surprised that various media sources, and I will paraphrase this, contend that there are some sort of "mass protests" while in fact all it is is a demonstration of 500 or so individuals. It should be noted, that unlike the period of 1944-1989 where such protests would be met with beatings, or its participants would "mysteriously disappear" this little demonstration was never meat with such measures. If one was to give much credence to these reports, we would be lead to believe that "Poland Is Protesting", or something equally silly. Thanks for pointing this out! Doomed Soldiers (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks Eraserhead1! You beat me to it!

Service

I removed the statement: While up to 1.5 million people had been expected at the public funeral service on 17 April 2010, only about 100,000 turned up at the Piłsudski Square. While referenced, it is clearly wrong, since the funeral service is tomorrow in Krakow, so the Swiss journalist writing the article must simply be confused. Sourcelat0r (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it was just a mistranslation: the source meant "memorial service" not "funeral service". Physchim62 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Edit

While Polish commentators saw Putin's participation in the April 7th ceremony as a symbolic gesture, they were touched when Putin and Tusk paid tribute and laid flowers at the site of the plane crash. Tusk knelt and briefly hid his face in his hands, then stood up as Putin patted him on the shoulder. The two hugged, then gave a mutual press conference on the investigation into the crash. Polish commentators noted this was a human gesture, and a display of emotion that Poles had longed to see from their eastern neighbours.[90] On Sunday, holding a bouquet of red roses, Putin is said to have appeared genuinely shaken as he escorted Kaczyński's body to a plane to be flown to Warsaw. And in words that were said to have touched a chord with ordinary Poles, Putin said in a Polish television interview: "This is of course first and foremost Poland's tragedy and that of the Polish people, but it is also our tragedy. We mourn with you".[83]

There are portions of these two paragraphs that should be rewritten. While I have nothing against "hugs'n kisses" this should be more concise. I don't think we need to embellish things in order to accurately state them. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask to change link to sattelite photo

External link to satellite photo of site should be changed to this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitalglobe-imagery/4515204703/sizes/o/in/set-72157623846125450/ . Present image, hosted on gazeta.pl, is trimmed from flickr's Digitalglobe photo and are not showing all of the plane parts. In addition, gazeta.pl broke license, deriving photo from Digitalglobe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackCray (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Funeral of President Lech Kaczynski and Maria Kaczynski

I have seen some sources reporting 100,000-200,000 mourners, and others reporting this number to be significantly higher. Can anyone shed some light on what this number was? Thanks. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Polish media claim there was 150,000 mourners on the Market Square and 100,000 in the Błonia Park, which gives 250,000 mourners in Krakow. Beevvy (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

These numbers should not be added. According to the source you give, 150,000 is the total number of mourners in Cracow, including Błonia. 150,000 would not even fit within the Cracow Market Square (200 by 200m, this time additionally limited by security considerations). There are more detailed numbers of participants here (in Polish).87.204.115.57 (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This information belongs in the President's article, not this one. --N419BH (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree on principle, please note that we were, and still are citing, what (at least earlier) was purported to be a boarder-line "revolt", in this paragraph, which turned out to be, well, not exactly that. We made necessary edits to reflect that in the article. We also corrected the fact that the choice of burial of president Kaczynski was in fact a choice accepted by the family rather than a dictum by some "conspirators" out there. We also corrected that. We also made necessary corrections pertaining to the "language" issues which were alleged to have been major cause of this incident. These turned out to be less than accurate. The article presently reflects that as well. Now back to the original point. We are citing number of demonstrators (a marginal number at that), but not the number of those who participated in the funeral. I don't think it is balanced the way it is. Don't want to arbitrarily edit that before some feedback, but it should be edited nonetheless. Can anyone provide few additional sources that would allow us to narrow this number to something more precise before the edit is made? Thoughts? Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I say remove the demonstrator and funeral information from this article entirely. It belongs in the President's article, specifically the article on his death. This article is about the accident. Although a general statement on reaction is prudent here, funeral details belong elsewhere. A "see also" at the top of the reaction section of this article is appropriate. --N419BH (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

unused reliable source

This and this are examples from a reliable source apparently not yet used. --Espoo (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The second source is a blog and therefore isn't reliable. The first source is interesting, but I believe we already have the information covered and sourced. If you find any other good sources post them here. Thanks! --N419BH (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"It [Smolensk]

""It [Smolensk] " - it should be changed to Katyń. When Polish people (including Kwaśniewski) say it is a cursed place, they mean Katyń forest, and not Smoleńsk. The fact that Katyń is near Smoleńsk does not change the fact that Polish people think first of all about Katyń and not Smoleńsk. See also similar opnion by Lech Wałęsa: http://wyborcza.pl/1,75968,7753298,To_Katyn_nr_2__Jestem_zdruzgotany.html

