Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 02:36, 4 January 2025

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: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 4 days

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243, along with other pages relating to politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both, 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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

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.

Section sizes Section size for Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 (13 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 5,504 5,504 Accident 19,944 22,146 Timeline of crash 2,202 2,202 Background 17 8,763 Aircraft 2,669 2,669 Passengers and crew 6,077 6,077 Aftermath 19,008 38,697 Reactions 19,689 19,689 Investigation 21,605 27,887 Hypotheses 6,282 6,282 See also 269 269 Notes 24 24 References 1,201 1,201 Total 104,491 104,491

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)

Meaning of accident according to dictionaries:

Merriam-Webster: an unpleasant event, especially in a vehicle, that happens unexpectedly and causes injury or damage

OED: an unfortunate and typically unforeseen event, a disaster, a mishap

Cambridge Dictionary: something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone

You don't need to be well versed in the topic or field to understand the meaning of accident, Merriam-Webster and Cambridge both list this word, as being on the A2 level, so you should have learned their meaning according to them. The argument that you have to be well versed to understand the meaning of accident is invalid.

You also need to take into account, that out of the 1-2 billion people who speak English, only ~400 million speak it natively, you also need to accommodate the rest of them, when reading articles. In addition other languages might not have the same default association with the word "accident" that you and many newspapers seem to have, nor do they have the aversion to use the equivalent of "accident" in their own language.

Globally used languages like English, should strive to accommodate people from different cultures, therefore I do think a separate discussion should be opened, so that we can decide, which of the two words or even other word would be the better, more understood alternative to "accident", if there is a need for one. Bersleid (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have any duty of care to other language wikis? I'd not argue that use of the word "accident" requires any reader to be "well versed", even though this is the term officially used by technical aviation investigation reports. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that other languages should be considered, but the meaning of accident carries a different undertone depending on the culture and primary language of the reader, but I'm perfectly fine with continuing the use of accident, of the languages I know none have the same kind of bias that the advocator has. Bersleid (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The word is not without ambiguity - wikt:accident lists 10 possible meanings. I think we must assume that readers here don't need to use simple.wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not a coincidence that wiktionary is not the first result shown by Google, if you search for "accident meaning" or "xy meaning", though it still gets shown on the first page. Aside from Google using Oxford Languages and most people only getting that far, the next few are Cambridge, Merriam-Webster and Collins, though this might be a regional thing, so take it with a grain of salt. Bersleid (talk) 20:44, 27 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)

Accident doesn't suggest no one is to blame. And aviation "accident" is always investigated and causes identified including sometimes criminal of financial punishment. I already provided the definition of an aviation accident. Liger404 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is the German wings suicide flight final report. You will see it's still called an "accident". Not because no one was to blame or at fault, but because that's what a flight that results in fatalities is called.https://bea.aero/uploads/tx_elydbrapports/BEA2015-0125.en-LR.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwivxca8pcmKAxX_cGwGHWtFC2IQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1vqfuuHHbvRJJ3vO2SpljB Liger404 (talk) 01:19, 28 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 that nobody is at 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)

The average person is very familiar with the term "Air accident" or "Air Crash" either are acceptable, although accident is the most correct term, as it is both on common parlance and also technically correct. Accident is the word that appears in all government reports for instance. Liger404 (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Just read the whole discussion, and I get the arguments on both sides. I vote for using accident since it's pretty commonly used and crash sounds a little less formal. My $0.02 L31g (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This is dreadfully long. I'm RFCing this. guninvalid (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2025 (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)

The problem here is the over reliance on standard newspapers for definitions. Newspapers are not the only reliable source and are not a particularly good source of technical information, it is entirely appropriate to use the FAA as a source, a more reliable source on aviation matters. I do not expect Britancica limits itself to researching only newspapers, and we should not limit ourselves to basically forming Misplaced Pages from newspaper clippings. Liger404 (talk) 01:29, 28 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)

