Talk:Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752
|WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, along with other articles relating to post-1978 Iranian politics, is currently subject to active community-authorised general sanctions. Please review the applicable editing restrictions before making any further edits to this or related pages. After being notified of the sanctions, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to edit in accordance with the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. Sanctions may include blocks for up to one year, page bans, and topic bans.|
|This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|A news item involving Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on .|
|On January 11, 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 to . The result of the debate was Not Moved. (See discussion.)|
|Daily article pageviews|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
Number of Swedish citizens
Gianluigi02, I noticed that you changed the statement on the number of Swedish citizens (added by WikiHannibal) from seven to ten. Do you have a source for this? The article by Omni (which is the source currently cited) agrees with WikiHannibal:
17 personer hemmahörande i Sverige dog i flygkraschen i Iran, bekräftar utrikesminister Ann Linde (S) på Twitter. Sju av personerna hade svenskt medborgarskap och de tio andra var folkbokförda i landet.
17 people in Sweden died in the plane crash in Iran, Minister of Foreign Affairs Ann Linde (S) confirmed on Twitter. Seven of the persons had Swedish citizenship and the other ten were registered in the country.
- Hi, thanks for the notification, I restored the original wording and clarified the note+ref, which might have been the source of the confusion. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @WikiHannibal: I think it’s still worth including the number of residents (17) as that’s the number most commonly used by Swedish media. Or do you think this would be too confusing? 0x9fff00 (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the notification, I restored the original wording and clarified the note+ref, which might have been the source of the confusion. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I hate to bring this up again, but the supporting source says, "7 Swedish citizens and a total of 17 people who lived in the Nordic country died in the crash.", crediting that to the Swedish foreign ministry. How do we get from that to an assertion in the People on board by nationality table that 10 Swedish nationals died in the crash? I see that this source, which looks weighty to me, says:
In the Swedish language the term citizenship [medborgarskap] is used to indicate the legal status of an individual, as well as the legal and political consequences of belonging to the state (rights and duties). The term nationality [nationalitet], on the other hand, is in legal context used primarily to indicate ethnic origin and language affiliation. In daily language the term nationality is, however, sometimes used as a synonym to citizenship to indicate affiliation to a certain state.
Color me confused. This is just a guess, but I would guess that this might describe the situations of the ten noncitizen Swedish residents who died in the crash. If my guess is correct, those ten persons would be "registered in the country" and on the population register mentioned in that source, but they would not be either citizens or nationals of Sweden. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Wtmitchell: I agree that this is a bit confusing. As I understand it, the numbers in the table are based on Ukrainian sources to make sure they add up to 176, which they wouldn’t if you used the number of citizens reported by each individual country because of people having dual citizenship. Not sure how they got 10 Swedes though as that doesn’t seem to be reported by anyone else (4 people with Swedish passports according to Iran and 7/17 Swedish citizens/residents according to Sweden)... Maybe this article about the people who died could help: https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/Wb290j/har-ar-svenskarna-som-dog-i-flygkraschen-i-teheran 0x9fff00 (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose removal of the People on board by nationality table pretty darn quickly until the above is resolved by consensus here. Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- The table has a source and a note right after the headline ("People on board by nationality"), which says "The list is based on Ukrainian sources, with notes indicating confirmed deviations." I do not understand how come editors interested in the precise numbers are willing to delve into definitions of Swedish citizenship and fail to read the note. I will add part of the note into the headline itself, fell free to edit the headline to make it clearer. As another step-up, we can add the note about Ukrainian sources to every note in the list, so that the reader interested in one country only, UK for example, reads a note like this: "On 10 January, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirmed four Britons died on the flight. It is unknown at present, which country's passport the fourth Briton presented. This table is, however, based on official Ukrainian sources." Also when proposing to remove the table, do you propose to add the sourced info about the deviating numbers of citizens of respective countries reported into the article or not? If added into the article, would that just not move the perceived confusion into the text itself, where the confusion would be (as I believe) even harder to decipher? @0x9fff00: seems the combination 17-10-7 is still causing problems, so I wil again drop the 17, as not directly relevant. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Nationality of passengers