Has this been done? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Language/silence confusion

According to major Fiszer, well-known Polish military pilot, who actually knows what he is talking, there are different radio procedures in East/NATO. For NATO tower continuously reads information to the pilot, who remains silent. For East tower reads information and awaits repetition from pilot. Alleged "Poor Russian command" and lack of read-back may stem from the fact that tower expected a different reaction from the pilot. Source (in Polish): here

Is this useful? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue with "similar accidents"

There is a mistake in the mentioned section. The aircraft accident in Mirosławiec in 2008 was by all means Polish - just take a look into its article. Therefore I request for correction by someone with the rights to edit this article.

Has this been done? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Long View

While there will be 'flurries of activity and discussion' come the report(s) and the Polish Presidential election, at what point can the article start looking at the event as it is - and start the section on 'the mid- to long-term significance? Thus, for example, some newspapers and journals are discussing how it will affect Polish-Russian relations (towards more cooperation, rather than hostility).

Given that 'fog and trees' and 'communications malfunctions' seem to have been significant contributing factors in the accidentj, there seems to be limited opportunity for any actual conspiracy. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, the chances of a conspiracy seem small. The thoroughness with which aviation accidents are examined,(and this one will likely be examined in excruciating detail by multiple safety authorities) would seem to make it a poor choice for an 'assassination', especially if the wreckage is recoverable ie crash on land. I doubt whether the people possibly involved would have the expertise to be so subtle. Occams Razor (simplest solution is usually the correct one) would suggest that a simple accident is most likely. Of course anything is possible, even the unlikely! The accident report may make interesting reading. On the other hand, it could be very boring and mundane!

Longer term ramifications are hard to see, time will tell --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Reality has never stopped any conspiracy theorists. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Reality is presently under investigation. At this point, we know that the crash occurred, and that there were victims. We also know that somebody said this and that to somebody else. Some stories have changed thus far on more than one occasion. No official and IMPARTIAL report has been thus far issued. Don't jump to conclusions prematurely, it is still too early to know what the reality is. 'See here: Impartiality Doomed Soldiers (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

All we can add right now is what we find in reputable third party sources. It's too early to draw any conclusions as to the cause of the accident itself. It certainly seems like a CFIT/improper descent below MDA/Pilot error accident, but there are other possibilities like altimeter system error, fuel considerations, and inoperative ground equipment that could have something to do with the accident. As for long term implications, we need to wait a few weeks and see what happens. For now, if you see something important that isn't covered in this article, place it and your source here. I strongly caution against editing the article itself without a discussion on this talk page. --N419BH (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Thank you! Doomed Soldiers (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I rest my case. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not understanding my point. I'm an aviation professional; I work in the industry for a living. I've read over 100 different NTSB reports on everything from Cessnas to 747s. The first thing you will discover regarding aviation accidents is there is always a chain of events. I fully believe this is a CFIT accident. What is unknown is the chain of events that led the pilots to fly too low. Were they improperly relying on radar altitude? Did they have their barometric altimeters set correctly? Were they using GPS for supplementary guidance? I can think of 25 reasons why a crew would fly too low. These must all be investigated before we can come to any sort of conclusion. All we can say for now is the plane flew too low, hit the ground short of the runway, and the black box revealed no mechanical problems with the airplane (The black box doesn't monitor every system by the way). The biggest mistake people make when reporting aviation accidents is jumping to conclusions. --N419BH (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So the sword-wielding skeletons of those who died in Katyn Forest weren't involved? Cheers, Randy in Boise 11:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah uhhh...no. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I've just seen a great number of airplane accidents turn out to be far more complicated than initially thought. Case in point: United Airlines Flight 232. --N419BH (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure they are; fragile aluminium tubes at high speed in the sky. I recall an airline pilot once saying that we've really no business up there. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

found it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with N419BH. To give another example, see the Mirosławiec air accident (summary details from avaition-safety.net): to me, it seems spookily similar to what might have happened in Smolensk, but the one thing we can say for certain is the causes won't be exactly the same! Physchim62 (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, China Airlines Flight 611. That's a great example. An airplane disintegrates in mid air. Initial reports suggest terrorism, but it turned out to be caused by faulty maintenance from a hard landing many years earlier. --N419BH (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting story. Mostly, China Air is ok; I've flown them wo/incident. Garuda has had some interesting mishaps, too. Trying to land at 410 km/h is not recommended. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

N419BH, I think *I* understand your point. ;-) --OpenFuture (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