I've cited WP:RS over and over again. As for a move to J2-8243 WP:COMMONNAME might disagree, but if that's what the majority of RS are calling it, maybe it's something to consider. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I suspect consensus will move, before long, to describing it primarily not as a crash or an accident, but as a shoot-down. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aviationwikiflight There may not be a consensus here, but you are far from having the numbers to revert the edits of myself and others back to "accident". Please stop and state your case here. Particularly, you need to explain why you are inserting a word over and over again which goes against the vast majority of reliable sources, which we follow per policy. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Are we...actually arguing over whether using the word "accident" to describe an aviation accident is original research. Good grief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, we're discussing if we follow Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, which overwhelmingly call this a crash, as demonstrated above. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  ...so, exactly what I said. I should note that the lede of Aviation accidents and incidents reads An aviation accident is an event during aircraft operation that causes serious injury, death, or destruction. Call it one thing or the other - I don't have a dog in that fight. I'm just shaking my head over the pointless wikilawyering over whether or not calling a spade a spade is somehow original research. We all have much better things to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Figuring out together what to call things in an encyclopedia is kind of the point of this project, especially in events where lots of people died. Your drive-by, dismissive comment doesn't add much at all. If you have nothing to add other than snark, you're not obligated to say anything. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is, indeed, kind of the point of the process. My point is that whether or not it is an "accident" or "crash" is not something we Must Hew To Reliable Sources About. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  An accident implies no fault. This is increasingly looking like a shootdown. Using the word crash satisfies the policy of following reliable sources and maintaining a neutral point of view. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Accident does not imply that nobody is at fault. Instead:

  • Per the ICAO, 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.
  • Per the FAA and NTSB, The FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) define an accident as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, AND in which any person suffers death or serious injury or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.
  • See more examples from other aviation (investigative) agencies

  Maybe in the justice system, accident implies no fault (in the sense of innocence), see the Merriam Webster which states: Law : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought, however we are not in a court of law and the majority of definitions do not state that accident implies no fault.

  • See Vocabulary.com with states that n accident is an unfortunate event. By their very nature, accidents are not planned. Rear-ending the car ahead of you, spilling milk, losing your footing on an icy sidewalk — all of these are considered accidents.
  • See the Cambridge Dictionary which states that something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone.
  • Per Collins Dictionary, f someone has an accident, something unpleasant happens to them that was not intended, sometimes causing injury or death.

  Clearly accident does not imply no fault other than maybe in court of laws. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like at this point this whole discussion just needs to be closed as unproductive. I've opened a RfC to at least guide the discussion and provide a formal close eventually. guninvalid (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just because people disagree doesn't mean it hasn't been productive. Numerous editors have expressed opposing viewpoints. That's kind of the point of the project. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I do not believe the WP:RS rules was ever intended to cause us to have to speak only in the words of newspaper reporters. And the "original research" is being over applied to basically prevent any level.of editorial work. An encyclopedia is not supposed to be formed from newspaper clippings. Sources are intended to be used to inform, not to be copy pasted. The FAA is a reliable source, it is both normal and correct to call a plane crash an accident. That's why every aircraft article on Misplaced Pages has a section titled "Accidents and incidents" Noth "Crashes and shoot downs and terrorist attacks ect". A shoot down in a type of aviation account. Liger404 (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Crash is just a newspaper/tabloid word for an accident, wikipedia is not a newspaper. MilborneOne (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That isn't true, they have different meanings.

News organisations advise against the use of the word accident as it implies nobody is to blame, which is rarely the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-a 87.115.180.220 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian's stylebook that you linked only states Take care in using this term in relation to traffic incidents; crash or collision may be better if the full circumstances are not known. The phrase only refers to traffic accidents, and nowhere does it state that accident implies that nobody is to blame. The Guardian themselves use accident in multiple of its articles. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Do we have to refer to the style guide for each individual source to ascertain it's meaning? Don't we just rely on WP:MoS instead? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Article titles, (which section titles are supposed to follow) "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." The majority of RS prefer "crash." I think this discussion has revealed an imprecision of MoS. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:AT specifically refers to article titles, so section titles are not bound by what the policy states Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they are: Section headings "should generally follow the guidance for article titles" Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The sentence refers to MOS:AT, not WP:AT, which states A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic, balancing the criteria of being natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but the very first line says "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." See what I'm saying? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Except MOS:AT doesn't state that. Only WP:AT does. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Misplaced Pages is not bound by the stylebooks of news agencies so I don't think we need to analyse them to ascertain the certain meaning of a word. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

We are bound by our MoS though, which clearly says ""Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." The MoS also says "If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence" Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The phrase that you cited only exists on WP:AT, not on MOS:AT. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:AT is an entry under MoS. And to reiterate, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