Please discuss here before changing the passanger table. This applies especially to Afghan/German asylum seekers, and Canadian/Iranian dual nationality. A source saying 7 Afghans were on the plane, and 48 Canadian-Iranian nationals is welcome. Thank you. Feel free to amend/replace this introductory notice with a better explanation of the problem of your own. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nationality in the casualty table should reflect the flight manifest. Dual nationality, asylum etc can be reported elsewhere in prose. WWGB (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Why is that? Is there a policy for that? Also, did you know that Iran considers Iranian citizens to only have Iranian nationality? By that rule, this table would need to be drastically changed, subtracting a lot of Canadians and adding Iranians. I'm not saying to do that, just pointing it out. I am noticing a distinct reluctance to make it clear in this article that nearly all of the passengers were Iranian, regardless of the fact that many of them had dual citizenship in Canada. Again, why is that? Is there a desire to downplay the fact that most victims were Iranian? Darkest Tree Talk 02:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- also don't forget WP:RECENCYBIAS.184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- (insert) Re "Nationality in the casualty table should reflect the flight manifest", That sounds like a good idea if the manifest is citeable in support. The manifest would be a WP:Primary source, but citeable as saying whatever it does clearly say. However, the article currently cites  to support the figures in the table. That source relies on a statement by Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine's Foreign Minister. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest using Flag Icons in the list of passengers so people can identify the nationalities from a glance. Talkkaris (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: "Mr Johnson added. He also confirmed that four Britons had died in the disaster, an increase from earlier reports of three British deaths.":  Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:MOSFLAG, no flags. Mjroots (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@WikiHannibal: the last stable table was clearly anti-Iranian POV; @The Huhsz: you can remove the unverifiable part of the table but don't change the fact that Iran lost at 130 life in the accident. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Based on discussion here I would not say that consensus exists to remove this table, so I have restored. (spin me / revolutions) 00:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- What a strange idea. We don't need consensus to remove it! We would need consensus that it was useful to keep it. I don't see that. The Huhsz (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- See also #Number of British passengers below. The table over-simplifies and misleads. --The Huhsz (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Restored table. Flights usually get a table. Please explain what exactly is anti-Iranian. The source used is the manifest of the Ukrainian Airlines - what is not neutral about that? The claims of other coutries "correcting" the manifest are also explained in the text/table; this includes Iran: the article says "at least 130". We can add that to the table as well. According to Iranian nationality law "the Iranian government considers dual citizens as Iranian citizens only". This was explained in the article, with a ref but also some unsourced OR, so was removed altogether. Restored that sentence too. With removing the table, useful sourced info (but feel free to explain what exactly was misleading) was removed as well. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- So we are clinging to the encyclopedic value of
The list is based on Ukrainian sources, with notes indicating confirmed deviations.and
There is no corresponding source about the six people said not to be Canadian, so the table cannot be changed, as the total would not add up.Hmmm. --The Huhsz (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (I have not looked back at the conflicting edit - no time - but the following is a comment I had ready to insert before the conflict.
- The table note does say that it is based on "Ukranian sources" (without specifics) with notes indicating deviations; at this point I have not looked at those other notes and I don't have time right now. The second paragraph of the section, like the Nationality table, numbers Swedes at 10. It cites three sources, and one of these three (this article in The Telegraph), says that those killed included 10 Swedes, 11 Ukrainians and 3 Germans. That paragraph also says that another source asserted that no Germans were on the aircraft and the table doesn't list Germans. The first paragraph says that ten pax used Afghan passports, five Canadian, four Swedish, and two Ukrainian, citing this source in which the English content below the Persian script does not seem to provide support. I ought to re-read all of that more carefully but, from what I have read there, I don't have any clear idea of the nationalities of the passengers. It seems clear to me that the article needs more work regarding this but at this point I don't have specific suggestions. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I just looked back at my comment above, and see that its intro is confusinng in relation to what follows -- that looks like incomplete editing prior to save on my part. Sorry.
- I think that it is that (1) the number of nationalities held by the passengers exceeds the number of passengers and (2) sources making assertions re nationality tend to ignore this and to assign one nationality per pax based on criteria which vary between sources. All of this together is problem in making a table summarizing pax by nationality. I don't think the solution to this problem is finding a source which is qualified to opine definitively re nationality. I propose that the Nationality table be removed and that the Passengers and crew section rewritten to reduce statements of nationality to a cite-supported assertion that statememts re pax nationality by various sources differ from one another, possibly due to some pax holding multiple nationalities. Comments? Disagreements? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
"Cause of the crash" speculation
I do not think it useful to record ill informed speculation about why the Iranians might have fired missiles at the aircraft when we have the firm conclusion of the Iranians that it was due to an error by the missile operator. Doing so opens up every conspiracy theory as legitimate to report on (and there are many!). The article should aim to stick to facts. e.g. when and if we get the accident report and black box analysis and the conclusions of the Iranian judicial investigation, it will enable facts to be updated, and imperfectly known items to be replaced with harder facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think this is a relevant part of the narrative. It's not "every conspiracy theory", it's just valid reporting from a WP:RS. I don't believe the black box analysis will tell us anything we don't already know; the Iranian judicial investigation might (if it's ever made public, of course). The identity of the person who took the video is not a "known fact", but we still include as reported. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC) p.s. as per WP:BRD that material should remain while it's being discussed here?