N419BH would it be possible for you to outline what goes into such investigation? I think it would be greatly appreciated by all. Well, maybe not by all, but most certainly by most. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I could write a whole article on it. However, I'd need sources as all I have is personal knowledge and original research. (and no, I'm not an accident investigator myself, I just have a passion for it) --N419BH (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Accident analysis is a start, although brief. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

For us non-aviationists what do CFIT etc mean? I was making a logical deduction based on the information in newspapers/on the news (and 'the historical context having an effect' is an assumption with some plausibility): and 'maintenance issues' might be a factor (see the FCO advice on the subject [7]). And turning the conspiracy theory argument around - what would the various possible involvements get out of destroying that plane in that particular context, with all the repercussions that would ensure? (A parallel might be Archduke Franz Ferdinand going to Sarajevo on a politically sensitive date.) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

CFIT = Controlled flight into terrain. It will be interesting to see how this event influences history, but of course we can only go by reliable sources. As for a conspiracy, if I'm not mistaken a revelation that Russia somehow perpetuated the crash would result in war, (or at least BIG PROBLEMS), between Russia and NATO countries, as Poland is a member of NATO. That fact makes a conspiracy quite unlikely (at least one where Russia is guilty). Fletcher (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone please confirm this? http://forum.pravda.com.ua/read.php?2,208092586,208092586 The link appears to be dead. Content below:

Под Киевом убит тот, кто снял первое видео на месте катастрофы под Смоленском. Гражданин Фильм, который уже каждый может видеть, автор этого фильма Adrij Mendierej, который был вырыт нож под Киевом 15 Kw.2010 он был в ужасном состоянии в больницу в Киев, где на 16 апреля двое неизвестных людей odłączyło его дыхания. J снова вырыли ему 3 раза ножом. Андрей умер 15.03 часов по московскому времени 16 апреля 2010 года.

Doomed Soldiers (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, please translate. Mjroots2 (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick'n'Dirty translation: "The individual who was the first to record the video of the air crash near Smolensk was murdered near Kiev. [This] film [video] can be seen by all ; the author of this video, Andriy Menderey was stubbed near Kiev on April 15, 2010 […] he was in the hospital in Kiev where on April 16th, two unidentified individuals disconnected his breathing apparatus. He was stubbed additional 3 times. Andriy [Menderey] died at 3:03 P.M., Moscow time, on April 16, 2010". Absolutely, under no circumstances do I know, or claim that this is indeed the case, nor do I suggest in any fashion whatsoever that it indeed happened. Can anyone confirm this incident DID or DIDN'T take place? Andriy is purported to be the individual who allegedly recorded and uploaded to the YouTube video of the crash scene where sounds, of what appear to be gunshots, can allegedly be heard immediately after the crash. This video was widely circulated on YouTube. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Such a story would seem impossible to "confirm". The major news agencies have correspondents in Kiev, the alledged incident happened four days ago, and yet nothing from any serious journalist. Plus one to the lists of sick speculation, as far as I'm concerned. Physchim62 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if true, this sounds an awful lot like an attack by common criminals (perhaps an armed robbery, or some kind of revenge attack for some real or imagined past wrongdoing). Just because a journalist happens to have been murdered, doesn't make it an attempted cover-up. Clear skies to you 24.23.197.43 (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The 'what negative results would arise' argument can be used with many conspiracy theories to good effect (eg Soviets/Cubans/Mafia and the assassination of John F Kennedy). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My original comment here was in response to a comment since moved about conspiracies. The evidence as presented seems to indicate 'bad weather, bad communications and bad overtones of the place' as being significant factors in what happened (and the investigation will consider the likelihood of 'bad maintenance'). Could the 'gunfire' be components/stressed metal/stressed wood exploding?

With such events there is a tendency to assume that 'more than merely bad luck and bizarre accidents' are involved, even if such things seem to be the most plausible reason. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence is pointing towards crew error. There seem to be similarities with American Airlines Flight 383, which also descended below the runway elevation before crashing. I think that the Russians are due to make a preliminary statement sometime today. Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Approach map