MOS:AT being based on WP:AT doesn't mean that MOS:AT is the same as WP:AT. The article title is clearly based on what sources refer to as the subject, "Azerbaijan Airlines Flight (JT-)8243". Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Section titles follow article titles. Article titles are defined by RS. RS call it a crash. MoS dictates that if any contradiction arises, MoS overrules it. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Section titles follow the format given by MOS:HEADING which recommends that they follow MOS:AT. Since MOS:AT takes precedence over WP:AT in the case of conflict, we don't follow what WP:AT says which means that section titles are not based on "how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you're misreading or choosing to misread policy in this case Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This isn't Simple English Misplaced Pages, we don't have to use the same word over and over again. We don't even have to prefer one word over another, even if WP:RS seem to prefer said word. - ZLEA _T\ 22:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Main page ITN

Just to note that, regardless of any caution here, the ITN blurb on Main page is now this: "Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 is shot down near Aktau International Airport, Kazakhstan, killing 38 people." I've added a note at WP:ITN/C. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Why are we avoiding calling this an (accidental) shootdown? Every government in the world is calling it that except the likely perpetrator, Russia and its closest allies… and even they are tacitly admitting it now. I just don’t understand the need for the need for extreme caution anymore. Clearly the ITN team didn’t feel the need for it. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess because there is no preliminary investigation report yet published. In fact, has the makeup of the investigation team even been agreed yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

So we now have "accidental shootdown", which seems very likely, but is still wholly unsubstantiated by hard evidence? At least it has now dropped off ITN on Main page. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You mean hard evidence other than the perforated holes in the tail section consistent with the damage caused by a surface-to-air missile? RickyCourtney (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean that the lack of complete transparency from Putin allows for the possibility of a deliberate shootdown. He won't want to admit that Russian anti-aircraft systems ever make mistakes. But I think we can rule out the possibility that the holes were made my Ukrainian drones. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

What way? THese type (that flying far away to attack some static target) of drones do not explode out of/away from the target - it have to directly collide it, in conrast of what exactly AAM missile do (that's it's main function to intercept the fast-moving target when distance is already critical for harming the target, especially if it "feels" it will miss it, as it usually miss it if we talk about direct collision - that's why it's numerous shapnel there inside and not a some sort of only big cannonball that can harm target really critical while direct hit) that these holes can be confirmation of.

Other words, if it would be a collision, traces of explosion (soot) and big object (as drone is relatively big as of panzir missile) with collision dents on the tail. And there were no of it. 83.142.111.43 (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea what you mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think what he means is that the damage is consistent with a surface-to-air missile, not a drone. SAMs typically explode in close proximity to their target and spray shrapnel everywhere in hopes of shredding their agile target. That is in contrast to the Ukrainians who strap a "dumb bomb" to a drone and then crash it into something which would leave damage other than shrapnel holes. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If so, then yes, I fully agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

So should "shootdown" appear under Summary in the infobox? Do we need an RfC to decide this? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And the source in the infobox supporting this claim is now marked as unreliable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't need an rfc, we just need a reliable source. Do you have one? GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The infobox seems to be in a state of flux. You mean a reliable source was says categorically "it was a shootdown"? I think I might struggle to find one. The flightsafety.org source that was previously in (only) the infobox just says; "Also, a passenger was supposedly interviewed after surviving the accident. He stated having heard an explosion during the descent or approach. He also reported observing that shrapnel had perforated his life vest. Another in-flight video shows a hole in a flap track fairing on the left-hand wing. Additionally, post accident video footage of the tail section shows multiple small holes in the tailfin as well as horizontal stabilizer." and quotes the Azerbaijan State Civil Aviation Authority saying, "due to physical and technical external interference". It gives a "Category: Unlawful Interference". I'd suggest that whatever is in the infobox wholly reflects what is stated and sourced in the main body. It should not need any additional source(s). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Just for the record, @GA-RT-22 and @Martinevans123: Aviationwikiflight was wrong to label the Aviation Safety Network as user-generated content. It is a long time, well established, respected, reliable source here on Misplaced Pages.

