Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alleged shootdowns?[edit]

Nice work here thus far. I was wondering, what about cases where a shootdown is alledged? I'm not talking conspiracy theories here, but cases where there is serious likelyhood the aircraft was in fact shot down. To take two examples I have worked on, the 2007 Balad aircraft crash and the 2007 Mogadishu TransAVIAexport Airlines Il-76 crash were both, to my mind, almost certainly shootdowns. In the later, Belarussian officials even reacted openly as to an act of terrorism, and instigated a terrorist investigation. What sort of guidlines can we come up with? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me, since there are sources in the article to say both. I didn't include it or the DHL Baghdad incident because I could imagine someone taking issue with "cargo planes" being included in an "airliner" list so didn't want to go too far into it without getting other's reaction.
My only preferences, keeping WP:OWN in mind, is 1) that we only include items to which an article is linked and if none exists then sources MUST be provided in order to list something. I purposely didn't include Malév Flight 240 because it's missing sources. 2) Only incidents where civilian/commercial planes are brought down by AAA, SAM, or small arms fire should be included. An incident of a bombing, sabotage, or hijacking should be separate in my opinion. Anynobody 01:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen some evidence that Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870 should be on the Bombings page not as a shootdown. An English team and an investigator from AAIB found that the evidence pointed to a bomb in the rear toilet ( between rear engines ). Check the political connections ( left wing? ) of the italian reporters as some may have a "blame the US" bias.
In Italy, it is nowadays usual to affirm (e.g. in history classes at school) that the Itavia flight was likely shot down by NATO forces by mistake. The alternate bombing theory never gained much credibility. Anyway, even if that theory was proven true, people would expect to find that flight in the shootdown list, not in the bombing list, so, if the item is moved, there should at least be a pointer. Vbertola (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put the DHL shootdown back in. The point here is not passenger aircraft, it is civilian aircraft, and DHL qualifies. 97.113.105.224 (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted shootdown?[edit]

Should this include the 2002 "narrow miss"[1] of an Arkia plane taking off in Kenya? That incident resulted in missile defense install on israeli civilian planes.. Skullers 02:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Operation Tarnegol count?[edit]

not sure if it counts as an airliner. Any thoughts? Egg Centric (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the aircraft shot down was a Ilyushin Il-14, which is in the category Category:Soviet airliners 1950-1959 (a subcategory of Category:Soviet and Russian airliners), so I'd be inclined to say yes; on the other hand, this article begins 'in the history of commercial aviation...', and that wasn't a commercial flight carrying paying passengers, but a government aircraft carrying members of the general staff. You could argue it either way I suppose; I think I'll take a compromise view and add a link to it in the 'see also' section. Robofish (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 - Reference to Ethiopian shootdown removed[edit]

I have removed a reference to an alleged shootdown of an ethiopian airplane by israel in the Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 entry. I have also removed it in the main article for that incident. It was added to the main article in February 2009 without a source and without explanation in the edit summary. No source has been provided and I cannot find any reference online to the alleged incident that does not apparently stem from the (incorrect) wikipedia entry. - Redshield3 (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1994 US Friendly Fire Shooting Over Iraq[edit]

I removed this section from the list as it doesn't belong to it. A military helicopter is clearly not an airliner. Phoenix ICR (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira[edit]

I am wondering whether this event should not be included into the list. If this aircraft was not really an airliner it was still a civil aircraft. --Lebob (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17/7/2014 plane down[edit]

I changed the text to an neutral, confirmed stance. I'm HIGHLY requesting an page lockdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.175.73.50 (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC) This one was me. MicBenSte (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC) SORRY about deleting the entire article...I did delete it because I was surprised it was up so fast since there were so many unconfirmed reports (I know news sites were cited, but there were conflicts of information and to this moment there still are). Actually the first time I edited a wikipedia article...very surprised at how easy it was just to put anything you want in...won't edit it again! haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.200.146 (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

280 people were onboard, plus 15 crew instead of the incorrectly listed 282. Could someone edit that in, as my account is not confirmed? http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-reportedly-shot-down-near-ukraine-russia-border-1.2709881 Anthonyliu (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "The Buk missile system belonged to the 53rd anti-air (AA) brigade from Kursk (Russia).", as it's not in the citation given. Deathmare (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014[edit]

Reference 34 "Donetsk People’s Republic militia downs another Ukraine’s An-26 plane — eyewitnesses" has the wrong year. Change 2001 to 2014. "20:01" is the time of day on the referenced page. 65.216.171.130 (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am Flight 708[edit]

Why isn't Pan Am Flight 708 listed? It was suspected shot down over East Germany in 1966 as it approached Berlin Tegel Airport. 75.44.28.121 (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Hammarskjöld's plane?[edit]

I think the incident with Dag Hammarskjöld may qualify for a mention here. On 18 September his Douglas DC-6 crashed in Ndola, Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). Hammarskjöld and fifteen others perished in the crash. In April 2014 it was reported that Jan van Risseghem shit it down as he had been heard on the radio saying: "I see a transport plane coming low. All the lights are on. I'm going down to make a run on it. Yes, it is the Transair DC-6. It's the plane,". For more details and sources to this see the Dag H Wikipedia page.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014[edit]

In the section on MH17 (2014):

The crash of Flight 17 coincided with alleged claims by Russian separatists from Donetsk region in Eastern Ukraine of having shot down a military [[Antonov An-26|An-26]].<ref>{{cite news| url=http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741164 | work=ITAR-TASS | title=Donetsk People’s Republic militia downs another Ukraine’s An-26 plane — eyewitnesses | date=July 17, 2014}}</ref>

has been truncated after "of having shot down." This leaves an incomplete, unsourced statement which makes no sense. The words "[of having shot down] a military AN-26." and the footnote need to be restored. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:74F (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for pointing that out! —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1975 Malev flight 240[edit]

Can someone please add Malev flight 240 to this list. The Hungarian-registered Tu-154 was downed on Sep 30th 1975 while in a holding pattern waiting to land at Beirut; all 50 passengers and 10 crew died. There was no distress call sent out by the crew and the weather was good at the time. Both Israel and Syria have been suggested as possible suspects and The plane was supposed to have been carrying a PLO delegation (but the delegation did not board due to last minute schedule changes). The radar signature picked up at Akrotiri (Cyprus) appeared to match that of an F-4 Phantom (which was only used by the Israeli air-force at that time) and there are allegations that the missiles were AA side-winders (again these were only available to Israel) which struck the starboard fuselage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzden (talk • contribs) 05:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TWA 800[edit]

Any thoughts on including TWA 800 as a possible ? 212.121.210.45 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Iranian Air Force C-130 shootdown[edit]

I have doubts whether the 1994 Iranian Air Force C-130 shootdown belongs here. It wasn't a civilian airliner, but owned and operated by the Iranian Air Force. Most people on plane however were civilians (embassy personnel) but is that enough to make it into this list? --Pudeo' 01:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a military transport would not be considered an airliner just because it was carrying civilians so probably doesnt belong. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. --Pudeo' 12:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Metrojet Doesn't Seem To Belong[edit]

Not sure why the 2015 Metrojet crash is listed here. Nearly all reputable sources, and even the main Wikipedia article indicate that it was brought down by a bomb placed aboard, not an external shootdown.

[1]

2601:448:4200:BCC:51C0:2792:D6B9:32C1 (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrojet_Flight_9268

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of airliner shootdown incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2003 DHL[edit]

"Severe wing damage resulted in a fire and complete loss of hydraulic flight control systems.[34] The pilots used differential engine thrust to fly the plane back to Baghdad, and were able to land without any injuries or major aircraft damage"

Does "without major aircraft damage" mean "except for the wing" or "without other major aircraft damage"? I wonder if this could be phrased better? Tvjames (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the plane was able to land after the attack I moved this item to the section Near misses. User The Banner reverted this. Please explain this revert. Otto (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that part completely, as the plane was not shot down. The Banner talk 23:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BOAC Flight 777[edit]

Now that User:Flyingd is loosing the battle at the Dutch Wikipedia about his additions, he now starts adding the superfluous information here.

As this is a List of airliner shootdown incidents the information given should be about the actual incidents. But Flyingd added some prior incidents to List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#BOAC_Flight_777. In this case the text The same aircraft was attacked twice before on the same route on 15 November 1942 and 19 April 1943 (see the main article about BOAC Flight 777).