If anyone is interested, here it is link. It would be nice to make a graphic out of it. Sourcelat0r (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That is very, very interesting. We'd have to convert it to graphic form and translate the text to English before placing it in the article. Also, we need to confirm if that is the approach the crew was using. I wish I could understand more but I don't read or speak Russian. Thank you so much for finding it. --N419BH (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what the crew used, but it is very likely. I can make out some words but I don't have enough aviation knowledge to understand the chart. The interesting part is the glide path diagram in lower left, which shows the positions of the two NDB antennas, and the heights which the plane should be at over each. As the plane struck the trees around the closer antenna, where the proper height is given as 70 m, the plane thus was about 50 m lower than it should have been. Sourcelat0r (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to be careful there: if we take the correct altitudes at each NDB antenna as altitudes above the runway, which seems logical to me, then the aircraft was about 80 m too low. The terrain at the closer NDB antenna is about 30 m below the level of the runway. Physchim62 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Very good point. Now, is mistaking your altitude by 80 m something that could happen easily, or would it require a major mistake by the crew and/or catastrophic equipment failure?Sourcelat0r (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, take a look at our brief article on controlled flight into terrain... it doesn't need anything major or catastrophic to occur, although there is usually more than one thing that "goes wrong" to lead to a fatal accident. Physchim62 (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, this diagram suggests that the decision point for the pilot (to abort a landing if landing strip is not visible) is over the NDB antenna closer to the airfield, i.e. 1.1 km away at altitude of about 70 m (note the upward arrow suggesting aborting the landing visible at that point in the diagram). I wonder how these numbers compare to those for other airfields in the world. Could these numbers be lower because it was a military airfield, so that safety standards were not as stringent as for civil aviation?

Anyway, the aircraft made contact with the ground right at the decision point, which suggests that for some reason the measurement of altitude which the pilots were using was off by 50 m or so (at the minimum). Sourcelat0r (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that's the proper approach plate. The 70m minimum seem very low for a NDB approach. I would expect 70m minimums to be more akin to an ILS approach. A NDB approach or dual NDB approach would have minimums more in the 150m range. Then again, I'm used to U.S. law and minimums. Maybe Russian minimums are lower. The chart does however indicate the presence of an advanced approach light system, possibly an ALSF-1 or similar. Could someone with a knowledge of Russian translate? --N419BH (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Page needs lock?

Page needs locking again. This ridiculous edit was up for about 30 min. Thus Wikipedia contributed, if only a little, to spreading an insane conspiracy theory. Sad, really. Sourcelat0r (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –xeno^talk 20:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There was an article on Yahoo news about Russian cooperation in the investigation - can someone link up.

No Russian politician/military/other would be insane enough to do as the edit suggested given the likely extreme consequences.

Could the OR referred to above be 'done and placed somewhere suitable' so that the rest of us can be enlightened? (This would be useful in other contexts generally). Jackiespeel (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

non-standard location of beacons

http://www.thenews.pl/press/artykul130342_search-for-cause-of-smolensk-disaster-continues--.html --Espoo (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this is true, it may have contributed to the crash, but was unlikely to be the main cause. During NDB landing the plane is supposed to stay at a safe altitude until the pilot can see the runway, and then judge whether he can land safely. You are not supposed to drop below safe altitude based only on NDB information. Sourcelat0r (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "standard" for NDB placement. It all depends on the terrain and runway alignment. Typical arrangements are one NDB on the field, one NDB at the outer marker for an ILS, or one NDB at the outer marker and one NDB at the middle marker. The final option appears to be the case here. Nevertheless, the placement of the markers should have no bearing on the safety of the approach. It's the pilot's job to fly the approach in accordance with the published procedure. That simply didn't happen in this case. Exactly why is currently a matter under investigation. --N419BH (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

International response merging

Thanks to someone's brilliant idea to merge the reactions back here, the article is now 136 KB long, with approximately 60% of it being taken up by one section. Guess a split is in order? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The info should either be deleted or placed into its own article. Either that, or it should be shortened to about 5 sentences. --N419BH (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is meant to be merged in a way where the content size is reduced. --Kslotte (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion was already ruled out earlier, and as a result this material was merged with this article. This should be placed into its own article. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion has not been ruled out. The list of responses is not notable, and can be deleted. It also has various other problems, as not being exhaustive etc. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed that this twaddle is included. It's simply not noteworthy.BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that the closing message reads "...merging seems the most agreeable solution based on the discussion once the article has been sufficiently condensed." I suggest to undo the merge and sufficiently condense the article first. --Illythr (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added {{prune}} tags and suggest heavy cutting of this dross. About 99.44%. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 00:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"Responses not notable" means? "Various other problems" means? "Not notewothy" means? Most sincerely yours, Doomed Soldiers (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the accident. International response to the crash should be on the President's article or included in a separate article. The only things noteworthy in this section to a casual reader are a few sentences on reaction in Poland and Russia, and a sentence to the effect of "The international community expressed sadness over the accident, and many world leaders sent notes of condolence to the Polish people." That gets the point across without requiring three tables and 70KB of space. If someone wants to know what the Prime Minister of the U.K. said about the accident, they can search for that elsewhere. It's important info, but it does not belong in this article. --N419BH (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The result of the DRV was overturn to no consensus, which defaults to keep. As there was originally consensus to split this off from the article about the accident, I'd say that this is a fair result. I've made a couple of suggestions on the restored article's talk page as to how to improve it. Let's now work on improving that article and removing various forms of cruft from it. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