As far as other reliable sources:

Reuters: Russian air-defense system downed Azerbaijan plane, sources say

New York Times: Azerbaijan Blames Russia for Plane Crash and Rebukes Kremlin, Plane Crash Investigators Focus on Russian Air Defenses as Possible Cause

CBS News: Azerbaijan's president says Russia unintentionally shot down jetliner that crashed in Kazakhstan

Washington Post: Azerbaijan demands Russia admit guilt for downing plane, pay compensation

-- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Not all of ASN is user-generated. If the content is user-generated, a warning stating "This information is added by users of ASN. ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information," appears. However, it has generally been accepted that the non user-generated entries are generally (providing that the sources are reliable). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Despite that standard proviso at the top of the page, if you look at the change log at the bottom of the page, you see that the ASN staff has been heavily involved in editing the entry. I suspect that they, like us, are doing the best they can to make sense of a complex situation by aggregating reliable sources in the absence of an official report from aviation safety authorities. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes however just like our pages, we cannot cite ourselves as a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. So while the admins at ASN might be doing an admirable job over there, I would proffer since it's essentially unvetted user contributed (and we cannot even see the change diffs), that we must have a reliable source to use their information. They can be a research point that then we follow their citations to grab actual reliable sources. Otherwise it is simply a WP:SPS TiggerJay (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

None of those sources say the plane was shot down. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That's half a dozen sources saying the plane was shot down. Yes, they're citing sources or officials, but that's how journalism works. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I do think we can remove some of the attributions now. So instead of "The New York Times reported that Azerbaijani investigators believed a Russian Pantsir-S1 air-defence system had damaged the plane before it crashed" we could say "Azerbaijani investigators believe a Russian air-defence system shot the plane down". And similar changes in the Investigation section. With updated sourcing. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I just reverted the infobox summary edit because it does not seem to me that there is clear consensus that the term "shootdown" or similar terms should be included in this yet. For my own perspective I think it is WP:TOOSOON and just because news sources are essentially restating the allegations of the victim does not actually make their statements true, nor would it qualify as natural neutral, but most certainly one sided. Now time might tell that it was actually shot-down or the result thereof. But as of right now, aside from allegations, I don't see an evidence-based statements that are demonstrating that it was. While it certainly might look like such, we are not permitted the liberty of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and this is especially true with developing stories. TiggerJay (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s just simply not true. These reports are not based solely on the allegations of a victim. In fact, I can’t recall any of them even citing any victim. These sources all cite the physical evidence observed on the wreckage, information from sources with access to US intelligence (which you can read to mean AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/US intelligence), or information from sources within the Azerbaijani government. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

First to be clear before I show the list, I am saying that pursuant to POLICY it is simply TOOSOON, but eventually more reliable information will be available. It is extremely likely that formally it will be determined to be a crime, but until such point, it is against policy to attempt to litigate this likelihood of a crime on here.

Top google news results for "what caused Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243" shows me the following: (emphasis added)

• CBS
  • "We can say with complete clarity that the plane was shot down by Russia. (...) We are not saying that it was done intentionally, but it was done," Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said.
• Forbes
  • "Azerbaijan’s transport minister Rashad Nabiyev said evidence suggests there was “external interference” with the flight"
  • "Surviving passengers and crew members told Reuters they heard multiple loud “bangs” after the flight was unable to land in Grozny."
  • "should Russia be found responsible" (Azerbaijani parliamentarian Rasim Musabeyov)
• Routers
  • Four sources with knowledge of the preliminary findings of Azerbaijan's investigation into the disaster told Reuters on Thursday that Russian air defences had mistakenly shot it down.
• NY Times
  • No specific claim to reason
• Additionally the following industry sources are very specifically mute on the topic:
  • ICAO Union
  • AFACWA
  • Prior search with the FAA, but did not show up on my Google Search