As this has nothing to do with the incident, I propose removal. The Banner talk 13:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this relevant information, besides the fact that the same civilian airliner had been attacked twice before on the same route which is unique in aviation history. Not making any reference to these previous attacks when describing the last fatal attack seems ridiculous. I am also not loosing any battle on the Dutch WP as there are just as many people that agree with me on this issue. Flyingd (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree should not be added, not really relevant to this list. MilborneOne (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of history on this matter: Some years ago I looked on the internet to see what was published about BOAC 777. I was very suprised to see that on the ENWP there was a nice extensive article about this incident but nothing existed on the Dutch Wikipedia, notable as it was about KLM aircraft with KLM crews that had managed to divert to England after the occupation of the Netherlands on May 10th 1940. I decided to initiate a Dutch article BOAC 777 based upon the English article. During extented time I was the only one working on it, translating the English article section by section. However a small group of people (3-4, including The Banner) kept on removing large sections of text without any discussion. Even in this article the mention (let alone a description) of the previous attacks were deleted every time. Parts of my original BOAC 777 article where put behind a non-descript wikilink PH-ALI and other parts were copied to the dutch KLM article (in the history section). In other words the whole Dutch BOAC 777 article was reduced to almost nothing and it remains like this to this day. Flyingd (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but what happens on another article and even another wiki is not relvant to this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just as the Dutch equivalent, this is a list of shootdown incidents. This is not an overview of prior incidents with the plane. That belongs in the article about the plane itself. The Banner talk 17:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MilborneOne and The Banner. That extra information is not relevant enough to be mentioned on this list. - Robotje (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Near misses on Ibis[edit]

I have added items about the two near misses on the Ibis in the section with that name. Otto (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed this again as it is outside the scope of this article. The Banner talk 19:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why these near misses on the Ibis are outside the scope of this article. What should be the purpose of the section Near misses otherwise? Otto (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That whole section should be removed as outside the scope of this article. The Banner talk 22:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And is that up to you to decide that at your own? Apparently the section is still there and more users who will have a say about this. --Otto (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least it is not up to you to change the scope of the article. The Banner talk 07:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of chapter Near misses[edit]

Five items, three of them summarising large articles, about near misses of military attacks on civil aviation have been removed by The Banner without proper discussion. This has not been discussed in the paragraph about BOAC which handled just two of the five near misses. I advocate to restore the chapter Near misses. Eventually the name of the article and the introduction can be adapted. --Otto (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus from before per the article title is this is for airliners that have been shotdown not for airliners that nearly were shotdown so The Banner was following the consensus and common sense. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MilborneOne. - Robotje (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the article is clear: planes that are shot down. Near misses, hair raising events, failed attacks do not cause a plane to be shot down. The Banner talk 07:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move Near misses to separate article[edit]

The Banner deleted a whole chapter with 5 items of shootings on civil airplanes. Three of these items were part of this article since many years and are created by different users. I objected against this deletion and requested dispute resolution. To resolve the dispute I suggest to create a separate article about the removed chapter. The Banner is sabotaging my proposal by hiding the discussion under the misleading banner of "Irrelevant discussion". He is acting in bad faith. He doesn't want the dispute to be resolved but makes it worse.

So, due to lack of real arguments you start throwing personal attacks? Or do you really not understand what the scope of this article is? The Banner talk 08:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Otto. I am not sabotaging your proposal. I am only stating that this discussion is in the wrong place. But you seem more focused on throwing in personal attacks than that you understand the real scope of the present article. Make your article, but what you want should not be discussed here. The Banner talk 17:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections if I make a new article with a list of "Near misses"? --Otto (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can write a pretty extensive overview of near misses of airliners; I guess that would be OK. Using only the two misses that used to be in the article plus the two you added about the same airplane (Ibis) doesn't make sense to me. Do you have enough affinity with this subject to make such a list or do you know sources that can be used to make such a list? - Robotje (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article I have in mind would consist of the five items which have been removed:
Near misses of attacks with gunfire or missiles on civil aviation:
  1. 1942 Ibis
  2. 1943 Ibis
  3. 1987 Finnair Incident
  4. 2002 Arkia Israel Airlines Flight 582
  5. 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident
Do you think you help the reader by suggesting before 1987 there were only two near misses and both involved the same airplane? - Robotje (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation of the article: for passengers or employees of civil aviation a list of such incidents is of interest to get an impression of the intrinsic risks of choosing a flight or a job at a plane. --Otto (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robotje: 

* This list grew from a suggestion above on this talk page from Skullers (1 December 2007) to add the attempted shootdown in 2002 of Arkia.  
* At 16 July 2009 Baghdad DHL sttempted shootdown was added to the main list.  
* The Arkia attempt was added 26 April 2013 into the new chapter Near misses.  
* Hkeyser added 27 March 2018 the Finnair incident.  
* I added the two Ibis incidents a few days ago.

This list grows slowly, because fortunately these sort of incidents are rare. That doesn't make it useless to study them. This list facilitates that. --Otto (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss private hobbies deemed irrelevant here. The Banner talk 14:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Otto ter Haar, you explain above you want to make the article "... for passengers or employees of civil aviation a list of such incidents is of interest to get an impression of the intrinsic risks of choosing a flight or a job at a plane." If you have no idea how terrible incomplete your 5 items list is, how can a passenger of civil aviation use your list to get an impression of the intrinsic risks of choosing a flight? - Robotje (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Robotje, I disagree that my list is "terrible incomplete". In contrary, since near misses are incidents with receive a lot of attention, also in this encyclopedia, do I expect that all or most incidents from this type and this century are mentioned. The list I suggest can be seen as a completion of this list. I would add a link with an explanation. --Otto (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it is about this century then leave out the first three cases, make a list of only the two latest cases and make it clear in the article title that it is only about misses in the 21st century. - Robotje (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I will draft an article and submit it for review at Articles for creation. --Otto (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this[edit]

26 or 27 July 1953 "...an American F-86F Sabre pilot shot down a civilian Aeroflot Il-12 airliner killing all twenty-one persons aboard. The Americans and Soviets engaged in a protracted argument over whether the airliner was over North Korea or Chinawhen it was shot down. No one could disguise the fact that the decries came down in China."[1] Aldrich in turn cites By Any Means Necessary Page 5 by someone named Burrows.

This is also listed on Ilyushin Il-12

Let me see if I take a moment to add it. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Aldrich, Richard (10 June 2010). GCHQ. HarperPress. p. 129. ISBN 978-0007312665.