With respect, OpenFuture, the removal of almost 80k of text from the article is not my idea of "improvement". Please see the article's talk page where I have linked to a suggested improvement of the article. Constructive comments on the suggested improvement are welcome. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It is improvement when that 80k of text shouldn't be there. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Mystery of Poland's Presidential Plane Crash Deepens

The Mystery Deepens

I would disagree with several statements in that article. A non-precision approach is perfectly safe if flown correctly, as is a "look see" approach. And while it is true that FAA part 121 air carriers (U.S. airlines) are prohibited from flying "look see" approaches, the procedure is legal for general aviation and corporate flights in the United States. I've personally flown over 50 without any problems. Finally, ICAO annex 13 does NOT apply to this crash, as ICAO regulates Civil aviation. This is a military flight. --N419BH (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

They're making the same mistakes as others. Civil flight operate under civil rules. Military flights operate under military rules. The two may not always be the same. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Reactions

These were removed for a range of reasons: WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOPIC among them. There were also clear WP:LISTCRUFT issues, and the "reaction" section was becoming the dominant part of the article. Let's stick to the crash itself, and any political ramifications that it produces.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And WP:FLAGCRUFT. Good work. have a cookie. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is again WP:TOOLONG, the reactions should be a separate article. Just look at all the articles that have spun off from Eyjafjallajökull. Mjroots (talk)

Article was too long, but now all info on international reactions has been removed. Problem is, the AfD debate result was not delete. The info should be retained while we are discussing it. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking for ways out of this, where do we go - WP:DRV? Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Have to disagree here. The info is absurdly too long and off topic in this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As the first step of DRV, I've asked the AfD closing editor to comment here on the current situation. Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the AfD decision was unhelpful. Without invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there are many other articles of the form "International reaction to ..." [8]. A better outcome of the AfD would have been "no consensus - keep". I don't support putting all that stuff back in this article. Perhaps an AfD review is inevitable? WWGB (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said to IainMacm on his talk page, I'm sure that the editing over this issue is in good faith. Let's continue to discuss this here and see if we can come to a solution. If it goes to DRV then so be it. My personal opinion is that the article should have remained as a stand-alone article, but as I'd commented in the AfD debate I was precluded from closing it. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The merging resolution was "...merging seems the most agreeable solution based on the discussion once the article has been sufficiently condensed." Feel free to start to discuss what to include and what not. Merging as such isn't possible because of the reasons above. On old revision can be found here, for review and discussion. --Kslotte (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I was myself thinking of a list of countries comma separated with reference to the source. Any special info like national day of mourning could be put into parenthesis. Add as separate sentence for any special response. --Kslotte (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity that the AFD effectively forced the article to accept a mountain of off-topic material. I'm in no hurry to put it back. It should stand on its own merits, which it does not do for the reasons given above (WP:TOOLONG etc.)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well who cares if you think that the majority view is a pity. Accept it.--Avala (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is why WP:DRV is probably going to be the next step. The first part of that is discussion with the closer of the AfD. Closer has been asked to comment. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need WP:DRV? when we can discuss about consensus here. --Kslotte (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It is unlikely that there would be a consensus to include all of the merged text in this article, because it is simply WP:TOOLONG. Even as a separate article, it has other issues, including WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:FLAGCRUFT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Another possible solution would be to post the list as it last stood on the merged article onto this talk page, then discuss each individual entry's wording separately and reach consensus on that. Mjroots (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've created User:Ianmacm/Sandbox1 so people can see what was removed. In my view, virtually all of this is cruft. Other comments are welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, I've been asked to comment here. It seems like if all the flag-cruft and news was trimmed from the international response article, it would become of a merge-able size. That's the grounds that the closure was based on at least. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the statement, "Many countries, international organizations and other entities have expressed sorrow and condolence to the people of Poland over the crash" effectively summarizes the content in that large table. The contents of the table were repetitive in nature and offered words of emotional support, rather than proposing concrete actions that might have lasting historical significance. Therefore, they can be summarized quite briefly without losing their essential meaning. Fletcher (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well I am sorry but that is not what the community decided. Summarization is not what we decided. You may find it to be a bad decision but you can't force it out, you have to go through some process you know.--Avala (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was to merge once the article has been "sufficiently condensed". According to Roget's thesaurus, a summary is a "condensation of the essential or main points of something". Therefore, the word I used is interchangeable with the result of the AfD. As I explained, the repetitive nature of numerous statements of condolence allows them to be condensed into a much smaller statement. In my view, the existing wording in the article satisfactorily condenses the entire table. Are there other essential or main points that need to be included? Fletcher (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash - that is where the decision was made, not here, and a few dissentive users will not be able to change the final decision by a short disucssion on this talk page. It's not how the things work. Why would the AfD exist anyway then if the dissenting could override it the very next day on some talk page? Anyhow knowing that there are people who oppose this I made a compromise solution and put it into colapsable template so if you can't stand to see this with your eyes you don't have to for as long as you don't click show. But calling the decision of the majority of the arguments at the AfD - pity is not acceptable. You can call it whatever you want in private but do not edit in manner that violates AfD decisions, in this case to merge reaction into this article.--Avala (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

