Talk:Smolensk air disaster/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

New government policy section

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 21:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 09:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 05:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

IAC/MAK

Is IAC the same as MAK? Both abbreviations are used in the article. We should use one or the other. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring by IPs and a new account changing information based on a new report

Edit-warring IPs and a new account are changing information based on news of a new investigation. I think that the result of the official investigation should not be changed until the new evidence is accepted widely. So far, there is no indication that any new information has emerged or that it has been accepted. Dr. K. 23:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It might be necessary to use semi-protection if this continues. Let's see how things pan out. Mjroots (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
+1. The Polish and Russian governments both agreed that it was controlled flight into terrain. There was nothing mechanically wrong with the plane, and the pilot and co-pilot reported nothing wrong until the plane's left wing clipped a tree at the last minute. This is a classic pointer towards CFIT. Nothing on the plane's flight recorders indicates that the plane broke up before crashing, so it's surprising that the explosion theory is being given any credence. Various people have been trying to override the findings of official investigation, but the article should not give them undue weight. As for this source, it repeats the WP:REDFLAG claim that "Russian air traffic controllers had deliberately set the plane on the wrong descent path" which was rejected as a canard long ago. Some people just don't seem to be able to accept that the pilot and co-pilot flew a perfectly good plane into the ground because they were determined to attempt a landing in thick fog. The weather conditions at the time were suitable only for autoland, but the pilot and co-pilot chose to ignore this even though Smolensk North Airport did not have autoland for civil aircraft as it was a military airbase. It would have been glaringly obvious to them that the runway was invisible when they attempted the landing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
However, the investigation of the new commission, and their "preliminary findings", should be mentioned in the article soon, based on this article, for example. Otherwise more editors will be tempted to replace current info. This is not about who is right and what evidence there is. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The "independent inquiry" seems to involve the usual malcontents who have never accepted the official findings and are recycling old claims, including ones that are in WP:EXCEPTIONAL territory such as the Russians deliberately luring the plane into a crash. However, it is worth giving the inquiry a brief mention.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Eventually, the new commission's findings will have to be mentioned somewhere, giving them the due weight they deserve (i.e. very little) while making clear the political context they were born out of. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Re this edit: the report has now been published [1] and it says that the plane was destroyed by an explosion. This is obviously not what the official investigation said. Unsurprisingly, it repeats the WP:REDFLAG claim that "Russian air traffic controllers deliberately misled the Polish pilots about their location as the presidential plane approached the runway of the Smolensk military airport in 2010." This cannot be given much weight, as the pilots would have known that the plane was well short of the runway if the visibility was anything like clear.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Re this edit: I had to revert it because it is in a grossly unencyclopedic style of writing. The proper thing to do is to give a summary of what reliable secondary sources have said about the April 2018 report. This also has to take into account Wikipedia policies such as WP:DUE and WP:REDFLAG. As I said on my talk page, this looks like a heap of confirmation bias, as the investigators interpreted all of the evidence to fit the assassination theory, ignoring the wealth of evidence that the plane crashed in thick fog. This is worth a brief paragraph in the article, nothing more.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Mjroots (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree that this shouldn't given much weight. It's already too much the way it is in the article. Some reactions to the report should be added. The confirmation bias, as mentioned above, is very obvious. Also we all know some explosions took place. But they occurred as a result of the crash, they didn't cause it. More often then not when an aircraft crashes into the ground some explosion(s) take place.Tvx1 10:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that a permanent semi-protection of the article is going to be necessary. Mjroots (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Smolensk air disaster. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 20:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash → Smolensk disaster (EDIT: or Smolensk air disaster) – Reasons:

1) "Smolensk disaster" is far and away the WP:COMMONNAME for the aircrash that occurred near Smolensk on the 10th of April, 2010 in the English language. Evidence: 32 GNews hits for "Smolensk disaster", all related to this incident, versus 3 Gnews hits for "2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash". 76 GScholar hits for "Smolensk disaster" (all related to the subject) versus 22 GScholar hits for "2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash"
2) "Smolensk disaster" is a much better fit for this page per WP:CRITERIA. Specifically it is more recognisable since most people may not know the make of the aircraft, more natural because it is a literal translation of the Polish name for the event ("katastrofa smoleńska"), more precise as it is the only major disaster to have taken place at Smolensk to be known by this name, and more concise as it is only 17 characters (including the space) versus 34 for the present name, and more consistent since air disasters commonly known as "XXXX disaster" are named as such in their articles (e.g., Munich air disaster, Hindenburg disaster]) FOARP (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how those pass WP:COMMONNAME. "Smolensk air disaster" is better (34 GNews hits, 27 GScholar hits), and would be acceptible, but doesn't seem to be as commonly used as simply "Smolensk disaster" (32 GNews hits, 76 GScholar hits). Allegations that the proposed title is "too generic" and "vague" need to explain why reliable sources are using it exclusively to refer to the specific disaster of 10 April 2010. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Firstly, the current title is entirely compliant with our naming convention for aircrash articles. Secondly, this in an encyclopedia, so let's not use the dumbed-down journalese "plane crash" anywhere in articles, especially not in titles. Thirdly, "Smolensk disaster" as a translation of the Polish could be said to be in contravention to WP:UE. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure that 1) there is actually an agreed convention for air crash names, and 2) that if there is a convention this trumps WP:COMMONNAME. FOARP (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
There actually are conventions as listed here. In a case where there is no flight number such as this one, the format should be <year> <airline> <aircraft> <event>, which is what we have currently. But they do give an exception that if an accident has acquired a "popular name", then that should be used instead. For that reason I would support a move to Smolensk air disaster, because as some have already said, "Smolensk disaster" on it's own is a little too vague. LearyTheSquid (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that's an acceptable alternative. FOARP (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The proposed rename is way too vague and not in line with Wikipedia guidelines for naming air crashes, which are not driven by Google hits etc. The current title is OK and descriptive.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Google hits (specifically GNews and GScholar hits) are demonstrative evidence of what the WP:COMMONNAME is, as they demonstrate what name has the greatest "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". FOARP (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
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.

Claims of post-2015 investigations relying on contaminated/fake evidence (plus claims in TVP 1 films that explosives were planted during 2009 overhaul).

Gazeta Wyborcza recently ran a few pieces claiming that the wreckage samples that the post-2015 investigation(s) sent off for explosive trace testing were either held in storage that had been previously used for holding genuine explosives and drugs or indeed weren't actually from the Tu-154 to begin with (in particular, it is claimed that samples were taken from seating that wasn't even installed on the Tu-154 at the time). Is this information worth adding at all?

Onet reportage:

Also, TVP 1 ran a couple of films this month on Smolensk (one by the Macierewicz subcommittee which had already been out for a while online and another by Ewa Stankiewicz called "Stan zagrożenia"/"State of danger") which took the usual WP:EXCEPTIONAL/WP:REDFLAG position that Russia blew up the Tu-154 in mid-air while simultaneously feeding false landing information to the crew (or should that read "[...] that Russia fed false landing information to the crew while simultaneously blowing up the Tu-154 in mid-air."?). What was unusual/new was that both films variously claimed or implied that the explosives would have been planted during the December 2009 overhaul, while "Stan zagrożenia" moved the location of the supposed explosion from the Tu-154's left wing to the Tu-154's centre.Dvaderv2 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, I think this is worth adding. I guess this famous assassination appeared in publications again, thanks to the recent operations by the Russian GRU discovered in a number of countries. There are new publications in Russian [7] [8] (those are independent media, RS). Main proponent (in a good sense) here is historian Mark Solonin who studied this story in great detail. My very best wishes (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Political Aftermath section

A large part of this section is taken up with details about the Katyn Memorial events on 7 and 10 April, which are not relevant in this section. What's more, the information provided has more than a whiff of conspiracy theory about it. Dadge (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022

Remove: "The results of laboratory researchers confirmed the conclusions of the Polish investigation about the causes of the crash: the plane was destroyed by explosions [3][4][5]" 176.98.119.152 (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Why? MadGuy7023 (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Because an editor completely changed the previous paragraph to promote the 'bombing' conspiracy theory (WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE) using unreliable sources (including Telewizja Polska, now the mouthpiece of PiS, about the new "investigation"). It has now been undone. Mellk (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 Done: I restored an earlier revision that was worded better. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Merging the "Polish parliamentary committee investigation" and "New Polish investigation" sections with the "Conspiracy theories" section

I believe that the "Polish parliamentary committee investigation" and "New Polish investigation" sections should be merged with the "Conspiracy theories" section given that both the 2010-2015 parliamentary investigation and the 2015-2022 investigation by the PiS/Law and Justice-led government stem from the conspiracy theories about an assassination plot involving the deliberate detonation of explosives in mid-air and given that the conclusion of both investigations essentially involved the repetition of these claims albeit with an intellectual and factual veneer. Furthermore, both investigations were chaired by Antoni Macierewicz who has been and remains a key promoter of the conspiracy theories.--Dvaderv2 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The article in general needs reorganisation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Which I just did. Still, the ToC is still somewhat bulky, and some info might need to be updated. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
What does "the so-called Committee for the Re-investigation of the Smolensk Air Crash" mean? Why "so-called"? The committee does not exist? Or its not the actual name of the committee? Or author of this wiki article is butt-hurt that it exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.175.37.10 (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

How to incorporate Zelensky's tacit approval of the conspiracy theories?

When Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the Polish Sejm in March of this year, he made comments about the disaster that effectively amounted to an approval of the usual conspiracy theories (IMHO the official English translation you're about to read is a bit mangled when comparing it to the Polish transcript, but that's for another day):

We remember the terrible tragedy of 2010 near Smolensk. We remember all the facts of the investigation into the circumstances of this catastrophe. We feel what this means for you. And what does the silence of those who also know all this mean to you, but... But they still feast their eyes on Russia.[1]

I've found a couple of Polish sources that 1) aren't aligned with PiS (or at least not in an apparent way anyway) and 2) decided on including these comments,[2][3] but the question I have is how do I then work all this into the article? I don't think it should be included in the section on Macierewicz's Committee, but I don't feel like crowbarring it into the section on opinion polling either, and so it is that no obvious space exists nor do I have a clear idea of how to create one. - Dvaderv2 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe because they're not 'conspiracy theories' but fact? 174.115.15.87 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ruslan Stefanchuk too, apparently.[4] - Dvaderv2 (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course Russia would never do such a thing. The invasion of Crimea sparking Ukrainians to ask the world for help was just paranoia. They were not proven right. They haven't been experiencing what Russia did to Poland 60 years ago. They would never poison anyone with polonium and leave traces all over London. Of course not! Russia's not evil. They would never want to kill the leadership of the country that fought the most to get out of its tight grip. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/vistup-prezidenta-ukrayini-volodimira-zelenskogo-v-sejmi-res-73497
  2. ^ https://natemat.pl/401873,zelenski-o-katastrofie-smolenskiej-podgrzal-teorie-o-zamachu
  3. ^ https://oko.press/kaczynski-smolensk-chce-zrobic-narodowy-symbol-na-miare-katynia
  4. ^ Siwek, Adrian (10 December 2022). "Ukraina nie ma wątpliwości. To Rosja ponosi odpowiedzialność za katastrofę smoleńską. Świat: „To ważny głos"" (in Polish). Niezależna.pl. Retrieved 10 December 2022.

The quote about U.S. government officials.

@Ianmacm:

Related to this edit

The statement about comparing Polish to US officials, in my opinion, is very notable and relevant as it contextualizes the disaster for English-speaking readers. The full quote is here. The English Wikipedia has a reader base from mainly English-speaking countries like the United States, and I think a truncated version of this should explain to American readers on why this accident was so devastating to Poland. I also disagree this is undue weight, since the prevailing view would be that this disaster was devastating for Poland.

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it comes across as too American-centric. The comparison seems to be assuming that Americans would be unable to understand the disaster unless it had a frame of reference aimed at them. Wikipedia is read in English speaking countries other than the USA.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
These readers would be able to understand the frame of disaster if they took the time to look up each and every one of the victims' names, and then read about their positions, and put that information together. But that would require a significant investment of time and effort, which some of these readers can't, or won't, do. The quote above cuts to the chase and is a very fast, easy way to contextualize it for these readers and to tell them that this topic matters without them having to spend all of that time and effort to figure out the significance. Readers, IMO, want to be served on a silver platter like that, and such a quote delivers to them. Secondly, I am aware that Wikipedia should try to be culturally neutral. At the same time, American views made up 3 billion of the 10 billion page views on ENwiki from July 2022 to June 2023, and even readers from other national backgrounds could benefit from the quote as, in general, American politics has a much higher exposure worldwide compared to politics of other countries. I feel that having such quotes helps the readers who are from backgrounds in which they speak English as a first or as a second language. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

commissio = commission 2603:8000:D300:D0F:9119:1C87:2D8C:720A (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

Here's the current version of the second sentence: 

Among the victims were the president of Poland, Lech Kaczyński, and his wife, Maria, the former president of Poland in exile, Ryszard Kaczorowski, the chief of the Polish General Staff and other senior Polish military officers, the president of the National Bank of Poland, Polish Government officials, 18 members of the Polish Parliament, senior members of the Polish clergy, and relatives of victims of the Katyn massacre.

Please change it to this: 

Among the victims were the president of Poland, Lech Kaczyński, and his wife, Maria; the former president of Poland in exile, Ryszard Kaczorowski; the chief of the Polish General Staff and other senior Polish military officers; the president of the National Bank of Poland; Polish government officials; 18 members of the Polish parliament; senior members of the Polish clergy; and relatives of victims of the Katyn massacre.

In addition to removing unnecessary capital letters, this replaces several commas with colons. In the current form, two phrases can be read as appositives: in particular, was Kaczorowski the former president-in-exile or the chief of the General Staff, and if he were the chief of the General Staff, was Maria Kaczyński also the former president-in-exile, or was it a third, unnamed, person? Replacing some of the commas with semicolons makes it clear who was who. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No Citations at all in Entire 3rd Paragraph

The 3rd paragraph of this page contains no citations. This is an incredibly controversial paragraph, and to make such specific claims as this paragraph does absolutely needs to contain citations. If not, this is forcing the article to lose credibility.

"Both the Russian and Polish official investigations found no technical faults with the aircraft, and concluded that the crew failed to conduct the approach in a safe manner in the given weather conditions. The Polish authorities found serious deficiencies in the organization and training of the Air Force unit involved, which was subsequently disbanded. Several high-ranking members of the Polish military resigned following pressure from politicians and the media." Awards12 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smolensk_air_disaster/Archive_11&oldid=1223072819"