To be clear NONE of these sources support the claim of a "shootdown", outside of people who are with the Azerbaijani government, their own investigation, the airline or passengers. As such everything shown here supports that this is the victims allegations, and not necessarily established fact. None of the articles on the first page of Google News support the statements from a neutral point or unbiased point of view. The facts we can stick with is that the plane crashed following some mechanical malfunction. The fact that there are multiple sources that have reported the pilots thought it was a bird strike, even though "experts" say it is unlikely/impossible, that does not change the fact it was the first presumption. Now the WEIGHT regarding the pilot statement I believe is minimal for various reasons. It is also fact that the hull riddled with holes/penetrations. And of course a fatal crash. But as far as reliable sources, and weight is concerned, the allegations by Azerbaijani sources are something that can be included in the article, but do not belong in the summary and presented as fact. Now this is not a person who is accused of a criminal act, but per we can still follow the closest guidelines at WP:SUSPECT presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. TiggerJay (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If we are waiting for the Russian operators of that Pantsir-S1 air-defence system to see the inside of a courtroom, we might be waiting a while. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No but it would be appropriate to wait until unbiased aviation authorities make such a statement, which they might, in time. Especially in the aviation world, this is something that will be absolutely investigated with a thoroughness that is rarely seen and very publicly disseminated, with little regard for politics, countries or people. Of course other neutral sources might come forward as well in time. However the above list was simply to answer the statement by Ricky That’s just simply not true. These reports are not based solely on the allegations of a victim. In fact, I can’t recall any of them even citing any victim where infact what I showed, at least from the top google news search results, was that every source was actually citing the victim, broadly speaking -- the people, company and country that was victimized by this situation. Now I'm not very familiar with how civilization operations are operating in that part of the war torn world, and sometimes it is kept secret, but lets say that there is a requirement for IFF systems to be in place, and the airline was not properly transmitting. While this would still be a downing, it greatly changes the current narrative, from country X did this to innocent country Y, to instead being country Y made a grave mistake that country X acted upon that cost lives. But while I can imagine a bunch of things it plausibly could have been, I'm very conservative when it comes to following policy and what should be included. And unsubstantiated claims do have a place in the article, but the weight should be very limited to the strength of the argument presented and claims by the victim are hardly reliable sources. And absolutely irresponsible to report in any way that would be seen by the causal reader as stated fact. All of that instead should be appropriate placed in Hypotheses as most of it currently is. TiggerJay (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

President Ilham Aliyev said Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243, which departed from Baku on Wednesday morning with 67 passengers and crew members bound for Grozny in Russia, “suffered external damage” in Russian airspace and was rendered uncontrollable by electronic warfare. The tail of the Embraer 190, he said in televised remarks, was seriously damaged “as a result of shelling from the ground.” ... Aliyev stressed that it was evident the plane had not been shot down intentionally. But he said Russia should have admitted guilt and apologized to “the friendly state” of Azerbaijan. We have the President saying the plane was shot down. There is no higher government official in Azerbaijan. Mind you, it's the Kazakh aviation authorities who are officially investigating this incident, and it's questionable how "unbiased" their official report will be. It may be another situation like Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 where we get an official report that ends up being contradicted by other aviation authorities... except in this situation none of the "gold standard" authorities like the NTSB or BEA have been invited to assist, so we're going to be relying on reports from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey, with help from Brazil. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the president of the country who was the victim here should have appropriate weight applied to their statement. Is it a reliable statement: in the sense that we can be confident that he really said that, yes, I think the sources would support that; but in the sense that he is conveying an accurate representation of what transpired, absolutely not, this would be the victim speaking about a tragedy, and we have seen presidents from a bias POV get this wrong time after time, especially in their early reactions to a situation. Is there a place for his comments, yes, but should that be presented as fact of what actually happened, I think that would be very inappropriate. TiggerJay (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should we principally refer to this as a "crash" or an "accident"?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should we principally refer to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 as a "crash" or an "accident"? guninvalid (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The article currently principally refers to it as an "accident", and uses "crash" as a verb or part of a larger noun (e.g. "crash site"). I hope this isn't a bad RfC again guninvalid (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Crash: Common sense, reliable sources, WP:NPOV, and WP:AT all demand we call this a crash, not an accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Use both with no preferrence over either – There is no reason to discard either crash or accident since the event was both an aviation accident and a crash. Both are neutral terms. Per the ICAO, accident does not imply that nobody is at 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. Other sources that define the word: (Extended content)

Additionally it has also been used in multiple sources in their own voices. Sources include: (Extended content)

Clearly, the word is neutral, as defined by multiple different entities, and has been used by multiple independent reliable sources. WP:AT specifically refers to article titling so the policy bears no weight on the article's content. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You've reverted myself and other editors who have attempted to use the word crash in the article. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Quit it with the passive aggression dude. Remember to assume good faith. guninvalid (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I am stating a fact. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of the technical definition, in common use the word "accident" excludes the intentional act of any human being. Under this usage rule, it's still unclear if the crash could be called an accident. Animal lover |666| 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Why should any article about an aviation disaster proceed "regardless of the technical definition"? We rely on official technical investigation reports to determine the cause. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Because, without gaining consensus, you removed every single mention of the word accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You did the same thing when you reverted the edits by Muboshgu. Then I stepped back to meet you in the talk page. And so it goes Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Because again, there was no consensus to do so. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Use both with no preference over either – as per Aviationwikiflight, context and grammar permitting. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) p.s. this dichotomy seems to sidestep the question of whether it should be described as "a shootdown".