Requested move 22 September 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is no consensus to rescope the article at this time. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of airliner shootdown incidents → List of attacks with gunfire or missiles on civil aviation – To broaden the scope to all attacks of this type on civil aviation Otto (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose not really meant to change the article title to change the scope, the scope and hence the title is by consensus and previous dicussions clearly support an article about airliner shootdowns only. If the OP wants to create a new article about the use of guns against aircraft then they should create a new article although I suspect most of the content is already in Aircraft hijacking and related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have drafted a new article for the Near misses at Draft:List_of_near_misses_of_attacks_with_gunfire_or_missiles_on_civil_aviation. There the objection is made that the subject doesn't justify a separate article. Aircraft hijacking is clearly a different subject. Hijacking is seizing the control of the airplane from inside. The shooting incidents all are caused from outside. I dispute that there has ever been consensus about limiting the scope to shootdowns only. The name of the article is abused to delete content from several different editors who haven't been consulted neither by you nor by The Banner. Otto (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry I didnt pick up on the fact you have used "attacks" in the title to squeeze in the near misses that have been clearly opposed in the talk page as outside the scope of this article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not see any changed consensus since the move attempt in July 2018. And why would we add incidents that are not-notable on their own? The Banner talk 18:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to be rude: your draft Draft:List of near misses of attacks with gunfire or missiles on civil aviation is shot down yesterday, so now you try to use a backdoor to squeeze it in? The Banner talk 18:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Banner is not interested in finding consensus but abuses this talkpage for spreading insults and provocations. Otto (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can imagine that you do not like to be tapped on your fingers for telling just part of the story... And why is it an insult to tell the truth? The Banner talk 19:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologize for reading it wrongly. The draft was not shot down yesterday but already the 14th and then resubmitted. The Banner talk 19:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Shootdowns of airlines and attempted shootdowns of general aviation aircraft are different types of events. Even if Draft:List of near misses of attacks with gunfire or missiles on civil aviation was created, I feel this list should remain separate. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Shootings on airlines are similar types of events (I should say - even by definition). They can have different results in different cases (in the worst case - downing of the plane). In all cases these events regard the safety of transport by air. For that reason I propose to enlarge the scope of the article and change the name accordingly.
  • Complaint The rude behaviour and harashment at this talkpage disappoints me. I never "squeezed in" "not-notable" incidents. I want to restore incidents who have articles at their own and which were part of this article for years (2002 Mombasa attacks and 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident). My draft for the List of near misses is not "shot down" but declined. User flyingd isn't "loosing a battle" but some of his contributions receive no support. User The Banner is verbaly abusing other users and abusing this talk page as a battle ground. Otto (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, it is you turning this request into a battleground. I just pointed at the facts of a a rejected draft. The Banner talk 08:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • User Otto, can you please focus on the discussion's topic, instead of crying harassment of rudeness, of which I see little trace here? User The Banner, you could just ignore him. (I'm not an admin, by the way; just an editor reading this article for the first time and trying to form an opinion – see below). --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, however: – the proposed new title is too convoluted and would alter the scope of the article by extending it in two ways: to attempted shootdowns and to the whole of civil aviation, not just airliners. Therefore, unless we change the article's scope (which would be a separate discussion altogether), then the title should not change. However, three notable cases of attempted shootdowns – Finnair, Arkia Israel and DHL (the Ibis near-misses are already covered in the main shootdown article) – could be conceivably grouped in a separate new list, which I would rather call List of airliner attempted shootdowns (i.e. forget gunfire, missiles and similar minute details). --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose of the requested move is to extend the scope of this article. So the discussion about the change of the scope should take place here and not in a separate discussion. Otto (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • So widening the scope is indeed your goal now your draft-article was refused. But with four oppose-votes and just support from the proposer, there is clearly no consensus for this change in title and scope.The Banner talk 21:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Extending the scope is my goal since the paragraph Near misses has been removed. After that I drafted a supplementary list to compensate for the removal of notable cases of (attempted) shootdowns. The requested move has the goal to restore these cases. The focus of this discussion should be on the question which scope serves the interest of the users and readers of the encyclopedia the best. Otto (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are campaigning (and failing in it) for widening of the scope since Flyingd was unsuccessful in adding shooting to the case of the Ibis. But look at the facts: there is no consensus for your request to widen the scope. The Banner talk 09:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • An alternative name which perhaps is more appropriate although it contains brackets is List of (attempted) shootdowns of civil aviation. Otto (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no need to widen the scope. The Banner talk 09:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The content should be leading in an encyclopedia, not the name of the article or the number of votes in a poll. A number of notable cases have been removed from the list. By that the scope has been narrowed. This removal of relevant content harms the interests of the readers, the users, of this encyclopedia. Otto (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nice try now you fail again to get support to widen the scope. The Banner talk 07:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closure requested. The Banner talk 07:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The request has been relisted because there is no consensus. The policy Article titles tells that The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists. The interests of the readers are the best served with the listing of all shooting assaults on civil aviation, not just downings of airliners. Otto (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is your private opinion, not the consensus visible in this discussion. The Banner talk 10:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

revisited: Mentioning two earlier attacks on the same airliner on the same route / BOAC 777[edit]

(This is copied from my Talk page Flyingd (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

See Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#BOAC_Flight_777 where there is consensus that the earlier attacks are irrelevant. The Banner talk 19:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop your editwarring and POV-pushing. There is a clear consensus that your remark is not relevant in this article. The Banner talk 19:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any consensus. I see the same few Dutch people that have stalked me since 2010 (when I started the Dutch BOAC 777 article). The earlier attacks are relevant, if not only for the fact that it was the only airliner in the world that was attacked 3 times. Please let me know if you know of another one. For any reader interested in civil aircraft shootdowns this is an interesting fact which would be hidden if not briefly mentioned in this list. (I will copy this discussion to the Talk page of the mentioned article) Flyingd (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the article here! Flyingd (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading is still poor.It is relevant for an article over the plane but not here. But you are so pre-occupied with it, that you loose all sense of relevance. The Banner talk 19:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse, this is a list of airliner shootdowns, let's not mention very briefly and in one short sentence the fact that an airliner was attacked 2 times previously in 7 months before it was shot down (totally unique). You are right, totally irrelevant. How could I have thought it was...Flyingd (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both times, the plane was not shot down. And shot down planes are the subject of this article. It is not the article List of airliner lucky escape incidents. The Banner talk 20:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't you have a problem with the 1992 YAK40 and the 2003 DHL? Both were NOT shot down. Besides, my addition was just a 'sidenote' to the entry boac777 and not a main entry like YAK40 and DHL. Flyingd (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because both plane were shot down. The Banner talk 21:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true, they were both damaged but landed successfully (talking about poor reading..). Just like the Ibis after the first two attacks. Flyingd (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After the shooting they were forced to land. The only other option was crash and die. The Banner talk 21:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All the attacks on the Ibis were over the Atlantic. After the first two attacks they were able to reach land and land successfully at the closest airport. In both cases the Ibis was forced to land due to damage. The full extent of the machinegun damage was not known inflight and it was not known how long they could maintain controlled flight (after one attack a broken rudder cable). Whether they were going to ditch in the sea or crash and die was not known untill they landed successfully. Flyingd (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is quiet again. Like I suspected it would be when I come up with valid points in this discussion.Flyingd (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or people are sick of your endless repeating of your POV, knowing that the community consensus is against it. The Banner talk 11:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a meaningless comment in this discussion. Please explain to me why the yak40 and the dhl have an entry in this list and the previous attacks on the Ibis are not even allowed in a sidenote to the boac777 entry. As far as I am concerned the previous attacks on the Ibis both deserve a full entry in this list. Flyingd (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This seems almost a copy of same discussion we had on the Dutch wiki. Also a few attacked planes that managed to land on the Dutch list. But the only the 2 earlier attacks on the Ibis I added caused great dismay with you. Flyingd (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You start repeating yourself. The Banner talk 00:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, you are pushing the same POV here as on the Dutch WP, with the same rejections from the community. The Banner talk 21:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not from the community but just you and 2-3 more persons, the same ones for years. Anyway lets stick to discussion about the article, pls answer about yak40 and dhl. Flyingd (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can Flyingd explain what arguments he now has that be did not mention last year during the previous conflict about this issue on the same article? - Robotje (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there you are. Welcome. Now just missing my other Dutch stalkers: Sashaporsche and Wikiklaas. Flyingd (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: are earlier attacks, not resulting in a shoot down, relevant[edit]

The consensus is that it is not relevant for the article List of airliner shootdown incidents to add shootings that did not result in an immediate shoot down or crash landing with plane loss, like the addition to section BOAC Flight 777 of Previous attacks on the same aircraft and route were on 15 November 1942 and 19 April 1943.

Cunard (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it relevant for the article List of airliner shootdown incidents to add shootings that did not result in an immediate shoot down or crash landing with plane loss, like the addition to section BOAC Flight 777 of Previous attacks on the same aircraft and route were on 15 November 1942 and 19 April 1943? The Banner talk 11:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You 'forgot' to mention the main entries 1992 YAK40 and 2003 DHL, both planes also landed successfully after sustaining attack damage, just like the Ibis twice before it was shot down. Flyingd (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And to be correct, I didn't add new shooting items. In light of the previous discussions on the subject I just added a one sentence note to the Boac777 shootdown entry. Flyingd (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is right. The RFC is only about the relevance of your addition to the section of BOAC Flight 777. Not about anything else. The Banner talk 18:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. Your RFC starts with the question: "Is it relevant for the article List of airliner shootdown incidents to add shootings that did not result in an immediate shoot down or crash landing with plane loss, like the addition to section BOAC Flight 777 [.....]?". The only example you mention does not become the subject of the RFC. Other examples that you don't want to mention are the YAK40 and DHL. Sorry, but it is your own writing. Flyingd (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The whole question is subject of the RFC, not your cherrypicking. The Banner talk 19:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again! Cherrypicking is exactly what you do by only mentioning the Ibis example and than trying to put the focus on this example as if was the main subject of the RFC. As you wrote in your own RFC the bare question is: "Is it relevant for the article List of airliner shootdown incidents to add shootings that did not result in an immediate shoot down or crash landing with plane loss?"
Examples of these shootings/attacks incidents without cherrypicking are:
  • 2003 DHL main listing
  • 1992 YAK40 main listing
  • 1943 BOAC Ibis not a main listing but a now deleted note to the main entry BOAC 777
  • 1942 BOAC Ibis also not a main entry but was mentioned in the same note with the 1943 Ibis incident
Attack incidents that do not qualify as shoot down's:
  • 1940 Chungking, this was the rebuilt Kweilin. Was attacked on the ground after scheduled landing. Not a 'shoot down'
  • 1939 Kweilin was forced to land on water by Japanese fighters then strafed while floating and then sunk. Also not a 'shoot down'
Please be fair and consider all mentioned items. Flyingd (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please be fair and stick to the question above. The Banner talk 14:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is relevant for the article etc. etc. Flyingd (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have already discussed this before on this page and decided they were not relevant so I am not sure why we need an RFC as the decision was pretty clear last time. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because someone prefers to ignore the earlier discussions and claims that there was no consensus about the question. The Banner talk 00:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Recently I asked Flyingd "Can Flyingd explain what arguments he now has that be did not mention last year during the previous conflict about this issue on the same article?" and in his response yesterday (see [2]) he did not not even attempt to answer that question. A year ago I didn't see why that information could be relevant for that article and he doesn't seem to have a new argument. I agree with MilborneOne the decision last time it was not relevant was clear and there seems to be no new arguments. - Robotje (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for that, I will answer that question here:
I don't have any new arguments. I think my same arguments are still valid. I don't think any consensus was reached. Not back then and not (yet) now. I do not know the exact consensus rules or guidelines but I doubt that 2 of my regular Dutch NLWP stalkers and one ENWP 'outsider' (MilborneOne) would validate a ENWP community consensus. If I am wrong here please explain why. Flyingd (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind stopping with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 14:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Already in 2006 I was amongst the 4,000 most active users on en-wiki ([Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/20061130/id]) and I am still active here. Why would my opinion be invalid here? - Robotje (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You must be a really good editor! But where is it written that your opinion would be invalid here? Flyingd (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit above you wrote "... I doubt that 2 of my regular Dutch NLWP ... and one ENWP 'outsider' ... would validate a ENWP community consensus." (underscore by Robotje) There you suggest there is a reason to doubt the validity of a RFC response on en-wiki of someone who is also active on nl-wiki. Why would it matter if two people also edit nl-wiki? If you are also active on nl-wiki would that also mean your response should be ignored/have less value? - Robotje (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to the number of editors that responded, not the validity of any individual response. However, it remains remarkable that of the three responses on the en-wiki RFC two came from Dutch editors that are part of the Dutch group of four that have battled me for years. Flyingd (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to refer to the number of editors that responded then please don't add noise that you doubt the validity with reference to non-relevant issues. You just wrote about "... Dutch editors that are part of the Dutch group of four that have battled me for years." In an earlier edit above you also were referring to a group of 4 Dutch editors and there you mentioned "... Sashaporsche and Wikiklaas ..." At this talk page, I don't see any edit of those two. Can you give me some example for both users where they are been battling you on en-wiki in the last 3 years (i.e. 36 months)? - Robotje (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "battled me for years on the nl-wiki", sorry that I didn't make this clear. Flyingd (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Flyingd, with this edit you changed a text I replied on and now it looks like I did not read what you wrote. If you change your mind or realise you did not make yourself clear, just mention it in a reply. Please remove the part you just added so it is clear to what was in your edit at the moment I replied to it.
So every time you were mentioning this group of 4 Dutch, you were importing problems from another Wikimedia project. Please do realise you can get blocked for that kind of behaviour! - Robotje (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - Robotje (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant, as proposer. Conform earlier discussions and the fact that those attacks did not shoot down the plane. The Banner talk 15:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not relevant Flyingd's nuisance editing ignores that prior consensus remains even if it's not to their liking. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not relevant, but support a change The definition here isn't well done, and I originally interpreted it to be relevant, but the attack and destruction of an aircraft in flight means the aircraft was completely destroyed in flight. I had to look up "destruction" on Webster's like a high court judge, though. This needs to be rewritten so there's no confusion. I also don't have a problem with including shootdowns which landed safely, as they're relevant to this list - was very surprised the DHL flight would not count for inclusion under this definition, but as the definition is currently written it would not be relevant. At the very least, improve the definition. SportingFlyer T·C 06:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a suggestion for the rewrite of the definition? The Banner talk 12:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Banner: It depends on what you're going for. This whole edit war is about one thing only: what "shootdown" means. I think "shootdown" includes the DHL flight, for instance, as that aircraft was hit by a missile and prevented from continuing its normal flight, but the list only includes planes which were shot down and were not able to recover. Option one would be, This list is defined as civilian airliners, whether transporting cargo or passengers, which were intentionally or accidentally attacked in flight by a third party using missiles, guns, or other weaponry. Option two would be, This list is defined as civilian airliners, whether transporting cargo or passengers, which were intentionally or accidentally attacked in flight by a third party using missiles, guns, or other weaponry, resulting in the complete in-flight destruction of the aircraft. Probably can be edited a bit, but that's more specific than what's currently on the page. I prefer option one, including the DHL flight. SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not with current title. Shootdown - means the plane crashed. Had this been a List of attacks on airliners there may have been scope for discussion - though attacks not ending with significant damage (or any damage at all) may be a much longer list. Icewhiz (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are these items considered 'airliners'?[edit]

  • 1985 POLAR3 This plane was owned by a German research institute and had researchers on board.
  • 1987 Zimex was flying for Red Cross.
  • 1988 DC-7 converted for spraying insecticide against loctus, chartered by an US agency.
  • 2001 Peru shootdown, this was a 6 person Cessna 185 floatplane. Not clear if it operated as an 'airline'.

'Airliners' are operated by Airline companies that sell tickets for scheduled destinations to the public. I am not sure if the above aircraft qualify. Advise/opinions requested. Flyingd (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read: Airliner The Banner talk 19:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did. So what is your conclusion about the list of 'non-airliners' above? Do they need to be removed from the list of airliner shootdown's? Flyingd (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first two qualify. The next two I have to look at. The Banner talk 10:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you consider the POLAR3 (small Dornier research airplane with research crew) and the Zimex plane (flying Red Cross flights) to be airliners? Flyingd (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I partially agree with Flyingd on this one, assuming we are going with the definition I see at Airliner, the source you proposed, which reads, "an airliner is typically defined as an aeroplane intended for carrying multiple passengers or cargo in commercial service" (emphasis mine). In my view, carrying passengers or cargo in commercial service means that the persons or entities that own and operate the aircraft are not affiliated with the persons or cargo being transported (that is, the entity with employs the passengers or owns the cargo is not the entity flying the aircraft). Instead, I believe operating an aircraft in commercial service means that the owners/operators of the aircraft are transporting those passengers and/or cargo because they have been paid to do so (that is, they are providing a service as a commercial operation). If we work from this understanding, neither Polar 3 nor the DC-7 is an airliner (Polar 3 because it was owned and operated by the entity whose personnel were being transported, the DC-7 because it was not transporting persons or cargo from one place to another). The Zimex, I believe, was an airliner. I can't tell for the floatplane involved in the Peru incident.
This is, of course, working with the definition that I think you provided. I could always be looking at the wrong thing, and even if I am not, Wikipedia is a poor source for definitions. If you think another definition from somewhere else is better, please mention it. I am not an expert here.
Moreover, I don't believe I agree that removing non-airliners is the right course of action here. We do not have a list of shootdown incidents of civilian aircraft in general, because that is basically what this list is. I think it is likely that someone interested in incidents involving shootdowns of small airliners (like most of the items on this list are) will probably be interested in shootdowns of all civilian aircraft, because the nature of the attack is essentially the same in both cases: a defenseless, usually innocuous aircraft was shot down, and innocent people died as a result. I would suggest that we expand the scope of this list to include those few items that are not technically airliners but were carrying innocent, unwitting civilians. If it turns out that there are many more non-airliner civilian aircraft than we have seen so far, we can always create two different lists. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to rename article to 'List of attacks on commercial passenger aircraft'[edit]

I think a lot of discussion above is due to the title of the article. Using not well defined words like 'airliner' and 'shootdown'. Changing the title to 'List of attacks on commercial passenger aircraft' (or something similar) will also validate the inclusion of the few items that are now at discussion and makes (in my opinion) a more informative list. Feedback requested. Flyingd (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or 'List of attacks on airliners'? The scope would then cover attacks with damage after which airplanes landed successfully (only 4?) and the others that were not technically 'shot down', the Kweiling and the Chungking. Flyingd (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is altering (severely widening) the scope of this article. No need for that. Ander desparate attempt to get your POV in. The Banner talk 15:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Severely widening?? 2 items would be added and 4 items would not have to be removed. Flyingd (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can add far more. It would make it possible for every plane (in your definition "commercial passenger aircraft") in the world that was shot at to claim a place in the list. Or when somebody breaks the security perimeter and paints a plane. Boom, in the list. A drunk guy kicking a plane. Boom, in the list. So we get a list full of absolutely non-notable incidents. The Banner talk 15:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the list will fill up as you say. The examples you give are clearly not intended for this list and no one would disagree. I am not sure what you mean by "every plane (in your definition "commercial passenger aircraft") in the world". Flyingd (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have nowhere stated that the attacks should be noteworthy and they comply with the limits set by the article title. The Banner talk 16:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this section is about a title change. Pls put your comment in the apropiate section. Flyingd (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible? Certainly not. See this incident. And yes, this was an US Navy aircraft used as an airliner. I know it won't qualify, but the incident and persecution are real. The Banner talk 16:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say very rare incident and cleary not for the list. Flyingd (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Flyingd if you do not agree with the current consensus then trying to change the name and scope of this article is very WP:POINTy so rather than being seen as disruptive it is probably time to drop this and accept the current consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I decided maybe a title change was a good idea after finding more 'shootdowns' in the list that do not qualify according to the title. Nothing disruptive meant. I am still not aware of any consensus about the matter before or now. Flyingd (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you have read this talk page and understand the consensus reached which clearly makes this a WP:POINTy discussion. If you don't understand then perhaps we have WP:CIR issues. Have another read of the talk page and please ask any questions if you cant understand what has been said. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After the proposed title change you can get a mixture of incidents like shooting downs thar are already in the article and events like some irresponsible people using a laser pen/pointer aimed at a commercial airplane. I think it is better to restrict the topic of the article to the current situation. - Robotje (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean the YAK40, DHL, Kweilin and Chungking incidents also need to be removed from the list? These incidents do not qualify under the current title. Flyingd (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Flyingd, stop your disruptive behaviour. It is useless to start the same discussion 25 times, every time you are out of proper arguments. The Banner talk 10:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to focus on the question: Do the above mentioned incidents (YAK40, DHL, Kweilin, Chungking) need to be removed as they do not qualify under the title? Flyingd (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do focus on the discussion at hand. And I say that you are acting disruptive to confuse this discussion and the RFC above. The Banner talk 11:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not confusing the discussion at all. It is very simple: If you insist there is no place in the list for 2 earlier attacks on the Ibis how come you have no problems with the 1992 YAK40 and the 2003 DHL incident? The same question about the 1938 Kweilin and the 1940 Chungking incidents, as these two incidents can not be considered shoot down's as is required according to the article title.Flyingd (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
May I also remind you of your statement at Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#2003_DHL:
  • "I have removed that part completely, as the plane [2003 DHL] was not shot down"
contradictory to your later statement at Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#revisited:_Mentioning_two_earlier_attacks_on_the_same_airliner_on_the_same_route_/_BOAC_777:
  • "Because both planes [1992 YAK40, 2003 DHL] were shot down."
You are contradicting yourself and add confusion to the discussion. Flyingd (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are really desperate that you get no support, isn't it. The Banner talk 14:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not desperate at all. However, your many irrelevant statements to not react to valid points in this discussion do seem a bit desperate. Flyingd (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am only getting a bit desperate due to an editor who ignores previous discussions to claim his own POV. And who is trying to disrupt serious discussions with complete nonsense, distractions and personal attacks. You are clearly not here to cooperate and build an encyclopedia. And you give me the idea that you are acting out of some sort of Conflict of Interest. The Banner talk 15:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just repeat the question: Do the above mentioned incidents (YAK40, DHL, Kweilin, Chungking) need to be removed as they do not qualify under the title? Flyingd (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Flyingd, you started a new discussion about renaming this article to 'List of attacks on commercial passenger aircraft'. The question you keep repeating has nothing to do with attacks on commercial passenger aircraft. You ignore my remarks about attacks with laser pens/pointers on commercial passenger aircraft and try to focus on your question about issues that has nothing to do with attacks on commercial passenger aircraft. Please try to stay more focussed on the topic you started yourself. - Robotje (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The question has everything to do with renaming the article. Without renaming the article the four aircraft in the question have no place in the list. I would like them to remain in the list. I suspect you and Banner refuse to answer this question as you also want these aircraft in the list but then you would also have to allow two previous attacks on the Ibis as the DHL and YAK40 are very similar incidents as the two attacks on the Ibis (after attack a successful landing with attack damage). Flyingd (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. A title is needed that would include the aircraft in this discussion but would exclude your mentioned 'laserpen attacks' and also the idiot in the woods that took a shot at an overflying airliner (if there are any documented cases of this at all). Flyingd (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why you want a renaming and widening of the scope of the article is to push your own POV. It is not of any benefit to the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 17:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, there are 4 incidents that can not remain on this list without a title change. I am not sure what you consider to be my POV. Flyingd (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Hello Flyingd, the change is from airliner shootdown to attacks on commercial passenger aircraft. From what I understand you think the case of the airplane spraying insecticide against loctus should be removed without changing the title (because it was not an airliner) but also after changing the title as you proposed (because it is not a commercial passenger aircraft. If that is correct, you think that case should be removed anyway. Please explain to me, if my understanding is wrong or not. - Robotje (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the spraying airplane should be removed regardless of a title change. It was clearly not used as an 'airliner' and it is safe to assume it had no paying passengers aboard. Flyingd (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you have never read the source? That read (amongst others) Two T&G Aviation DC-7 planes were to be flown from Senegal to Morocco for a locust control mission there. No evidence that it is a spray plane. The Banner talk 17:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyingd. Clear, no matter if the title is changed or not, in your opinion that one should be removed. There are three more under discussion. Which of those three do YOU think should be handled differently if the title is changed or not? - Robotje (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the list itself: T&G Aviation DC-7 "The aircraft was to be used to spray insecticide to control a locust outbreak.". Clearly not an airliner but a DC-7 converted for spraying.Flyingd (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Information in a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a source of information; see WP:UGC. - Robotje (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the source (https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19881208-1) it states the DC-7 was used for a locust control mission. That means using this converted DC-7 for spraying chemicals to kill locust. So not a passenger or cargo 'airline flight'.Flyingd (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the source states. Please read more carefully! - Robotje (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then what does the source state according to you? Are you saying you believe this was an airliner? Flyingd (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read in that source "Two T&G Aviation DC-7 planes were to be flown from Senegal to Morocco for a locust control mission there." and from the rest of the page it is even more clear the attack occurred after leaving Senegal but before they arrived at the destination airport in Morocco. You claimed "In the source ... it states the DC-7 was used for a locust control mission." According to that source it was not about one DC-7 plane but two DC-7 planes and the attack did not occur during or after a locust control mission. It also doesn't say if the mission was later still done with those planes. So that was a double mistake in what you claimed was stated in the source! Even after I explained you, that your claim was incorrect you were not able to find at least one mistake? Next time you claim something is written in a source it becomes more difficult to believe you. - Robotje (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least still four on the list under discussion, Kweilin, Chungking, YAK40 and DHL, that should not be on the list under the current title. I think they all should stay in the list, hence my proposal for a title change. If these four incidents have a place in the list then the previous BOAC Ibis attacks deserve a place too. You can not allow these four incidents in the list and at the same time disallow the BOAC Ibis attacks. Flyingd (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You still do not understand why these attacks are irrelevant for the article? Or do just play that you do not understand that? The Banner talk 21:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I truly don't understand that. Specially with the four incidents mentioned above that have been on the list wrongly (with the current title) and which you have been ignoring when I asked you about them more than a few times. And lets not forget the fact that the BOAC Ibis is the only airliner in this list (and in the world) that was attacked three times. It is rediculous to hide this fact from this list. Flyingd (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIR. If you do not understand the issue, there is certainly a problem with your competence. The Banner talk 08:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also react to your contradictory statements about 2003 DHL as I mentioned above? According to you was DHL shot down or not? Flyingd (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-gathering of issues[edit]

(Summoned by bot) I am here because I received a notification to comment on the RfC here. I removed the RfC template as malformed, which The Banner rightly reverted, although I can guarantee you that nobody is going to want to comment on that RfC when it is immediately followed by a massive chain of edits disputing its validity. I would suggest you close it and start a new one, although not right this second, because right now nobody seems to know exactly what the core issue in this discussion is, and we should figure that out first.
Currently, there is disagreement about whether six items should be included, two of which currently are not, four of which currently are. At the heart of these disagreements are two disagreements over definitions, one regarding what constitutes an "airliner" and one over what constitutes a "shootdown". I don't see the proposed name change as particularly salient, because I interpret it as a good-faith but misguided effort by an editor frustrated with the lack of progress in this discussion to resolve the question of definitions. And yes, I have read everything on this page, and I do not care about either the supposed stalking related to Dutch Wikipedia or the supposed tendentious editing. If I'm teasing out unexpressed questions here, there are clearly unresolved issues here on this page. Forgive my bluntness, but I do not wish to hear anything else about either of those issues right now. I hope all of you are willing to give this another good-faith effort.
Let's start with the simple question, since I can see what exactly the dispute there is about: does an incident where a plane is forced to land due to damage from being shot constitute a shootdown, or is the plane only actually "shot down" if it actually crashes, that is, the pilots had no control over when or where it did so? Flyingd seems to not regard a plane that the pilots are able to control the landing as having truly been shot out of the sky. I believe everyone else who has participated so far believes that a shoot down is any time a plane lands earlier than planned because of being shot. Is this an accurate assessment of everyone's positions?
The messier question is what constitutes an "airliner". Frankly, I have no idea what constitutes an airliner versus any aeroplane, and I think that neither do half the people participating here. The Banner suggested that there was a definition listed at airliner, and I believe what he was referring to is this: "an aeroplane intended for carrying multiple passengers or cargo in commercial service". Is this what you were referring to? And if so, is this a definition everyone here can agree to work with, or do we think it should be something else?
I hope we can, at the moment, just discuss these two definitions, because we will not be able to decide what belongs in a list of airliners that were shot until we can agree what an airliner and a shootdown are. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The core issue is that someone wants to add two non-shoot-down shootings at the section about BOAC Flight 777 and does everything to distract people from that. The Banner talk 21:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, Flyingd's proposal is to note in #BOAC Flight 777 that the shootdown incident listed was the third attempt to down that aircraft. As I see it, this information can be integrated into the list seamlessly and briefly: you could simply append the phrase "following two previous attempts" or "the third such attack" or something similar to the end of the first sentence. I believe this information is indeed salient, for it indicates that the plane was not simply caught in the crossfire, or mistaken for a military aircraft, or some other kind of accident, but that the Germans attacked it intentionally and as part of a consistent policy. It should probably also be noted that the aircraft was flying a route that the British used for covert operations, and that passenger Leslie Howard was rumoured to be a spy, because that provides the motive for the attack. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the other attacks relevant in your opinion? The Banner talk 17:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure which other attacks you are referring to. If you mean the two other BOAC attacks that we are currently talking about, I already said: "it [mentioning the other two attacks] indicates that the plane was not simply caught … in some kind of accident, but that the Germans attacked it intentionally and as part of a consistent policy." They are relevant because they provide the reader with important context for understanding the attack that did shoot the plane down. If you are referring to something else, you will need clarify what.
In case it is unclear, I am not proposing they should have their own sections. They are not within the scope of this list. This list, however, consists of summaries of individual incidents, and the two attacks that failed are, I believe, within the scope of the summary of the attack that succeeded, due to the nature of the information they provide about the latter. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have the right attacks in mind, the same that are subject of the RFC. But what I see is someone who is victim of the deliberately created confusion. The Banner talk 22:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I try to thoroughly consider all criticisms of me, I fear I'm not seeing what you are. Would you do me a favor and explain where my logic has erred? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"RFC: are earlier attacks, not resulting in a shoot down, relevant". The discussions initiated by Flyingd are completely irrelevant for the RFC and are just a smoke screen. The Banner talk 14:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the RfC is yours, and I believe it misconstrues what Flyingd was attempting to propose. See in the previous section, where he says (emphasis mine):

Please explain to me why the yak40 and the dhl have an entry in this list and the previous attacks on the Ibis are not even allowed in a sidenote to the boac777 entry.

But this doesn't even matter, frankly. Regardless of whether this is what Fyingd was trying to propose, it is what I am proposing, and the fact that there is an RfC in progress for one proposal does not stop us from simultaneously considering another relevant proposal: if anything, it essentially impels us to, given that choosing one of these options will render the others irrelevant or superfluous. So, I would be grateful if you focused on the goals instead of on the process. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The focus of the RFC is solely on the earlier attacks on BOAC Flight 777. Nothing more, nothing less. The goal of the RFC is to get a clear answer about the relevance of these attacks for this article. Nothing more, nothing less. The Banner talk 16:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not see that I was previously discussing[3] what you have just said is relevant to the RfC[4], and that we wound up here because you said it wasn't[5]? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are here because someone deliberately ignored the prior consensus what stated the the earlier attacks were not relevant for this article. The Banner talk 17:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Consensus can change. Generally, if somebody raises new arguments about an issue, that is sufficient reason to reexamine the consensus. As far as I can tell, I am justifying mentioning the two in a way that nobody on this talk page has in the past. Please correct me if I am wrong.

So far, you have raised nearly every objection to my proposal except one that explains why adopting it would be detrimental to the article or the encyclopedia. Please try to focus on what really matters. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: Thank you for your time putting my points/arguments in different but correct wording. I assume you also notice that your (in my eyes) valid arguments also get no 'to the point' response at all. Flyingd (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and here we go again. The Banner talk 23:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Compassionate727: I support your proposal to append the phrase ""following two previous attempts"" in the summary about BOAC Flight 777. Otto (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Compassionate727: I also support the proposal to append the above phrase, but should a date/timing reference be considered? For example: ""following two previous attacks on 15 November 1942 and 19 April 1943 after which the damaged airplane could still land successfully on friendly territory."". Flyingd (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So far, you have never explained why those earlier attacks were relevant to this article. The Banner talk 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Compassionate727 explained this very well above. I also have explained this numerous times previously on this page. You have sofar refused to give any substantial reactions to these explanations. Flyingd (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyingd: I think exact dates are unnecessary. Exactly when these attacks happened isn't important here, just that they did. I do think it would be appropriate to say: "following two unsuccessful attempts in the previous eight months", or something like that, to contextualize how long the Luftwaffe had been trying to shoot it down. But I don't think knowing that those two attacks happened on 15 November and 19 April specifically tells us anything more about the 1 June shootdown than something resembling the above. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments/suggestions what to do about the 4 main entries that were not 'shoot downs', DHL, Yak40, Kweilin and Chungking? As I stated before I think they should be listed but are erroneous under the current title. Flyingd (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of subjects[edit]

I propose the removal of the following subjects:

  • 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident
    It was removed by me on 8 July 2018 but reinstated on 21 March 2019 (when I was temporary off-line).
  • Kweilin Incident
    Not shot down but crashed while avoiding an attack. Plane was not lost but flew again as "Chungking". The earlier attack should be removed from the section about the Chungking, as it is not relevant for this article.
  • Polar 3
    According to Airliner, an airliner is typically defined as an aeroplane intended for carrying multiple passengers or cargo in commercial service. As the plane was in the service of a scientific research institution and returning of a scientific mission, it fails the definition if airliner.
  • 1992 Shooting of Armenian plane by Azerbaijan military
    According to the given source, the plane was repaired and flew again. Although a hair raising experience, it was not shot down.
  • Aeroflot IL-12
    According to Airliner, an airliner is typically defined as an aeroplane intended for carrying multiple passengers or cargo in commercial service. As the plane was in the service of the Russian navy, it was not in commercial service.
  • 2001 Peru shootdown
    No evidence that it meets the definition of an airliner

The Banner talk 16:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose removal of any 'airliner' that was carrying passengers or cargo (as offered to the general public in an airline operation) and was attacked in the air and crashed, crash landed or succesfully landed with attack damage. Hence my earlier proposal for a title change. Widening the scope to include these incidents will have a positive effect on the information in the list for anyone that seeks information on 'attacked airliners'. I have the idea Banner's only reason for this proposal is that for some unknown personal reason he is trying to exclude any mention to the two previous Ibis attacks as he has been doing for years on the NL-WIKI, including on the Dutch BOAC 777 article that I have initiated. Reading this talk page on airliner shootdown's will give a good indication of Banner's disruptive behaviour and refusing to come up with any valid arguments. Flyingd (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Earlier on this talk page Banner wrote: "Because both planes [1992 YAK40, 2003 DHL] were shot down." And now he is proposing to delete the 2003 DHL and the 1992 YAK40 incidents as they were not shot down. Banner is losing track of his disruptive comments and is contradicting himself. Flyingd (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you have been reading here, but there is a reasoning with every removal proposal. The Banner talk 20:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any comments/suggestions what to do about the 4 main entries that were not 'shoot downs', DHL, Yak40, Kweilin and Chungking? As I stated before I think they should be listed but are erroneous under the current title. Flyingd (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC) This sections just answers that question. The Banner talk 20:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please edit your comment above as it is not clear you are quoting an earlier comment from me. Flyingd (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Flyingd that the cases mentioned by The Banner should not be removed because it harms the value of the article for the readers of this encyclopedia. The name of the article is wrong: The policy Article titles tells that The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists. The interests of readers are best served with the listing of all shooting assaults on civil aviation, not just downings of airliners. To apply this policy to this article is a case of common sense. Otto (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Otto ter Haar's reasoning wholeheartedly. Shootdowns of airliners (at least small ones) and of other civilian aircraft are rather similar incidents. The premise is basically identical: a belligerent entity fires upon an aircraft which was neither hostile nor capable of defending itself, resulting in that plane's downing. I imagine that most people who visit this list do so because they are interested in learning about historical examples of this type of incident, and thus would be interested in seeing both airliners and other civilian aircraft.
The principle of least astonishment probably also applies, in that most readers probably will not expect us to exclude some civilian aircraft just because they aren't technically airliners, when most readers (like myself before this discussion) probably don't know what the definition of an airliner really is. This is especially true because this list is likely to attract a significant audience other than persons interested in aviation, such as those interested in terrorist attacks, who may know little about aviation topics themselves. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In general: because the content is at odds with the title and meaning of this article, the scope of this article should be widened? Both Otto and Flyingd has suggested to create a new article. I would say: now is the time to do that. The Banner talk 15:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't think the scope should be expanded merely because the content exists and conflicts with that scope. When people repeatedly add items that fall outside the scope of a list, it becomes worthwhile to ask whether our audience would be better served by limiting the list to its current scope, or by expanding the scope to include those items. Otto ter Haar and I have both argued that readers looking for information on shootdown incidents involving airliners are likely also interested in shootdown incidents of other civilian aircraft. Otto would also appear to believe that the reader of a list of shootdowns will likely also be interested in attempted shootdowns, which I disagree with, but because your question was about the principle that justifies expanding the scope at all rather than the actual reasons for doing so in this case, let's just focus on the airliner/aircraft aspect for now, so that I can better explain the point.
As for why we don't create a separate list for non-airliner civilian aircraft, the primary concern is what I explained in my previous reply. Readers probably won't expect us to have separate lists for airliners and other civilian aircraft for the same reasons they probably don't expect us to exclude the latter from this list (namely that whether or not the aircraft was an airliner doesn't really change the premise of the incident, and that the distinction between an airliner and other types of aircraft is, to some extent, jargon that we cannot and should not expect the reader to know). When we filter information into separate places unexpectedly, that makes it harder for the reader to find that information, which is shooting ourselves in the foot as encyclopedia editors and does our readers a disservice. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident - remove it was being used as a freighter and was not actually shotdown just damaged. MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kweilin Incident - remove as it was not actually shotdown. MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polar 3 - remove not an airliner. MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1992 Shooting of Armenian plane by Azerbaijan military - removed as it was not actually shotdown. MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aeroflot IL-12 - remove as a non-comercial military aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2001 Peru shootdown remove clearly not an airliner. MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose removal of attacks (in the air) on civil airplanes carrying paying (general public) passengers or attacks on 'airliners' that were carrying cargo in a civil airline operation (2003 DHL). Flyingd (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support removal of the Polar3 and the Aeroflot IL-22.
I am not sure about the 2001 Peru incident as although it was a small 6 seat airplane it could very well have been a 'scheduled airline operation' which is common in some remote area's. Flyingd (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the very few (if any) attacks in the air on commercial civilian aircraft with civilian passenger i.e. civilian non-airline operation should be listed also. Flyingd (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a shootdown?[edit]

Whether to include civilian aircraft apart from airliners is only half the question. Some of The Banner's suggested removals, namely the the 1992 Armenian plane incident and the 2003 Baghdad DHL incident, are instead about whether those incidents were actually shootdowns. If we disagree about this, it is because we disagree on what a shootdown is, and we need to define that term first. Personally, I'm inclined to derive the definition from the word: I'd define a shootdown as an incident where a plane is brought down (i.e. leaves the sky due to a chief factor other than the pilot's control) by being shot. Therefore, I would include an incident as a shootdown if the plane makes an emergency landing or a forced landing due to the damage. However, I know little about this subject, so this definition may be unconventional or there may simply be a better one. I'd like to hear other opinions. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being badly damaged and safely landing is not being shotdown. MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to be badly damaged and then make a safe landing. A landing like that is never safe, a landing with a damaged airplane is unsafe per definition. However, in cases like this you can talk about a 'successfull' landing. Flyingd (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, I think there may be an issue with using emergency landing, given an aircraft could conceivably make an emergency (urgently prioritized) landing that was nevertheless not rough, if the aircraft sustained damage during the attack that did not cause significantly effect ship systems, but the pilots decided to land immediately anyway because it is better to be safe than sorry. I imagine it would better to use hard landing instead, but that raises the issue that a pilot who makes a hard landing nevertheless had control of both when and where he landed, which is not really being shot down. Perhaps it would be better to limit to forced landings? I imagine that any emergency landing that occurred due to damage rendering continued safe operation of the aircraft impossible would also constitute a forced landing. That might be all we need. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really relevant to being shotdown, you dont normaly land if you have been shotdown. MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: I just proposed what I believe may be a viable definition of "shootdown". You cannot refute that proposed definition by claiming it includes things that aren't shootdowns: that's begging the question. If you disagree that shooting an aircraft and forcing it to land prematurely and unsafely is shooting it down, please explain why (perhaps by proposing what you think is a better definition), so that we can work toward a definition we both find acceptable. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because causing an aircraft to land by damaging it is clearly it has not been shot down so not the focus of this article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also note it is not up to us to make up a definition we need to rely on reliable sources, dictionary.com has "the attack and destruction of an aircraft in flight" seems to fit the bill. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's work with this definition for the moment, although it is not a perfect one. The most obvious question is whether "in flight" modifies both the attack and the destruction, or just the attack. In other words, if a plane sustains damage in an attack that causes the pilot to lose control, and the plane is destroyed upon reaching the ground, does this count as a shootdown, or must the plane be destroyed while it is still midair? Another important question is what the difference between a damaged and destroyed airplane is, but I think that one should be easy enough to agree on: namely, that the destroyed aircraft's hull has been so compromised that it cannot be safely flown again. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In flight is not on the ground, destroying an aircraft on the ground from the air is something different. Cant really mix destruction with damage they are different things. Seems a pretty clear definition to me. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the former question, I meant whether a plane must be destroyed midair to be "shot down", or if being destroyed upon subsequently crashing and/or landing also counts. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Managing to land is not "Destruction in flight" so doesnt count. MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what about crashing? Do you recognize a distinction between it and landing? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a crash is not a landing. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed "the attack and destruction of an aircraft in flight" seems to me to be a good definition for a shootdown to be used for this article. - Robotje (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure I'm satisfied with this definition. If we used it as proposed, we would need to remove the following entries: Kweilin incident, Korean Air Lines Flight 902, 1992 Shooting of Armenian plane by Azerbaijan military, and 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident. In particular, removing Koran Air Lines Flight 902 gives me pause, because the Wikipedia article and the list entry both describe it as having been "shot down" and then subsequently making an "emergency landing" (a term often used interchangeably with "crash landing", which poses problems for our binary distinction between a violent landing and crashing, whatever the tangible difference is—nobody has yet said). I'm just not convinced that our readers are well served by telling them: "Surprise! We've decided to make a list of strictly shootdowns, so we're going to bury that entry about the plane that was shot at, forced to recklessly land on the water, and subsequently sunk, killing almost everyone aboard (the Kweilin incident)". I mean, the premise is very similar: persons with weapons shoot at a defenseless civilian aircraft, causing the plane to descend from the air dangerously and the deaths of innocent persons (sometimes most of them). Isn't that close enough?

Perhaps we could have a separate section at the bottom on attempted shootdowns? I understand that they don't quite belong, but lists like this exist for the sake of comprehensiveness: readers come here either because they are trying to find a specific incident with only a small detail, or because they want to see every single instance of that incident. As I see it, excluding the Korean Air Lines Flight 902 entry solely because it landed without casualties serves neither the first type of reader, trying to find this entry using only the memory that it involved the Soviet military and a Korean airliner, nor the second type, whose interests are broad enough that he will likely still find the incident interesting. I would make a separate list, but there simply aren't enough items: I would be told by NPP to merge it back. If we eventually end up with a large list of attempts, we can create a separate list then. In the meantime, this would also help us avoid giving the false impression that all attempts to shoot an aircraft result in it being destroyed.