I think we have quite a bit still to learn from the black box. It will likely help confirm which parts of the aircraft were struck by each missile, the precise locations of the aircraft when it was struck (although the updated NYTimes/Bellingcat investigation is already pretty good on that on the back of three separate videos and the flightradar24 data), the explanation for and direction of the track it took from there to the crash site especially since the pilots were already dead, and what happened to it in the last 20 seconds of flight, where videos show it apparently lurching/turning before the fire turns from whiteish to yellowish and enlarges, and then goes into a steep dive while travelling almost due South as it crashes - not aiming for the airport. It might even record the missile battery radar in some way. The likely fate of the passengers may also be revealed: some may, like the pilots, have died a quick death, but others may have survived in horror and anguish perhaps with painful burns until the final crash. Meanwhile, it is clear that the conjectures of these so called experts are speculative: the purpose of the air defences were alluded to by General Amir Ali Hajizadeh in his press statement ("Under such circumstances, a number of air defence systems was added to Tehran’s air defence ring. The first system – which was behind the incident – was deployed in Bidganeh in western Tehran"), and the Tor missiles are specifically designed for tackling cruise missiles, which are not suited to taking out mobile missile batteries, but rather for attacking predefined targets. It would make much more sense to report on the US intelligence sources that said that US satellites observed the aircraft being painted with radar by the missile battery, and the infrared traces of two missile launches, followed by the burning aircraft, and their immediate assessment that this had been a fog of war mistake. The context was also clearly explained by the IRGC General: a warning had just been issued to expect cruise missiles since the Iranian attack on US bases was over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Flight and Crash section
This is now something of a mess, and fails to take account of later information.
It is important to note that the flight heading of 313 degrees was the normal departure routeing as demonstrated by the Flightradar24 blog. This was originally described as an unscheduled turn to the right, in line with early Iranian propaganda that denied the shootdown. Rather, it is in accord with the statement of the IRGC Aerospace Commander that the aircraft was on track and did nothing wrong.
The information given about the height of the aircraft above the ground when its last data transmission was made is also wrong. It should either be omitted, or corrected to reflect the several hundred feet higher ground of Parand town and the immediately hills North of it which it was overflying. Perhaps relevant is the elevation of the location from which the first video to reach public prominence was shot in SW Parand, as Bellingcat used the location and flight data to estimate where the missile intercept occurred. Elevations can be read from online maps
The flight data did not stop after the aircraft was hit by two missiles. As the latest version (archived 18th January) of the NYT article makes clear, it was hit immediately after the last data transmission, and 23 seconds later by the second missile. The first missile knocked out the transponder, but had no effect on its course. The second missile caused the aircraft to catch fire and turn. To be clear the full sequence of events is radar detection by the missile battery (at 19km range according to IRGC Aerospace commander statement, which would put the aircraft having just overflown Parand powerstation, and of the order of 16 seconds flying time before the first missile launches or 34 seconds before it hits, but this timing needs proper confirmation: NYT's latest version of their video of events  appears to confirm their estimate of missile launch site as close to 35.5764, 50.8865 ). At 18+seconds after launch, the first missile explodes. The second missile is launched about 12 seconds later, and intercepts about 11+ seconds after launch, giving a 30 second gap between launches and 23 seconds between intercepts. The aircraft turns back towards central Tehran in what can be viewed of the video that covers both the launches, but it takes some seconds before flame can be seen. The other two videos showing the second missile confirm the location of the second missile intercept, in turn confirming that the aircraft maintained course and speed after the first hit.
There is a gap in video coverage until the last minute of the flight, with at least 4 videos offering some evidence but little clarity as to what finally caused the aircraft to lurch, change direction sharply, billow with flame and dive into the ground on a Southerly heading, as the crash site demonstrates. This is one such from the Guardian newspaper  This tweet contains another  and another in this one  plus of course the one from the crash site itself.
Perhaps we can now assemble a more sensible version of the information for the article without reverting to outdated lack of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to put this together. I was aiming to show that the aircraft was headed back toward the airfield. With the citations we have, the aircraft must have been sufficiently damaged to drift rightwards toward the airport coincidentally. The CBC citation of the Ukraine expert says it hurtled to the ground, not all the videos show that, especially . If that video is valid, there's another minute almost plus an unknown gap before.
- I hope the facts are established fully, to help avoid another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk)