Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 13:33, 27 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 days

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

A news item involving Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 25 December 2024.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Aviation: Accidents This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Central Asia: Kazakhstan Low‑importance Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kazakhstan (assessed as Low-importance). Russia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Azerbaijan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Accident vs Crash

The word 'accident' does not appear once in any of the WP:RS referenced in this article. We follow reliable sources and strongly prefer secondary sources. We follow RS over MOS (which calls for the use of the word accident based on primary, not secondary RS), and we should not be using the word accident if most RS are explicitly preferring the word crash. Policy demands that this article be changed to reflect what RS are calling this incident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you launch an RfC about this major policy change (Which it will completely change all events related), instead of trying to repeat the same comments everytime when we have a similar page, and then resulted in a meaningless arguments with others? Just a goodwill advice: Misplaced Pages is not an Anarchy, trying to do anything by oneself's will won't help anything. Awdqmb (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly they cannot do that. It's always the same exact argument in every single accident article. Feels like they just want to troll around in every article by igniting the same flames with (possibly) different people. Regardless of what others say in each talk, nothing will change and a new article will simply have a new talk. If news articles mention a word "accident" it's automatically not a reliable source. There's just no discussion here to be had with such a mindset. 88.118.3.131 (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

But strangely, everytime I asked about the naming of the page, and they won't answer me, and ignore the truth that, we don't name the page just completely follow the news reports, which are simply IATA flight code. Like this time, we should use "J2-8243" to name the page, instead of "Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243". Awdqmb (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not need an RfC to discuss if we need to be following policy. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Then do you think WP:CON, WP:5P4 and WP:5P5 are policies of Misplaced Pages? Awdqmb (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws here and this is what has gotten you accused of WP:SEALIONING preivously. If you can't or won't understand what reliable sources are or why we follow them you do not have to engage. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I obviously understand that we should follow the RS for most contents. Then I have another question: Most news reports will only use IATA flight code to refer an aviation occurrence. So then, should we also change the page name to align? Just like you said, "RS over MOS". Infact I have asked a same question on Voepass case previously, and then Swiftair case, but no one give me a direct answer yet, or launch an RM for such change. Awdqmb (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aviationwikiflight Please kindly cite the reason for this diff. Please explain why you are not following reliable, secondary sources which nearly exclusively call this a crash. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Because, for the umpteenth time, reliable independent secondary sources use accident. I would note that it is quite hypocritical of you to accuse others of sealioning when for the past year, you've been doing exactly that. If you actually want something to change, try discussing it in a place like Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aviation because discussing the topic on talk pages regarding individual aviation accidents will achieve nothing. If you want sources that use the term accident in their own words, here are some examples:

• From the BBC – Both Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have launched investigations into the accident. Embraer told the BBC it was "ready to assist all relevant authorities".
• From Bluewin – The cause of the accident is believed to be a bird strike. – Immediately after the accident, there were also reports of 105 people on board. – As the plane crashed near Aktau airport on the Caspian Sea, numerous videos of the accident were circulated on social networks. – Bird strike as a possible cause of the accident.
• From EFE – A fire broke out at the scene of the accident and was put out by firefighters, sources from the Kazakh emergency services said. – According to the crisis cabinet operating at the scene of the accident, the crew sent a distress signal at 8:35 am reporting a failure in the control system. – Azerbaijan Airlines said that according to preliminary data the accident could have been caused by the collision of the aircraft with a flock of birds.
• From The Times of Central Asia – The accident occurred during an emergency landing attempt after the plane experienced difficulties mid-flight. – The accident has placed renewed attention on air safety protocols in the region, underscoring the critical need for stringent maintenance and monitoring.
• From FlightGlobal – It says the accident occurred about 3km from Aktau airport. – Kazakhstan’s government says a commission has been established to investigate the cause of the accident.
• From The Astana Times – The accident involved an Embraer 190 aircraft, flight number J2-8243, traveling from Baku to Grozny.

Just reminding you that accident, as stated by the ICAO, as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft: in which a person is fatally or seriously injured; in which an aircraft sustains damage or structural failure requiring repairs; after which the aircraft in question is classified as being missing. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, speaking of this: All the resources here you provided don't call the occurrence as "Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243", but just the IATA Code "J2-8243". So according to "RS over MOS" policy, we should move the page to change the title. Oh, it will also match the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Awdqmb (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

isn't it odd that the shoot down of MH17 isn't categorized as an accident? 2001:2012:832:1900:49F8:EFFE:F62B:5549 (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You are still going against wikipedia policy with that diff. We follow reliable secondary sources, not MOS at aviation. You are again cherry-picking a few instances of the word accident while most RS secondary sources are avoiding it entirely. I don't need to open a conversation at WP:Aviation because it is Wiki policy to follow reliable sources.

If I went into a controversial subject area and changed words that were used far less often to suit my desires or those favored by WP:aviation, I'd be sanctioned. Also, we should keep our eye out as news develops on this, as it very well may have been an intentional strike. Another reason we should avoid the word 'accident' because it blindly absolves responsibility for fatal crashes. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You are editing on articles relating to aviation. These are not articles relating to bus crashes, train crashes, car crashes, sinkings, etc... In aviation, the terminology of crash is fundamentally different than your standard day-to-day usage. Multiple discussions initiated by yourself have reached one common conclusion: we will not discard the usage of accident in favour of accident. Your argument that we must use the more commonly used word hasn't been accepted. Whether news agencies will still use the term accident is unknown, but for the moment, its use has clearly been demonstrated. You may consider it cherry-picking, but none of these sources are unreliable (as of yet).

• The Independent – It was the first fatal accident anywhere in the world involving a passenger jet in 2024.
• FlightGlobal Over 30 of the 67 occupants survived the accident, according to the Azerbaijani foreign affairs ministry.
• FlightGlobal – Kazakhstan’s emergency situations ministry confirms 38 fatalities from the accident, with a further 29 occupants transferred to hospitals in Aktau. – The ministry says the fuselage broke into two sections, coming to rest 300m apart, with a fire breaking out during the accident. – Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev – who was en route to a St Petersburg conference, but ordered the aircraft to turn back to Baku after being informed of the crash – says a “criminal case has been launched” into the accident by the prosecutor general’s office.

You may consider it cherry-picking, but none of these sources are unreliable (as of yet). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the terminology is fundamentally different in aviation. However:

"Scientific journals: a Misplaced Pages article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field."

I'd also point you to the first discussion on this page.

It's not a total analog, but I think it's useful to consider (for both of us). You can see what outcome was agreed upon is not to use the official terminology, but to follow RS.

Also, please don't misrepresent the course of this argument. I have avoided it edit-warring further, but there have been multiple users who have not taken the position that we should blindly adhere to the use of the word accident (despite you adding it back despite most reliable sources not using it.) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Multiple independent reliable secondary sources use accident so I see no reason to not use the word.

• First discussion: No consensus in favour of a change
• Second discussion: No consensus in favour of a change
• Third discussion: No consensus in favour of a change

Whilst some may have agreed with your position, after 132 comments spanning across these three discussions on the talk pages, there was no consensus to change the words. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've shown that the majority of RS prefer to use the word crash and many avoid the use of the word accident entirely, so that's what we should be using. This is wikipedia policy, and your diff violates it. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have also demonstrated that numerous independent reliable sources use the term. So if you want to swap the words, feel free to cite a policy or guideline that states that we must use the more commonly used word. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources. If the majority of them are obviously avoiding using the word accident, especially in headlines, we should be doing the same. You can't cling on to a word that is barely being used just because it fits with the way you want things to be. We must follow RS. If I can demonstrate the vast majority are using crash, I'll change it to that to conform with policy. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying that news agencies are "obviously" avoiding the use of the word accident. However, that's a bold claim since you'll need to prove that they intentionally avoid its use. Simply stating that the use of the word is lacking is not a convincing argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I can point you to the AP, which does not use the word accident a single time in their latest story. Again, you're hanging on to a handful of instances of the word you prefer so tightly that you can't see the common sense argument I'm making.

Also, how should we approach this now, given that increasingly credible sources are reporting that this might have been a shootdown? Because of your insistence on using a word that contradicts policy, the article may have been completely wrong on a factual basis for 24 hours. If we had used crash we'd at least have been correct, if not in the eyes of the sources you prefer. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you prove that they are intentionally discarding the word accident? In this case, if the shootdown is confirmed, I would agree to drop the use of accident in favour of incident (or shootdown) based on similar articles. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Struck a part of my comment since for now, what happened can still be classified as an "aviation accident" although what word will be used will be influenced by the findings of the investigation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So you'll be running over to Iran Air Flight 655 to call it an 'accident'? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposing the use of incident or shootdown which is why I precised that the word that will be used will be influenced by the findings of the investigation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not privy to internal conversations at reliable sources, but it's no accident that they are broadly using the word crash and in some cases not using accident at all. I know you have great knowledge in the aviation space, and I'm happy to work with you to collaborate as we learn more about what reliable sources say actually happened. Let's wait and see what comes out. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Accident is an official FAA and EASA term for an aircraft incident that involves severe damage, injuries or fatalities. You can find that all here. Yes I understand media may not make use of this term perfectly, but surely it is acceptable to be a little more accurate and professional ourselves? https://www.faa.gov/faq/what-constitutes-post-accident-test-what-definition-accident#:~:text=The%20FAA%20and%20the%20National,any%20person%20suffers%20death%20or Liger404 (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I would normally go with "accident" however this was not accidental, as it was shot down. So "crash" would be better Buttons0603 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This is why it's best to avoid the use of the word accident, which also violates WP:NPOV, because things can change and we shouldn't proclaim things to be accidents just because it follows jargon defined by primary sources. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Accident suggests nobody was to blame. While it was true early reports did say "accident" as more facts have become clear crash is being used more.

Crash is neutral anyway.

BBC News - Russia warns against 'hypotheses' in Azerbaijan Airlines crash - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgp3qx0q7wo 87.115.180.220 (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

As Liger 404 has said "Accident is an official FAA and EASA term for an aircraft incident that involves severe damage, injuries or fatalities." It carries no inference about causation or "blame". The word "crash" is a informal term, used mostly by the popular press and news sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 Since the plane accident fulfills all of them, it can be considered an accident which makes you right. Theeverywhereperson 17:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Even a shootdown can be accidental. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 Even though it is an accidental shootdown, it fulfills all the criteria for an accident which means you are right. Theeverywhereperson 17:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

"Accident" implies nobody is at fault. That is a premature at best term to use, erroneous at worst. "Crash" is neutral and unassuming. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the ICAO, Accident does not imply fault. Instead, Annex 13 defines an accident as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft: in which a person is fatally or seriously injured; in which an aircraft sustains damage or structural failure requiring repairs; after which the aircraft in question is classified as being missing. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages, read by lay persons. We are not the ICAO and should not be beholden to their style guide. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well in my opinion idk which one u use as long as it's right Theeverywhereperson 19:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

"Accident" is not right if the plane was shot down. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Would describe Pan Am Flight 103 as a "crash"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I'd describe that as a terrorist attack. And I would only call this one a "crash" until confirmation that it wasn't a crash, but that the plane was shot down. But since we don't have confirmation it was shot down, we can't say that yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It certainly crashed. So it will always be "a crash". I guess it depends if we want to use proper technical term here or just the vernacular. Whoever was or wasn't to "blame", ICAO will always call it it an accident. One might expect there to be some advice about this at Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The "occurrence_type" template states that ew notable occurrences are classified as "incidents"; see Aviation accidents and incidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

We need to follow wikipedia policy first, and "occurence_type" from the aviation MOS is a distant second. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That is why I have repeatedly explained that we follow reliable sources, which have consistently leaned heavily towards calling this a crash from the outset. We should not be calling this an accident, and we should change this soon. @Aviationwikiflight we now have multiple people saying this should not be called an accident. Do you agree to change it? I do not wish to edit-war about this, but policy and others say we should change it. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The interim conclusions of the investigation will be in an interim accident report, won't they, not an interim crash report? Does policy allow multiple popular news sources to trump any official source(s)? Or do we just follow popular sources until an official report gets published? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, which have broadly preferred to call this a crash. We should use that word because:

• It describes what happened without placing blame or absolving it
• It follows reliable secondary sources
• It will be factually correct whether or not it is determined and reported by RS that this was a shootdown

Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I think most articles for events like this are referred to as aircraft accidents. That's we have lists like List of aircraft accidents and incidents by number of ground fatalities and categories like Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2024. If our prime concern in WP:RS, what's more reliable - popular news reporting outlets or official publications? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That is true, and two things can be true at the same time. What is also true is that we follow reliable sources. I am not trying to wade in to suggesting we perform a mass-edit of other articles. I am only saying that we follow reliable sources, and the vast majority of them are preferring the word crash to describe what happened here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider this consensus aince there are also multiple editors against such a change, although I would invite any uninvolved third-party user to take a look at this discussion and see if there is a consensus. You may see that accident is less used, but whether that is intentional or not is up for debate. Noting again that you have yet to cite a single policy that states that we must use the more commonly used word. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood, though I maintain that we do not need consensus to follow Misplaced Pages policy. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Following up on this:

"You may see that accident is less used.."

>It is not that I see it, it is a fact, no need for gaslighting. I am happy to demonstrate this fact for you by performing an analysis of every single secondary RS mentioning this incident.

Also, see WP:Article Titles which states:

"Misplaced Pages does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)"

Hint: that word is crash, not accident.

Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Except we are not discussing the titling of this article, we are discussing what wording should be used in the article so WP:AT is irrelevant in this case. If a shootdown is confirmed, I would be in favour of using of mix of incident and shootdown, but as of yet, I oppose changing all mentions of accident to crash Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You must be fatigued from moving all these goalposts Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You must also be fatigued from invoking irrelevant guidelines in addition to a non-existent one. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources are not relevant? Maybe you should take a break from editing? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Does it state that we must use the more commonly used word? Is WP:AT relevant in this case? I think not. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Read here, if you're confused. WP:CONSESUS says:

> While RFCs are useful for gathering community input, we cannot use consensus to override established policies like WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Since reliable sources predominantly use ‘crash,’ policy already supports this change without requiring further deliberation. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless something changed or you got confused, regarding WP:CON, the RFC section only states: Placement of a formal neutrally worded notice on the article talk page inviting others to participate which is transcluded onto RfC noticeboards. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You're missing the point again. Most RS prefer crash, and this is increasingly looking like something entirely not an 'accident' Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC) Your insistence on naming this an 'accident' is against policy which demands we follow reliable sources.

Which is why I said that if a shootdown is confirmed, I would be in favour of using incident or shootdown (not discarding accident) although I did specify that that would depend on the investigation. Note however that The Independent states that If Russian air defence action is found to have caused the crash, shoot-downs will be an ever-more common cause of fatalities in aviation accidents. So while they may use the word crash, they also state that shootdowns are aviation accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The singular RS you cite to further your argument uses the word "crash" 13 times and the word "accident" 4 times, meaning that the source prefers the word "crash." When you expand your search, you'll find that like your source most reliable sources prefer the word crash. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

So? Why didn't The Independent, a reliable independent source, just decide to only use the word crash? The fact that they used accident means that they found it acceptable to use, in addition to putting the word into the context of aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, I'm not privy to the decision making processes of reliable sources. What I do know is that we follow them, and it is a fact that the majority of reliable sources are broadly preferring the word you've reverted out of this article. What percentage of the use of the word 'crash' over 'accident' would be satisfactory to you? Eighty percent? Ninety percent? Why do you want us to follow your opinion instead of wikipedia policy? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Cite a Misplaced Pages policy/guideline that states that we must use the more commonly used word since you've insistently used this argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

In fact, as you can see, most sources avoid the use of the word accident entirely. Go ahead and cherry-pick all you wish, but most major outlets do not call this a crash. Apologies in advance for formatting errors. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Just like what Aviationwikiflight said, is there a Wiki guideline saying that we should use the most commonly used word? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

How about a word that is not used at all by reliable sources? See my analysis below. If I can find a word that a handful out of a hundred of RS use, should I go insist on using that word across wikipedia? I wouldn't dare. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "not used at all". Did you see Aviationwikiflight's analysis here and here? And that answer still doesn't answer my question. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a handful of sources still use 'accident'. I saw their analysis, and it's well received. Are you not convinced that most RS prefer the use of the word crash? I can expand my analysis. Did you see it? Most RS are not using the word accident at all. If we follow Misplaced Pages policy aka reliable sources, that means we use crash, not accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a WSJ subscription, but they are calling it a crash not accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's another one, the AP using crash 33 times. Accident? Zero. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph -- Crash 12 times, accident once (because that's what the agency that investigates these incidents is called) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Seconded — While I actually agree with one or two points made by Aviationwikiflight, I more broadly agree with Dreameditsbrooklyn.

1. We are not the FAA, the ICAO, nor any other entity other than Misplaced Pages. We are not bound by their manuals of style. When using such sources we may reference them by their proper titles "accident investigation," or what have you, but it doesn't necessarily follow that we should outright refer to every aircraft crash as an "accident."

2. Between "crash," "incident," and "accident," only one of these terms has inherent implications. To be clear, I acknowledge that "accident" does not necessarily imply "accidentally" or "accidentally caused." Take "scene of the accident," for example, a phrase in common-use, that does not necessarily attribute guilt, malice, or blame, even when there might be plenty of such things to go around. That said, it would be foolish not to acknowledge that it certainly can imply "accidental" or "accidentally," straining WP:NPOV, so, why do so? How about we use a more neutral term that will be correct regardless of the outcome of the investigation(s), which does not imply anything, and is supported by the RSs?

3. All of this being said, while I agree that the use of "crash" over "accident" is broadly-supported by WP:RS, I have to imagine that you're going to have this argument every time one of these articles needs to unfortunately be written. I'm not sure if it is worth going for a WP:PROPOSAL or perhaps simply writing an WP:ESSAY… we do have the essay WP:AIRCRASH, which does differentiate between "accident or incident" which does broadly support Dreameditsbrooklyn's contention, IMO.

4. So, point-being; If you are seeking consensus merely on this article, you have my support, for whatever that is worth. However, if you wish to make this more actionable across Misplaced Pages, I would strongly suggest either a policy proposal, an essay, or, at the very least, stopping-over at WP:VPP to see what the general feeling is from some policy SMEs. MWFwiki (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Unlike yourself, I'm not cherrypicking -- I'm clicking through the top reliable sources that appear when searching "Azerbaijan plane."

Based on an analysis of several reliable sources, here's a comparison of the use of "accident" and "crash" in articles about Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243:

As shown in the table above, the word "crash" is used consistently across all sources (5 to 10 instances), while "accident" is not used at all. Additionally, neither term is placed in quotation marks, further suggesting that the sources use "crash" directly and unambiguously. This supports the argument that "crash" is the more appropriate term in this context.

As demonstrated, the term "crash" is used significantly more often than "accident" in multiple reliable sources.

Doesn't change your conclusion, but I'll point out that the New York Post is not a reliable source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Just for my view: I think such changes Must be deployed to every similar pages, also the templates like Infobox aircraft occurrence, for WP:CONSIST.

So here in my view: According to the influence range, such things can't be decided just by one or two people, but we need a overall discussion, and finally get a consensus over the community. So then we don't need to argue such problems everytime we meet. Awdqmb (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Here's even more RS that entirely prefer the use of the word 'crash'

Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You say that we should use the more commonly used word/phrase (without citing a policy) in the article, so based on your argument, shouldn't we use "Azerbaijan Airlines Flight J2-8243" instead of "Flight 8243" to refer to the flight since a majority of reliable sources do so? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Timing

I assumed, when reading the source, that it was local time. However, this is not possible as it took off at 08:00 Azerbaijan Time (which is 04:00 UTC). And the article says that it sent a distress at 08:35. However, if this is 08:35 Kazakh time, it would be 03:35 UTC (ie 25 minutes before take off). I suspect that the source (which is Russian) is working off Moscow time (which would make it 10 10:35 Kazakh time; 1 hour 35 after take off) but can anyone find a source that specifies time for the crash (with the relevant time zone). I've tried, but with no success so far. SSSB (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Got one SSSB (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Fatality count on infobox

There seems to be no report yet on actual number of casualites, only the number of survivors. In my view, no matter how unlikely any more survivors are at this point, the fatalities line on the infobox should remain empty until the headlines change from "dozens feared dead" to "dozens confirmed dead". Yo.dazo (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The death count and the survivor count always affect each other. If there are "reports" about the number of survivors, then the number of deaths should be the number remaining. I see no good reason why the fatalities line on the infobox should remain empty. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ivebeenhacked Well not empty, because Sky News has reported four bodies being recovered. My point, however, is that the number of survivors and confirmed dead are accounted for in the news reports we use as sources, leaving the rest as unaccounted for. The decision to count those unaccounted for as dead should be for our sources, not for us. Yo.dazo (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I am noting that there appear to be 13 confirmed dead at this rate based on recent edits. I propose those in limbo be listed as missing. Borgenland (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Update 38 dead, and given that it appears incompatible with the number of survivors I have inserted the maximum possible range per conflicting reports. Borgenland (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

According to Kazakh authorities, there are 39 deaths and 28 injuries. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

These are from Azerbaijani government sources: https://azertag.az/en/xeber/number_of_casualties_in_plane_crash_near_aktau_confirmed-3349823 https://en.apa.az/incident/number-of-azerbaijani-citizens-died-in-plane-crash-in-aktau-revealed-456563 Writer655 (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The BBC currently say:

Officials from the countries involved have stated different numbers for those who were on board and for those who survived.

Perhaps the article should reflect this, rather than stating definite figures? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Shootdown incident

Images from BBC, along with video on the ground, clearly show shrapnel damage to the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. This needs to be classified as a shootdown incident. Bugalaman (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Also some say that this is caused a by a bird strike 178.90.163.134 (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

A bird strike does not cause holes on the side of the vertical stabilizer. The holes might still very well be from gravel impacts from the crash (I'll await proper reports), but from birds they are not. 2001:16B8:E1BE:6100:7363:A8AA:87C7:F0C9 (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If that is the case, as it now may seems like, it would be the third time russian air defense shoots down a civilian aircraft… 2A01:799:3A6:7D01:9037:FE4E:23C8:8316 (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If we are playing detective, the aircraft was at 9000 meters. Such light damage from a high-attitude SAM is quite improbable. In any case, we will see. Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

We should probably at least add a "Speculations" section, as there is evidence to this claim and it is not entirely unfounded. As the plane does seem to have trouble staying in the air, and bird strikes don't usually bring down a plane and make it have as much trouble as shown. Not to mention Russia is in heavy conflict, so it isn't as far fetched IMO. Kyllstru (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If it will be covered by RSs, then why not. Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, its been confirmed that it was shot down by the Russians 178.90.163.134 (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

While we don't know the truth, this possibility is mentionned by media so I added it as a possibility. Sifalot (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Speculation mate. Sure does look that way, but we have to wait for a professional source. Right now it's in the theories section where it belongs. Liger404 (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed. We can report on what reliable sources have stated are possibilities -- it is not our place to speculate whether it was a shutdown or not. ⇒SWATJester 21:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The article speculates that it was bird strike. Is that OK then?

The Times News Paper has run an accusatory headline “Holes in fuselage suggest Russians shot down Azerbaijan jet”(https://archive.ph/e6iK5) and has said that there was military action in the area that the time.

That should be added to balance the suggestion that it was a bird strike. 101.98.123.124 (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Birstrike lol. It's looking 99.9% that it was a shoot-down by Russian Pantsir-S1 air defence system. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Impact NOT at "steep angle"

The article currently states "The plane crashed into the ground at a steep angle...".

Looking at the available videos, this is obviously wrong. The impact was on the contrary quite flat, almost horizontal. The descent angle was constantly decreasing over the last seconds of the flight, like it was pulling up. 2001:16B8:E1BE:6100:7363:A8AA:87C7:F0C9 (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The "steep angle" was introduced in https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijan_Airlines_Flight_8243&oldid=1265142476 , without sourcing it. 2001:16B8:E1BE:6100:7363:A8AA:87C7:F0C9 (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

"steep angle" removed in https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijan_Airlines_Flight_8243&oldid=1265190722 - thanks! 2001:16B8:E1BE:6100:7363:A8AA:87C7:F0C9 (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup, removed it due to your comment. Thanks for pointing that out! Procyon117 (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Fog?

can anyone confirm if weather was actually foggy in grozny at those times? The weather services I checked didn't report fog. 2001:2012:832:1900:2C1E:5B06:8C7A:CB21 (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airports/grv/weather

According to flightradar24, the visibility didn't get under 2600 meters during the day of the incident.

There was no fog. 2001:2012:832:1900:2C1E:5B06:8C7A:CB21 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

read the russian wiki article, there are some speculations about the fog. 159.253.108.88 (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Read This article (translate it). Aminabzz (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The official METAR is BR (Mist), it would not change to FG (fog) until visibility was below 1000m. However landing in mist is still quite a challenge and depending on the approach type, may not have been possible. Here is the Grozny metar at the time of the diversion. "URMG 250528Z 00000MPS 3500 BR OVC012 03/02 Q1025 R26/290250 NOSIG RMK QFE754/1005".

https://avherald.com/h?article=521fd4fb&opt=0 Liger404 (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Rm 'bird strike'

There is no evidence of this. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Could maybe add that in the "Theories" section under "Investigation" Millarur (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

We do not speculate on theories here. We only report on notable theories that are being discussed by reliable sources, when we can do so in a way that satisfied balance and undue weight concerns. ⇒SWATJester 21:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe add under "Shameful Russian face-saving attempts"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Add pictures from inside the aircraft

I have pictures and videos supporting the claims under Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 217#Theories; however, I cannot upload them due to an error saying that the system is unsure whether or not the said pictures can be uploaded to Wikimedia. If anyone could, that would be appreciated.

I have one more important picture showing shrapnel bulge going inside the aircraft, which, in my opinion, is very important to the said theory. Millarur (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Tried to add two pictures: Misplaced Pages:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#Millarur Millarur (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If someone could, please add the following:

- File:4K-AZ65 crash featuring shrapnel on the fuselage.jpg: 4K-AZ65 crash featuring shrapnel on the fuselage

- File:Shrapnel bulge inside the 4K-AZ65.jpg: A moment from the video taken by one of the survivors, showing a shrapnel exit bulge inside the aircraft, marked with a red circle. Millarur (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done You have claimed without evidence that these images are released (in one case by an author you cannot name) into the public domain. They are copyright violations. Also, see WP:OR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Aqtau vs. Aktau

Both are written in the article. Although the city's article seems to be called "Aktau", the airport's article is "Aqtau International Airport." Millarur (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That's because the airport's name is in fact called "Aqtau International Airport". Hacked (Talk|Contribs) Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow! We replied to this entry nearly at the same time! Aminabzz (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That's amazing! Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The Cyrillic spelling is Ақтау. қ represents q sound (ق in Arabic and Persian). Aminabzz (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The Cyrillic spelling in Kazakh... There is no 'q' letter in the Russian Cyrillic alphabet. SedimentaryRock (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Like many names in post-Soviet area, it depends on if you are transliterating the Soviet-era Russian spelling or the more recent spelling in the national language of the post-Soviet nation-state. SedimentaryRock (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The Nationalities table is incorrect

Hi. I just observed there is an issue in the nationalities table. The passengers column has the numbers 32, 1, 7, 3, and 15 in it (which sum up to 58). But the total number is 62. Since 62 is correct as the reliable sources mentioned it, clearly 58 is incorrect. There is a 4 difference here. Also, in the total column there is this 4 difference again. Yet the survived column need to be split to passengers and crew. The column has 26 passengers in it, but in the total of it +3 crew is added without it being in the column. Aminabzz (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've also noticed that problem. I've added a new slot called "Undetermined". It could be reverted but we'll see. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can consider two of the survivors to be from the four undetermined people!

They are "undetermined" after all. How can we say with certainty that half of them survived?

Oh, BTW, is it confirmed that the only German passenger has survived?

Before your edition, the total number of survivors was "26 + 3 crew". (It wasn't confirmed that the German passenger has survived then, but may be it was comfirmed that some of crews are among the survivors). If the German passenger has really survived then 2 Azerbaijani crew members have survived (if crew survival is true) and there will be 12 Azerbaijani passengers and 2 crew members in the Azerbaijani survivors. But if the German passenger hasn't survived, then 3 Azerbaijani crew members have survived (again if crew survival is true) and there will be 11 Azerbaijani passengers and 3 crew members in the Azerbaijani survivors. Aminabzz (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Those 14 Azerbaijani survivors are a combination of 11 Azerbaijani passengers and 3 Azerbaijani crew members. That leaves 2 undetermined survivors. It wouldn't make a difference if the lone German passenger survived but if he died, then something else has to change to match the 29 survivors. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

If the lone German passenger died, I think it would be better to change to 3 unknown passengers that survived since other nationality passengers already have citations (Idk if the number of each nationality of passengers is confirmed). Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

How can someone be unknown and survived? If someone is survived they have their names revealed. Only if a person is died and disfigured due to burning they can be considered unknown. Even if a person is disfigured but alive they can say their names and they won't be considered unknown. Aminabzz (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Since this event is still pretty recent, it'll take time for information to surface. If we take the chart and add all the surviving occupants excluding the undetermined digits, it'll add up to 27. Twenty-nine people survived the accident and two passenger's nationality is yet to be determined. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, I think it's a bad practice to underline words while they aren't links. Bolding or italicizing is better in this case. Aminabzz (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I just checked the Russian article. The table in there doesn't have a German passenger at all. But 37 Azerbaijani, 16 Russian, 6 Kazakh, and 3 Kyrgyz passengers (it correctly sums up to 62 total passengers). They also have a reference for it (look at the 7th reference there) which looks the same with the 28th and 31st references from this article in the aspect of names list. The only misadvantage of all these sources is that they haven't labeled the names with nationality. We should find a source labeling them with their nationalities. Aminabzz (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems like you're right. Also says it in this source. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

While now the sum number of passengers is 62, the number of Kazakh and Russians are still 7 and 15 respectively, but that source says 6 Kazakhs and 16 Russians.

Also, now the number of survivors again is wrong! 14 Azerbaijanis, 3 Kyrgyzes, and 9 Russians sum to 26. So, we need 3 more. Aminabzz (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have found this source. It says from 37 Azerbaijani passengers 23 have died. So the 14 Azerbaijani survivors all are passengers. Also, it says from the 16 Russians 7 have died; so the number 9 is correct for the Russian survivors. And there are also 3 Kyrgyz survivors. All 6 Kazakhs died. So the remaining 3 survivors all are Azerbaijani crew members. Aminabzz (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So its 17 Azerbaijani survivors? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It's true. 14 passengers and 3 crew members. Aminabzz (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the number from 14 to 17. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so now the sources disagree. Some of them say that the 2 pilots died while the 3 flight attendants survived while others say 2 pilots and the lead flight attendant died while the other 2 crew members survived. See this addition here. They all, however, say that 38 died. Now what? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 08:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding more details about aircraft history and operators

Im trying to include a section about the aircraft history and how it was under Buta Airways and was stored for some time until 2 months before the crash. however every time I do it it gets removed because my sources (airfleets) which are cited are apparently 'unreliable'. so can someone find a credible source to back up this information because it might have importance regarding the crash

Here is what I was trying to add, under the Aircraft section:

It was delivered to the airline on 24 July 2013. The aircraft then became part of Buta Airways' fleet, which was a low-cost virtual airline subsidiary of the former, being delivered on 1 November 2017. The aircraft was delivered back to Azerbaijan Airlines on 9 October 2023, and was stored at Baku International Airport from January 2024 until its return to service in October 2024, just 2 months prior to its crash. ItzChickenYall (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, Airfleets.net is deemed 'unreliable' because its reliability was discussed a few times at WP:RSN. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I have found a source. See this. Haven't found any reports at WP:RSN or at WP:BADAIRSOURCE. Still not sure if its reliable or not. Any thoughts on this source? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm ok i will check it out ItzChickenYall (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the source in my opinion. In addition to Airways Magazine, these two sources (which are in portuguese and kazakh respectively) could be useful: . Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You can consider using the , which this is more reliable in most cases. Awdqmb (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I did that but both people said planespotters and airfleets are not 'reliable' ItzChickenYall (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Weather definitions.

This comes up a bit on wiki and so I might need some rules help here. Basically news reporters have said fog, but I am a pilot and the weather conditions were actually mist. We also don't divert specifically because of fog, but because the "visibility" is below the minimum allowed for the approach type being used. So I changed the language to "poor weather" as that's a bit of a catch all. I can provide the FAA and EASA weather definitions and the official METARs at the 3 airports and the time of the approaches if that helps. Not really original work if I do that is it? The Metars are all here in this article. https://avherald.com/h?article=521fd4fb&opt=0 Liger404 (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Flight Data Recorder

Are there any reports of the flight data recorder/blackbox yet? Aperture LENS (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

See this. Gonna add in the article in a minute. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So the information should be available in the next couple of days. Thank you! Aperture LENS (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. New information will surface within a few days. You're welcome. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Do not expect any precise and real data from Russia or its satellite neighbors (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan). Tgvarrt (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I added information about the second flight recorder. I'm not sure which one, the flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder, was recovered first. Aperture LENS (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Strip misinformation about FL300 over the Caspian Sea

This article cites a russian source claiming this aircraft was at FL300 over the Caspian sea. This is wrong. An ATC transcript has been leaked: In retrospect, it appears that the shrapnel must have hit the tail and passenger cabin in the Grozny area about 8:16 local time (UTC+3) at a moment when the aircraft wasn‘t higher than their cabin altitude. When re-routed, the crew first announced over radio what they believed to be a „bird strike“. They were supposed to climb to FL150 but where unable to do so since the cabin altitude rose to unsave levels, indicating depressurization. The oxygen masks dropped. They tried to stay below FL100 as they could no longer pressurize the perforated cabin anymore. It is impossible to fly at FL300 with a perforated pressure vessel containing passengers and crew. With their hydraulic systems compromised by shrapnel, they also could not stabilize their height nor their heading, which fluctuated both. The barometric altitude transponder data obtained from flight tracking sites also show that they have not crosses the sea at FL300. By the way, this barometric data is not compromised by GPS spoofing or jamming. Zardo (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any sources backing all of this up? If not, then I'm afraid this is WP:OR. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Flightradar and other tracker data is available. Zardo (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source explaining the logic in this? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GfoXOzZXYAAbPO3?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

As far as I know, Flightradar took the original track offline, apparently in order to clean up the spoofed parts. But by making the spoofed parts unavailable, the barometric altitude was also erased since it was part of the time stamps. However the link above shows the altitude information, but there are some time stamps missing. Also, the part over the Caspian Sea is again visible on Flightradar. Zardo (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The data is available for download here but I'm not sure how cleaned up or modified it is. Aperture LENS (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hasn't flightradar24 labeled the flight as landed? Aminabzz (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it says "Status: Unknown". See this. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