Alternatively, if someone can cogently argue that there is a meaningful difference between a crash and a violent, immediate, and uncontrolled (or poorly controlled) landing (that is, beyond simply which category we put in: one which affects how we as persons understand the incident), I'll drop this point. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has already been mentioned nothing wrong with starting an article List of airliner attempted shootdowns, which as you say would include the likes of KE902 which should not be included here as it wasnt destroyed just forced to land. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have created such an article but that has been rejected. See User_talk:Otto_ter_Haar#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_List_of_attempted_shootdowns_of_civil_aviation_(September_25). Otto (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Compassionate727 Regarding a separate section at the bottom on attempted shootdowns, that section existed for years with the name Near misses. Otto (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested undeletion of the draft so that I can get a better idea of the reason for the rejection. (Failure to meet WP:NLIST makes little sense as a rejection criteria; my guess is the reviewer meant to refer to WP:LISTN.) In the meantime, do we know why that section was removed? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Outside the scope of this article. The Banner talk 13:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Compassionate727 The draft has been restored. See User:Otto_ter_Haar/List_of_attempted_shootdowns_of_civil_aviation Otto (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be a good idea when you add a proper definition to the article so the scope is more clear. And where it differs from this article. The Banner talk 07:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Kweilin and the DHL incident can be safely move up there. The 1942 KNILM incident is a difficult one, as the plane managed to land, only to be shot to pieces after that. The Banner talk 08:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flyingd?[edit]

Could you please stop adding the non-shootdown attacks on the Ibis. How many times do we have to reach consensus that those attacks are irrelevant for this article before you understand that? The Banner talk 18:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And please, do not play the innocent guy surrounded by evil people. There was already at least three times a consensus that your additions were irrelevant. Why do you keep pushing it? The Banner talk 21:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to where consensus was reached?Flyingd (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I am not adding non-shootdown attacks on the list as you put it. I am just making a one sentence reference in the existing item boac777 (until consensus is reached on a title change as I wrote by the edit). Flyingd (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are no current requests to rename this page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, because filing a requested move while we are still arguing like this would just cause headaches for other people. I intend to open such a discussion once we reach some kind of tentative consensus. At a minimum, I think there is support for broadening the scope to include all civilian aircraft instead of just airliners. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you have trouble reading and understanding everything what does not suit you, but those shootings you are desperately adding to the BOAC-section are really not relevant. Read this talk page, and see that there ore multiple occasions where there was consensus reached that these shootings were irrelevant. You have already a topic ban on the Dutch Wikipedia for exactly this behaviour. The next time you add, I will file a case on AN/I. Enough is enough. The Banner talk 16:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping the English Wiki is more capable (or less corrupt) then the the Dutch one. Lets see if you get an admin to go along with you here. As I have stated in de NL-wiki before. The more this nonsense is documented the more I like it. Flyingd (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a case on AN/I regarding your relentless pushing and failure of WP:CIR and I am asking for a topic ban. The Banner talk 16:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the boomerang. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had noticed your attempt to put the blame on me. The Banner talk 07:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solution?[edit]

How about if we abandon the title change discussion and add something like this (or similar) to the text directly under the title?: "A few airliners were attacked and managed to crash-land or successfully land at the first opportunity with attack damage, these are also listed." Flyingd (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly if you read the discussion that is not relevant or within the scope of this article. If you keep pushing the same agenda against the consensus and previous discussions it may be seen as disruptive so it may be time for you to drop the WP:STICK. MilborneOne (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only editor wanting to change the article title to severely widing its scope is one Flyingd. And up to know, I did not hear any convincing arguments why that would be a good idea. The Banner talk 21:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only Flyingd who wants to wide the scope. Compassionate727 suggests above to add a section Attempted shootdowns and I support his suggestion. Otto (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: I do not believe that listing attempted shootdowns would severely widen the scope. From what I have seen, there are only seven such incidents that would be added, and four of them are already in this article. You argued somewhere far above that expanding the scope to include any attacks would mean that someone throwing a rock at a parked plane would make it onto this list, but that's ridiculous. Even if we editors had no editorial sense and couldn't agree that such an incident does not reasonably constitute an attack, there is no way that someone throwing a rock at a plane would generate media coverage, much less be notable, and all entries in a Wikipedia list must be notable in themselves. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you guys so desperate to widen the scope of this article? I hear only arguments like "it does no harm" but no real content-related arguments. The Banner talk 13:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See [6][7][8][9], among others. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not content related. The Banner talk 13:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm unsure what you mean by content-related if explanations of why the proposed content would benefit the reader don't count. I doubt I want to ask, either, because the last time you asked me to justify my position and subsequently objected that my response was irrelevant, I asked you to clarify what you meant and we spent the next two days arguing senselessly about semantics. If you please, why don't we just skip the senseless arguing about what is and is not technically "content-related"? Instead, let's jump straight to the part where you rebut my arguments about why the proposed content would aid the reader, or where you offer some other argument that the content would be of disservice to the reader. That way, we can make genuine progress toward building a better encyclopedia article. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner making threats on my talk page: User_talk:Flyingd#For_Your_Information Flyingd (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I made you a promise!
I have filed a case on AN/I regarding your relentless pushing and failure of WP:CIR and I am asking for a topic ban. The Banner talk 16:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected link to your request: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Flyingd Flyingd (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The incident has been archived Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1013#Flyingd:

"the actual decision is that Flyingd and Robotje are both topic banned from this article and from similar issues in other aircraft articles at the enWP for the next twelve months, including the talk pages . The Banner is probably under the impression that he is just reporting the dispute, not participating in it, but in fairness it would be better if he did not participate either, so I'm giving a twelve month topic ban restriction, but for this article only, and not including the talk page." DGG (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Otto (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WebApp from York University[edit]

I propose to restore Webmap application of airliner shootdown incidents developed by ADERSIM, York University. Main reason: it provides a map with many of the incidents mentioned in this list and is as such a usefull addition for the reader. I suggest to add it to a new section External links. Otto (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice decoration but adds nothing. The Banner talk 11:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The app is not just a decoration but adds functionality which the wikipedia article doesn't provide.
Specifically:
  1. A world map with the locations of the listed incidents.
  2. A search tool.

Otto (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it comply with the criteria in the WP:EL guideline? I'm not convinced... Rosbif73 (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My main points is that is a helpful addition for the readers. We write an article for the readers, not to comply to a guideline. Otto (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt appear to add any value to this article we already have a list of incidents and links to relevant articles. Not relevant but it also has some quality issues. MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As listed above: the app provides a map with the locations of the incidents and a search tool which the article doesn't provide. What are the quality issues where you refer to? Otto (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions used[edit]

  • Airliner: an aeroplane intended for carrying multiple passengers or cargo in commercial service.
  • Shootdown: the external attack and destruction of an aircraft in flight.
Why is this removed out of the article? The Banner talk 13:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article should tell the facts. The talk page is the place to suggest definitions. Otto (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, the definitions used to determine the suitable incidents for this page, are not relevant? The Banner talk 15:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rhetorical question. Definitions to be used for the content of this article can be relevant. The talk page is the proper place to discuss which definitions, if we want to use any, suit the article the best. Otto (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the whole discussion about some shootings without a shootdown can start again? The Banner talk 19:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you know very well from your discussion above in paragraph 31 Solution? has that discussion never been closed. Your hypocritical approach at this talk page is abusive. Otto (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, you have to use personal attacks straight away? The Banner talk 21:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a false accusation to distract attention from your harassment. Otto (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL The Banner talk 21:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't regard your abusive behaviour as a "funny game" but as rude and destructive. Otto (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly encourage the use of a more operations-centric definition of airliner, rather than focusing on the original design intent of the aircraft involved; e.g. if it's operated under US FAR Part 121 (or equivalent) as a scheduled commercial flight, that clearly qualifies. Whether Part 135 (on-demand [charter] commercial operations) qualifies is a gray area, but I would suggest that a transport category airplane (>19 seats or >19,000 lb gross weight) used in such operations should count as an "airliner." So, the single-engine Cessna in Peru shouldn't be here, by any plausible definition, because it was a light airplane and was either chartered or owned by its occupants' employer (i.e. Part 91 private operation); I don't remember which, but it definitely wasn't a scheduled commercial flight. Jelliott4 (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Air France Flight 1611[edit]

Should Air France Flight 1611 be included on this list? The cause of the crash is still disputed to this day like Itavia Flight 870 but there are allegations of a shootdown and a coverup by the French government. StellarHalo (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents&oldid=1208199700"