-

I do agree that the size of the merged article made this bloated, HOWEVER, the decision reached in the AfD was to MERGE and NOT to DELETE. Why was it deleted here without consulting with all editors before such drastic action was taken? Doomed Soldiers (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

See the reasons given above, and User:Ianmacm/Sandbox1. Is 106 citations for one death appropriate in any article?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It was 96 deaths, many of the deceased from Poland's elite. The number of citations is a separate argument. 87.204.115.57 (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging DOES NOT mean just blindly pasting back content, much of which was considered inappropriate in the AfD. The merged content should be able to be trimmed down to a couple of paragraphs.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't suggest "blindly pasting" of anything. In fact, I carefully reread what I wrote, and I can't find anything that would even remotely suggest otherwise. An incredible amount of work put forward by quiet a few editors just disappeared. As far as I am concerned, none of them had any opportunity to voice their opinion. They were at least entitled to that, as opposed to those few who felt entitled to arbitrarily, and without consulting with others, basically kill that effort. Give me a break. Any way you twist and turn it, it is not right, and particularly disrespectful to the guys who put so much work in creating this list. With warm regards, Doomed Soldiers (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

the decision reached in the AfD was to MERGE and NOT to DELETE. - The decision was in regards to the articles, not the information. This decision has been enacted, the articles have been merged. That made the article WP:TOOLONG, and since wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL all the WP:FLAGCRUFT was deleted as it fails WP:NOTABILITY and is WP:NOTNEWS and off WP:TOPIC. The only argument ever given to save it was that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and that we should use Wikipedia for WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information if somebody would want to know in the future, ignoring that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOURCE.

I call WP:SNOWBALL. The list of condolences probably breaks some sort of record in how many of Wikipedias principles it breaks. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this silliness. This was inappropriately merged en bloc (as opposed to post-condense) and it is entirely within editor discretion to remove it. Nothing has been deleted, as there are plenty of oldids in both pages to point at to show it is still present in the database. I don't see the AfD close as correct and expect to see this at DRV within a few days. I believe an outright delete result would have been correct per strength of arguments presented; at most a no-consensus-keep, which would have allowed a culling in-place or an ignoring of this shite over on an ignorable page. Filling this article with 80kb of rote platitudes will not happen. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

per strength of arguments presented? See my friend (may I call you that?), the problem is that there were neither arguments, nor did we reach any consensus. As far as I see it, you made an arbitrary, and uncollegial decision to yank it out of here. I also suspect that most would object to calling content of the Condolences from HEADS OF STATE, GOVERNMENTS, CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS, PARLIAMENTS, etc., shite. Most respectfully, and with warm regards, Doomed Soldiers (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, since we've never met, or even chatted, no, I'm not your friend, and it doesn't seem appropriate for you to call me that. You forgot the footballer's condolences. Did Miley Cyrus send a card? Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you interpreted it as being inappropriate. Please accept my apology. It appeared that you were somewhat aggressive in your choice of language. I simply wanted to assure you that I meant you no disrespect. OK. I will not call you my friend again. I promise! With kind and warm regards, Doomed Soldiers (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I wasn't offended, so an apology is not necessary. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with removal:While the language used may not have been tactful; the argument is sound. The specific statements of individual world leaders represent a niche interest and are not of general note to the casual reader. See OpenFuture's post above for a detailed explanation and citation of the relevant Wikipedia Policies. Using that argument, removal is warranted, and the general consensus of all of these posts agrees. However, there may be another Wikipedia Project where this information would be more appropriate. Ideas? --N419BH (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM can be added to the list of reasons for removal. Whenever there is a major news story, there is a tendency to go OTT with coverage lifted from the news media. After things have quietened down, there needs to be a look at what is required. To paraphrase Voltaire, if the "Reactions" section did not exist, it would not be necessary to invent it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

However, there may be another Wikipedia Project where this information would be more appropriate. Great idea! Thank you! Doomed Soldiers (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking Wikisource, though I am not familiar with the inclusion guidelines. Anyone with more experience care to help? --N419BH (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't go there; I'm an admin on that project and would delete this as out of the project's scope. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote would be another possibility, seeing how the subject matter is a compilation of quotes. Though it is possible folks on other projects would also object to this type of content. Alternatively, as the content is licensed under Creative Commons, I see no reason someone couldn't copy it to a private web site (with a link to the CC license). For example it seems Google Sites allows you to create a site for free. So the information doesn't have to be lost, even if it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Fletcher (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You might try http://list.wikia.com/ — they take most anything. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll have little luck there, methinks. Been there? Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see WP:UNDUE on anyone else's list of reasons why the full set of "reactions" shouldn't be in this article. Physchim62 (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Add it to the pile, it's a fine reason. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I still contend that this arbitrary "edit" was uncalled for. I voiced my objection to impolite, and rude language which included shite, silliness, ignorable, or rote platitudes. I also believe that the content of the compiled list is NOT of marginal value. To the contrary, it is an important part of historic record of this unprecedented incident. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Partly agree: The manner and tone was not appropriate. The content of the list is also valuable and is an important part of the historic record. However, Wikipedia is not a historic record. It's an encyclopedia. The removal was therefore warranted.

• To the editors in favor of the list: I suggest going to the other Wikipedia projects suggested above and seeing if this content would be welcome on their site. If not, it could be placed on a blog or some other form of free website, and we could discuss including it here as an external link.
• To editors in favor of deletion: Obviously a few editors care very deeply about this list. Let's respect their opinion and help find an appropriate place for the information.

--N419BH (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And you also contend that there has been no arguments for deleting this info, which must means you haven't read the discussion very carefully. See my explanation above of why it was deleted and will stay deleted. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User Jack Merridew, you are persisting with your snide comments. Your remark pertaining to "dog xzy", and "pile of xyz" is quiet telling. According to user Jack Merridew XYZ=shite. Don't hide behind edits, and retrospective "poetry". It is what it is. You wrote it. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why we're not friends. Did you even look at just what I linked "Add it to the pile" to? It does contain the word 'dog' but not in the context of "dog shit". Ya, I've made disparaging comments about this content. Deal with it. It's shite, and should be deleted—oh, I'm the guy who nominated it for deletion—you're the guy who's trolling this discussion. NB: sig policy suggests that your sig should bear some resemblance to your user name; you seem to be using yours to promote your website. Jeers, Jack Merridew 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting observation: at the AfD debate, 46% wanted to keep, 42% wanted to delete and 12% wanted to merge [9]. Guess which outcome we got? WWGB (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting, but we don't count votes. A fair chunk of the keeps offered no reason at all and their posts have zero weight. Did we have a lot of strong arguments to delete? Ya (including yours). Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting observation: at the AfD debate, 46% wanted to keep, 42% wanted to delete and 12% wanted to merge Indeed! Peculiar. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sadly there is still edit warring on this. The users who created the content may have an emotional attachment to it, although it has some of the clearest WP:TOOLONG, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:FLAGCRUFT issues imaginable. "Merge" does not mean "every last word, dot and comma must be kept". It means that the article should take a reasonable look at the reactions to the plane crash. Let's not edit war over this, the AFD was a fudged decision that tried to keep everyone happy, but replaced one set of problems with another.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:CONSENSUS, there is none on this appearing in the article, or not appearing in the article. We have had a user redirect International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash to this article, and replace it with 2 lines, of mainly unsourced text. This is NOT inline with the merge decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. We can use all types of alphabet soup, but the main one is WP:CONSENSUS and there is none of that as yet, so discussion should continue before information is removed from articles, particularly when consensus has already been to merge it to this article. For the record, I opined to keep the separate article, in order to keep it out of this article, and can counter arguments such as WP:FLAGCRUFT by suggesting to remove the flags. Let's discuss how and what to merge, and reach consensus as we should be, instead of acting unilaterally as has been done thus far. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Having the information in expandable boxes (which the current version of the article does) is better than having the full text showing. However, it is still very repetitive WP:NOTMEMORIAL material to the point of being unencyclopedic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of consensus is interesting. Apparently there was no consensus, but there was consensus. :) As you can see a minority was of the merge opinion, there was definitely no consensus for that. And consensus also requires arguments, of which there are many, and they are all for deleting the information. No argument whatsoever has been made for keeping it, outside of making Wikipedia into what it is not, or that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Nobody has been able to explain how the information is notable. Consensus can be reached in this issue very quickly, but only of people drop their emotional baggage and start listening to arguments. This issue is crystal clear. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'll be kicking this to Drv and requesting protection if this edit warring on a Main Page linked article doesn't stop. The outcome was merge, not paste back in, not delete 99.44%, or any of the other BS being thrown around above. Sort your lives out. I will say again as I said in the Afd, if people think this entire genre is not needed, which is not an unreasonable opinion, then the appropriate venue is an Rfc, not picking the most high profile recent example and then being complete idiots, the outcome of such a strategy was frankly entirely predictable. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It fails WP:NOTABILITY, breaks WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:FLAGCRUFT, WP:NOTNEWS and is off WP:TOPIC. Why on earth would a RfC be needed to determine that it shouldn't be here? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia does not operate on the principle that you not being able to listen to anybody else is not a problem. You failed to convince people at the Afd, and now you are edit warring on a Main Page linked article, changing its contents by the minute. It is a wonder you and the rest are not blocked already. You can chuck about acronyms all you want, it doesn't change the Afd outcome one bit, and half of them are irrelevant in any case. MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, Mick? Can you hear yourself talking here? Your outburst applies every bit as much to you, you know. These folks are right: a list of the tributes from various world leaders is really not encyclopaedia material, we should just find a website that includes it and link there. It's inevitable that in a case like this there will be tributes from around the world. That's a huge block of text devoted to lovingly-crafted platitudes from inevitable sources. An encyclopaedic international reaction would be something like like maybe Russia tightening ATC procedures or other countries imposing flight destination restrictions or additional training or oversight requirements for flights to Russia, not just these rent-a-quote platitudes. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The outcome was merge by sensibly summarising the content, not ignore the Afd outright, or pretend merge=99.44% deletion. If you and others can't just deal with that, then take it to Drv, or open an Rfc on the whole article/section genre. Stop pretending that nobody has expressed opinions different to yours by simply restarting the argument that has already played out and been concluded, that is just plain WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT ignorance. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mick, you first accuse me of not listening, yet it's blindingly obvious who aren't listening to arguments here. You then accuse me of edit warring, which is a direct lie. It's clear that in this issue rationality has been overridden by your emotions. Cool down and start thinking about it instead. And come with real arguments instead. Sinsibly merging the content includes removing the flagcruft. It's as simple as that. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I carefully reread the entire debate in the Talk section of the article merged here. I also carefully reread opinions of those who vehemently supported deletion of the content in its entirety. What appears to be happening here, is that arguments of those who proposed deletion there, are being repeated verbatim here. Just to be clear, arguments for the deletion did not prevail. The subsequent decision was to MERGE, and NOT to DELETE ! Why do I think that the fashion in which this entire section was DELETED was not, at a minimum transparent, and possibly violated Wiki's own rules? Any Wiki scholars care to elaborate? Doomed Soldiers (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand by the decision to remove the material on article health grounds. I'll leave the wiki protocol to others. I'm taking a wikibreak here, as past arguments are being restated, which is always a bad sign.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Got to take a break form this as well. Ernest Tucker: The funny thing about that little white speck on the top of chicken shit. That little white speck is chicken shit too. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So what's the way forward? How do we cram 86 kB of text with 171 references [10] into something of sensible size that doesn't overwhelm the parent article? Even if we just had a prose list of the countries that offered condolences, as they all appear to have individual references, we would still be adding well over 100 new templated references to the article, which I suspect would cause page loading problems for people with slow internet connections.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I say put it on a blog or some other free web source (with appropriate copyright information) and then discuss including a link to it on this article. --N419BH (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The way forward is deleting the list of condolences. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Although there didn't emerge a consensus on the articles be or not be, the people who wanted to keep the article now block all efforts of actually creating a sensible article that conforms to basic wikipedia policy. Several of the editors refuse to discuss the issue, and claim a consensus that didn't emerge (remember that the article was kept because there was no consensus about *that*). If you have been involved in the discussion here, please join it at Talk:International_response_to_the_2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash, so we can get a proper discussion about the list of condolences, and maybe reach some sort of consensus now. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, some of us are trying to work out how to present the info in a better way see Talk:International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash/workpage and Talk:International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash/workpage2 where I've suggested a couple of altenatives to the current article. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

These still contain the list of condolences which are under dispute. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

DRV

I've asked for a deletion review at WP:DRV. Feelings are running a bit high on all sides. Please can we try and keep the discussion over there civil and try to work through a solution to the problem. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That was inevitable; off to read it. Thanks. Jack Merridew 19:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected

Would it be possible to downgrade the protection of the page back to semi-protection? As a current event and open investigation the facts of the accident are changing rapidly as official announcements are made. Despite the heated debate regarding the huge table of quotes, the number of reverts on the page is relatively small. Also, I commented on the AfD review. I am a new editor so if that was in error please accept my apologies and direct me to the relevant Wikipedia policy. Thanks. --N419BH (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I find this compelling have unprotected the article because it should not be locked down while the DRV runs. But please do not edit war over this section, otherwise protection will have to go back up. –xeno^talk 23:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)