To clear up any misunderstanding: the article still states that the aircraft was at 30000 feet when the signal was lost at 4:40 (reference 39 to a russian article which actually doesn‘t state that anymore). But the granular data from Flightradar as available here show that, while the aircraft was initially in cruise flight at 30000 feet, it had already started its descent to Grosny at 4:26 UTC (7:26 LT for Grozny) and was at 8875 ft at 4:40 UTC when the signal had been lost. Until then, the barometric track is smooth. The granular data show the lowest altitude reached to be 2700 feet, likely in the Grozny area (GPS data is missing). There are some time stamps for the altitude missing as well. The altitude is important for the missile hypothesis, as different SAM have different reaches and ceiling. But the article suggests the signal was lost when the aircraft was cruising at 30000 ft and when the signal reappeared, which is misleading. Hope this clears it up. Zardo (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Refeference numbers change all the time. I‘m referring to this: „The aircraft had been cruising at about 30,000 feet (9,144 m) when it disappeared from radar coverage at 08:40 Azerbaijan Time (04:40 UTC) before reappearing off the coast of Kazakhstan at around 10:07 Azerbaijan time (06:07 UTC).“ Zardo (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Citing Azerbaijani government sources, Euronews has just reported that a Russian surface-to-air missile caused the plane crash. I'd think this information should already be included in the article. Nataev 15:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, it's already mentioned in the article: "On 26 December, Azerbaijani government sources confirmed to Euronews that a Russian surface-to-air missile..." Nataev 15:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Issues in mentions of children

In the article we have this sentence: "The 29 survivors, including 2 children, were hospitalised following the accident."

But we also have this sentence: "Among the survivors are four children... ."

Also, the rest of the previous sentence (after four children) suggests a 19-years-old person is a child, which is false. Aminabzz (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

While the sentence "Among the survivors are four children..." is now removed we still have contradictory information here:

A sentence says "Four minors were on board", and another one says "The 29 survivors, including two children,...". Aminabzz (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe that means "of the four minors on board, two of them were hospitalised"? Procyon117 (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

What's the Captain's last name?

The Captain's last name is stated to be Kshnyakin, which is of course a Russian last name and not an Azerbaijani one. But even if that's true shouldn't it be Keshnyakin? I mean a vowel is needed when two consonants want to attach to each other. Aminabzz (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The (Turkish) source cited has "İgor Kşnyakin":

https://oxu.az/tr/gundem/kazaya-ugrayan-ucak-son-kontrolden-ne-zaman-gecti-resmi-aciklama

Typing that in Google gives Azerbaijani results for "İqor Kşnyakin":

https://azpresstimes.info/news9453

https://azertag.az/xeber/baki_qrozni_reysini_yerine_yetiren_teyyarenin_ekipaj_uzvlerinin_siyahisi_achiqlanib-3348831

Additionally, the initial source is also available in Azerbaijani, again with "İqor":

https://oxu.az/cemiyyet/teyyare-son-yoxlamadan-ne-vaxt-kecmisdi-resmi-aciqlama Wiljahelmaz (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So strange that an Azerbaijani person has a Russian first and last name. Aminabzz (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

He was an ethnic Russian and Azerbaijani citizen. There is a large Russian community in Azerbaijan. His surname was Kshnyakin, he was a highly experienced pilot. More information about the crew could be found here: Also recent updates on the developments from the same website, which is believed to be close to the government: Grandmaster 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

30th reference

I couldn't open the 30th reference. But the link text says it is about a crash in Nepal in 2023. It seems to have nothing to do with this crash. Aminabzz (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've removed that citation. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Aminabzz (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Protecting article

Article has had significant news coverage as well as many theories emerge. Ordsju (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not a reason to protect the page, and in any event you'd make such a request at WP:RFPP. ⇒SWATJester 02:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Improper use of the word “explode”

In the article is the phrase “It then tumbled, exploded, and broke into two major pieces.”  That is an improper use of the word “exploded.”

As a fairly general rule, aircraft don’t explode during or after a crash, unless something that is explosive in nature is loaded on the plane.  There is nothing in the construction of a plane that would explode on impact, and jet fuel, which is essentially highly-refined kerosene, is not capable of detonation unless properly mixed in a closed container with a strong oxidizing agent.  At worst, there will be a deflagration of remaining fuel at impact, usually leading to a fireball that gives the appearance of an explosion, but without the violent, supersonic shock wave of an actual detonation.

216.152.18.132 (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done "Explode" is a perfectly acceptable common description for what happened, and it's simply not true that jet fuel cannot explode -- a jet fuel explosion was responsible for the TWA 800 disaster, for instance. See CalTech research on this matter, which explicitly states "An explosion is a vague term used to describe an event associated with rapid energy release (see the glossary)" and notes that a deflagration is a type of explosion. ⇒SWATJester 03:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's another article by the NFPA outlining that explosions define both deflagration and detonations. I agree that jet fuel exploding is deflagration not detonation, but they're both explosions. Aperture LENS (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide whether there was an explosion. Most of that paragraph, including "exploded", is unsourced. I have tagged it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Co-pilot

Why has the information about the co-pilot been removed from the article? Was it factually wrong? Aminabzz (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You can click on the 'View history' tab (or equivalent, depending on your interface choice), and there should be links to several 'blame' links to help find out where a particular piece of text was changed. If you post details here with specific WP:DIFFs, then discussion about whether the removal was intentional or accidental would progress. The WP:EDITSUMMARY should give an idea of whether the removal was deliberate or accidental, and if deliberate, then why. Boud (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on UAV Attack Hypothesis

The sentence, "Ongoing UAV attacks were reported in Grozny allegedly by Ukrainian forces." is a little unclear. Were the attacks reported on by the Ukrainian forces, or were the attacks from the Ukrainian forces? Aperture LENS (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

fixed. I have also updated a protection request for this article on the grounds that such statements are being used as a springboard by WP:NOTHERE editors to vandalize the article. Borgenland (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So the attacks were being carried out by Ukrainian forces? This is where I get confused with source 91 (probably a different number by now) because the article states that "Russian authorities have not commented on the situation." And the citation in the article is from ASTRA's telegram, which is press and not Ukrainian forces and even says (according to google translate) that there is no official information. I would rephrase "Ukrainian forces", since they wouldn't report on their own tactics, and there's little evidence in the article that it's from either side. Maybe it was just an aviation enthusiast in a small plane. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also thank you for the protection request. Aperture LENS (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

2 km scale map

File:Flight 8243 Scale 2km Screenshot From 2024-12-26 06-39-58.png was removed for being superfluous and its caption inaccurate. It provided details such as Flight 8243's final two turns near the airport, the street grid of the city, etc. Furthermore, I had taken it directly from the Open Street map directly above! I aver that it was removed in error. kencf0618 (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It's moot. Open Street Map is interactive. Changed caption to reflect this. kencf0618 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Shoot down confirmed

Edit request to reflect Reuters' report on preliminary investigation results

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Currently, there are two leading hypotheses about the incident: a bird strike, supported by claims from Russia's Federal Air Transport Agency, and a shootdown by Russia, which has so far only been supported by survivors' reports. However, recent news has emerged stating that "four sources in Azerbaijan with knowledge of the investigation" assert that the flight "was downed by a Russian air defense system."

I am requesting an edit to the lead section to reflect that this hypothesis is now also supported by these sources, and not just by the survivors' shrapnel reports.

Bagirova, Nailia. "Russian air-defense system downed Azerbaijan plane, sources say". Reuters. An Azerbaijan Airlines flight that crashed in Kazakhstan on Wednesday killing 38 people was downed by a Russian air defence system, four sources in Azerbaijan with knowledge of the investigation told Reuters. One of the Azerbaijani sources familiar with the Azerbaijani investigation into the crash told Reuters that preliminary results showed the plane was struck by a Russian Pantsir-S air defence system, and its communications were paralysed by electronic warfare systems on the approach into Grozny. The source said: 'No one claims that it was done on purpose. However, taking into account the established facts, Baku expects the Russian side to confess to the shooting down of the Azerbaijani aircraft.'

—79.163.180.66 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Done Y, lead now has a sentence reflecting the Reuters reporting. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Confusing map

the map currently in the accident section is somewhat confusing - it has an "inferred line" between the two points where signal was lost, but this gives the impression it flew more or less up the coast to Makhachkala then turned east. In reality it seems that all the reporting indicates it went west from here towards Chechnya, while out of signal, then back east again. Would it be possible to a) show that as the inferred line (compare eg Reuters), or failing that b) omit the inferred line across the sea? Andrew Gray (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Bird strike source

The sourcing of this (increasingly incredible) claim is problematic. The first source (dimsum) for our saying that “Russia's Federal Air Transport Agency suggested that the accident may have been caused by a bird strike” is here: It does not source the suggestion.

The second (CNN) attributes the suggestion to “a statement” by “Russia’s aviation watchdog”, which cannot really be anything other than FATA . However I can’t find the statement itself. Does anyone have access to it? Springnuts (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. "Azerbaijan Airlines plane carrying 67 passengers crashes near Aktau during emergency landing". Dimsum Daily. 25 December 2024. Retrieved 25 December 2024.
2. Tayir, Hassan; Vlasova, Svitlana; Butenko, Victoria; Lilieholm, Lucas; Szekeres, Edward (25 December 2024). "Plane carrying 67 people crashes in Kazakhstan, officials say; more than 20 survive". CNN. Retrieved 25 December 2024.

Edit Request - remove the Map

Whilst I may have the required authority to perform this edit myself, I would prefer a discussion in case I am mistaken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Azerbaijan_Airlines_Flight_8243#/map/0

1. Where has this map come from? Where was it published? I am not familiar with this format on Misplaced Pages. Although maybe that last bit is irrelevant.
2. Does it need licencing? What are the copyright details? Who is the author. The citation alludes to "Ian Petchenik", but this is NOT his map. I believe elements of it are WP:OR. Can we still use it? Do we want to? I'm saying not.
3. Incidental - Why has Grozny airport been smudged out? It is key information. Very strange.
4. Regardless, the map is misleading, because the light-pink inferred path is not supported by any facts or data that I can find. In fact it contradicts most of the evidence. And the laws of aeronautics.
5. The map would be more accurate if the light pink line was removed, to agree with the publicly available radar tracking, which only shows part of the flightpath, and does not show where the aircraft was for 1 hour and 27 minutes. (It may be that military grade radar sites knew exactly where it was, but are not saying; but that is just pure speculation, and not for the article itself.)

Or am I missing something obvious here?

I could provide a few more snippets of the aircraft track (not all of it, obviously), based on the raw ADSB data, and hence the reasons why this map is so utterly incorrect, but that would be my own work, and hence WP:OR, so I'm not going there. My argument is that the map fails on its own merits (or complete lack of them). WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Check out the source referenced below the map. The data is from FlightRadar24 among other various flight tracking services. It was published on FlightRadar24's blog in response to the accident/incident/crash. I'm not sure about copyright, but it is cited properly. I agree that the wording 'inferred path' is incorrect, as FlightRadar24 did not receive data during that time, so the points are stitched together via the line. It's mostly for ease of conveying the data of the full path through time. (Assigning time values instead is messy and distracts from the data.) Remember that GPS, radar, and other jamming was occurring during the time frame.

Comparing the map on Misplaced Pages to the one in the source, there is a blip of data near Gronzy that is not included on the Misplaced Pages map. I'm not sure if the article by FlightRadar24 was updated to include that data, but in any case the map on Misplaced Pages isn't completely accurate to the source. Aperture LENS (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's confusing (see my comment above) and having one without the "inferred line" would be a lot less misleading - that is, as far as I can tell, the one route we definitely know it didn't take!

I've tried just now to at least remove the pink line by editing Misplaced Pages:Map data/Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 to remove that element but it doesn't seem to have had the desired effect - been quite a while since I worked with map data though so I might be missing something! Andrew Gray (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Figured it out - there is a Commons copy of the map (which this article was using) and a local copy (which I'd updated). I've switched this article to use a modified local copy, which only has the recorded data and no pink line, and updated the caption accordingly. I think ideally we'd have a better version indicating an inferred track west towards Grozny and then back eastwards, but this is hopefully good enough for the moment. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The inferred path is given in the source, also repeated here - , which marks the path as "exact path unknown". Hzh (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The inferred path on the Flighradar source & on the Reuters article goes WNW a long way inland and then back ENE across the water. The one we had didn't show this - it went straight NE after loss of signal, missing out the inland section, so wasn't really representing what's in the sources. (Now, anyway - I'm not sure if FR used to have a different map?) It feels better to me to have no line, rather than one which is confusing to the reader, even if we do label it "unknown". Andrew Gray (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Best to stick with what we know –and not include that we don't know. kencf0618 (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I personally disagree with no line, just because I'm used to inferred lines creating a more coherent flight path, but I completely understand no data: no line.

Does the current version of the map include the small section of data near Grozny? It appears in both the Reuters article and FlightRadar24 post. (The one by FlightRadar24 is very small and near the V in Vladikavkaz.) Aperture LENS (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Not that I can tell. kencf0618 (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks to @Andrew Gray, @Aperture LENS,@Hzh and @Kencf0618

Regarding the map - I think we have got as close as is possible for now, although there is some ongoing discussion regarding improving the map labelling.

The Vladikavkaz connection

For what it is worth, I have played around with raw ADSB data in another lifetime (i.e. not here on Misplaced Pages), but what I am about to add next is WP:OR, although FR24 (& others) are clearly aware of the following details, but have chosen not to publish them in a form that Misplaced Pages can use, unless others disagree?

The various maps are based on ADSB data broadcast from the aircraft. After jamming corrupted the signals at 04:25:20z, there was a 12 minute break in communications, and then an additional 83 data points were picked up, but only with partial data. Although the data is in the public domain, until formally published in map form, I am not sure if we can do much more than note the following, which for now presumably counts as WP:OR. These additional data comprised

• 68 data points over a three-minute period, with incorrect speed (locked down at an alleged 52 kts), the aircraft in a gentle right-hand 270deg turn, and with entirely credible GPS and altitude (IMHO). This data is consistent with an approach to runway 05 at Beslan airport, Vladikavkaz

However at the point the aircraft was descending through 9000 feet (i.e. 04:40z), somebody pulled the plug -

• the next 15 data points are locked at 9000 feet altitude, 52 kts speed, heading north, but at the same time stationary(!) in GPS terms, directly overhead a minor electricity sub-station adjacent to a Gazprom petrol station on the R298 highway, on the outskirts of Ardon, North Ossetia–Alania. This data is largely worthless.

My own analysis WP:OR is that at the end of the three minutes of entirely plausible data, the aircraft did indeed fly over this location (Ardon), at about the time and height specified, but from that point onwards the data was regurgitated to suggest it simply hung there, suspended in time, before disappearing completely (for the next 1hour27mins).

TLDR: although clearly the data has been corrupted, there are still elements of truth within it, showing that the aircraft's first choice was trying to divert to Beslan Airport, North Ossetia.

The existing FR24 map does indeed allude to this, without actually making it clear. But I am sure it will all come out soon enough. Until then, that's all folks!

the radar signal was initially lost at 04:25z, i.e. 08:25 AZT, not "08:40" as written in the article. Either the Moscow Times, or the Wiki editor has got this wrong. The signal was briefly regained, and then lost again at 04:40z (08:40 AZT), but the aircraft was no longer at 30,000 feet. You can have the time (08:40), or the height (30,000ft), but not both!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Good pointers all. Our difficulty is balancing corrupted data, the text, and the map, given what we know at any particular time. We await the usual sources. kencf0618 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The names of the pilots

Hello, the names and ages of the crew and pilots and also about the injured and witnesses. Tgvarrt (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The crew of this tragic flight demonstrated extraordinary bravery and professionalism. After their aircraft was struck, they fought to pilot and land a doomed aircraft, doing everything possible to save lives.

My humble honour to the memory of Azerbaijan Airlines Captain Igor Kshnyakin, First Officer Aleksandr Kalyaninov, and Purser Hokuma Aliyeva, among the 39 lives lost. Their heroism ensured that 29 passengers survived. Tgvarrt (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Gusar/Qusar link error

In subsection "Aircraft" of the "Background" section, the very first sentence mentions that the aircraft was named "Gusar" however the hyperlink leads to an article on the city of Qusar. P.S. Happy holidays! Maorjuri (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The link leads to a page on the city of Qusar, which is also called Gusar. (Happy holidays to you as well!) Iovecodeabc~ talk | contribs 23:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Maorjuri I changed it. I Hope the wording is good:

... and named Gusar after the Azerbaijan capital. Daniel Maak (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Citing Flightradar24 playback for the timeline

Just a quick & simple question: would it be possible to cite Flightradar24's playback of the flight for the timeline part of the accident section? (It has takeoff time, squawk 7700 time most likely) Andrew.aussie.0407 (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and FlightRadar24's data has been cited multiple times in the article already. ADS-B data is pretty concrete, even with GPS jamming and spoofing in the area. Later with declassified flight recorder data and maybe other radar data, a more clear flight path will emerge. Aperture LENS (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Expand the reactions page

Aviationwikiflights, I want to understand why you want to go against the norms of wikipedia pages? All I want is an expanded reactions page that doesnt affect you or anyone else but you have to be a pain to deal with. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is it relevant to the article to mention what numerous governments have said? What value would it add to know what the Pakistani Prime Minister or the Serbian government said when all of those condolences could simply be summarized in a few sentences? In addition, your most recent revision is plainly unreferenced. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it's predictable dross. "The Poobar of Foobar sent his condolences" etc. Begone! WWGB (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I’d dare them to fill this up with 196 entries and see if they don’t find this ludicrous. Borgenland (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

They can always start Reactions to the Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 crash. {Yuk). WWGB (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Most editors despise these list-formatted, unencyclopedic "Reactions" sections. Abductive (reasoning) 03:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

russian biased version

According to Ria Novosti in Russia/Kazakhstan, a cylinder exploded on board the plane that crashed in Aktau. stated the Minister of Transport of Kazakhstan, Marat Karabaev, quoted by Sputnik Kazakhstan Real or not, this is how Russia's super investigation progresses. Tgvarrt (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Speculation

Investigators will sift through ever piece of the aircraft and they will also look over the flight data recorders and and available private video available. It will take time to figure out the truth. Video I saw suggested the aircraft struggled to maintain altitude suggesting some fault before it finally crashed. Until all evidence is gathered its improper to make accusations until the various agencies can figure it out. My IQ >> 160 (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

With Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 it took 8 years to determine and sentence those involved. Tgvarrt (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It's improper for us to make accusations in any case. We do not make accusations; we report what reliable sources have said in accordance with our content policies on verifiability and neutral point of view.⇒SWATJester 05:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and the fault it experienced appeared to be consistent with a total loss of hydraulics due to an apparent penetration of the vertical stabilizers and rear fuselage by shrapnel as reported by multiple reliable sources. SedimentaryRock (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The very clear pictures of the shrapnel holes in the aircraft body (as well as the reports of shrapnel holes in passengers' legs?) tell a rather obvious story that no amount of investigation and reporting will change. Analysis of the FDR and CVR may add some details to the narrative of how the aircrew dealt with the disaster. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Please mark the countries and the airports on the map.

It'd be helpful to mark the countries and airports on the map.

See this and this map for example. Shubjt 08:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The list of full names of all passengers and crew members was released by the Azerbaijan Airlines - source: https://www.azal.az/az/airline/news/details/?id=25122024#/ SerhiyBurnus (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't generally name non-notable people. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Addition of passenger names is unnotable. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 10:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Although the names of the captain and co-pilot are usually justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Names of the captain and co-pilot are already stated. The name of one flight attendant is also there. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 10:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes thanks, but they are non-notable themselves. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Alignment of chronology

The recovery of the aircraft signal on monitoring radars took place at 06:07 (UTC) over the Caspian Sea, 65 km from the coast of Kazakhstan. And at 06:02 (UTC), the plane entered Kazakhstan's airspace, which begins at the maritime border line of the states, that is, 22.224 km (12 nautical miles) away. How is this possible? Was the plane moving in the opposite direction from Kazakhstan? The airspace outside the territorial waters (that is, outside the 22.224 kilometer zone from the coast) is international and is not under the control of the individual country of Kazakhstan, that is, it is not "Kazakhstan's airspace". Fix the error 91.210.248.193 (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We are making ourselves look ridiculous.

The Emperor has no clothes. It’s crystal clear that the aircraft was shot down. WP:NOR says "Information that is so widely known and accepted that it is not reasonably challenged by reliable sources may not require attribution." The whole world has seen the video from inside the plane and the photographs of the outside of the plane. Survivors have spoken of the moment of the strike, and the Azerbaijani government are responding to the aircraft being shot down. We do our ourselves no favours when we tie ourselves up in policy arguments and fail to provide the encyclopaedic information, which is our raison d’etre. Springnuts (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages making itself look ridiculous? Surely that's impossible! I suspect the Azerbaijani government are not particularly influenced by this article and what it suggests might have been the cause. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• B-Class aviation articles
• B-Class Aviation accident articles
• Aviation accident task force articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• B-Class Central Asia articles
• Low-importance Central Asia articles
• B-Class Kazakhstan articles
• Low-importance Kazakhstan articles
• WikiProject Kazakhstan articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Low-importance Russia articles
• Low-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Azerbaijan articles
• Low-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Low-importance Disaster management articles