  Admittedly, when I started the RfC I was mostly interested in diverting attention away from the "Accident" vs "Crash" thread because I felt it had long since stopped being useful. I've noticed several editors discussong whether and when to use "shootdown" though so it's not completely lost. guninvalid (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Accident for the entire series of events, including speculated causes, that ended in a crash. CurryCity (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Concur with CurryCity's comment above, as this accident involves an unusually long sequence of events over a large geographical area. Carguychris (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Crash/avoid accident - I may be WP:CRYSTALBALLing here a little, but we're all convinced at this point that this was a case of mistken identity leading to shootdown, right? If that's true, then I think we should try to reflect the language seen at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (i.e. a similar incidents), which don't use "accident". It seems to me a little awkward to use the word "accident" in relation to either a friendly-fire or collateral damage type incident. It could be interpreted as meaning there wasn't an intent to destroy. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  We have no idea how far this was "mistaken identity" by an automatic machine process, or by unnamed person/persons, or a bit of both. There seems to have been an overarching systemic failure that did not exclude the airliner from flying into that airspace to begin with? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  If it was an automatic process versus a person, would that make it more or less of an "accident"? I'm not sure about the "airspace" question. My understanding is that the plane was heading to Grozny and was shot on its intended route, but I'm not 100% sure on this point. If it was in the wrong airspace, it makes the parallel with Korean Air Lines Flight 007 even better. NickCT (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if that would be more or less. Oh, and the other unknown here are the swarms of Ukrainian drones that were supposedly all flocking around Grozny, by coincidence, at the time? Not sure Mr Putin has presented any actual evidence for those yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  For what it's worth; the Times cites "residents and local news media reports" for there being a drone attack on Grozny on the day in question. I think the drone attack was real. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would support changing the wording to "shootdown" once some sort of formal declaration is made by an investigative body, but until that time, I would prefer to use "accident" per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I think the article does a good job of clarifying that this is most likely a shootdown. In either case, per my previous comment, I think "accident"/"shootdown" should refer to the entire sequence of events, while "crash" should refer to the ground impact and its consequences. Carguychris (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  This could be reasonable. It might be too soon to definitively call it a "shootdown". Maybe until then we should call it simply an "incident"? I guess one possible issue with "accident" is that "accident", in some cases, can imply no blame. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Azerbaijan Airlines' no-claims bonus not looking too healthy, is it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @NickCT: It might be too soon to definitively call it a "shootdown". Maybe until then we should call it simply an "incident"? No, "incident" has a specific statutory definition in aviation, and this event is clearly more serious than that. Carguychris (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• The problem is that crash and accident are somewhat two different things -- "accident" relates to the cause, and "crash" relates to the result -- it could be any combination of the two... such as an accidental shootdown that led to a crash, or an intentional shootdown that led to the crash. It could be in fact the unlikely birdstrike (as first reported) that led to the crash, and possibly still considered accidental. What role, if any did the drones play? I think "crash" is clearly the just the result, but until the cause is established we should avoid the term "accident" because we still don't know if it was, perhaps, intentional. TiggerJay (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ok. So agreed that we may not be 100% sure today whether it was intentional or not. But if that's the case, why not use "incident" until we do know? "Accident" could be interpreted to mean there was not intent, and the truth seems to be that we're saying we don't know if there was intent or not. NickCT (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I suspect that Russian air defence teams were fully intent on shooting down anything that didn't give a friendly IFF response. But yes, that's just my personal speculation. You might describe the situation as "an accident waiting to happen". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. This does sorta make me wonder about how Russian air defenses look at airline transponders. Commercial airplanes are usually broadcasting their identity and location, right? You'd think air defense systems would take those transponder signals into account. I wonder where the breakdown was in this case. NickCT (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would think that there is some sort of system in place. But the failure of such system could be on either end of the equation. There have been plenty of documented cases were the object shot down was essentially in error, so even if it was confirmed an anti-aircraft soft of defense system, there is still the question of responsibility. TiggerJay (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Tiggerjay, @Martinevans123, @NickCT: I think we're getting way ahead of ourselves with this line of discussion, but I'll make one comment based on past shootdown incidents: NEVER assume there was a clear line of communication between civilian ATC and the military air defense forces. Carguychris (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would absolutely agree that it is possible there was no communication. I’m not sure if there was one but I am saying even if there was that is does not automatically ascribe fault. TiggerJay (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Commerical airplane transponders are independent of civilian ATC. In theory, anyone can pick up a plane's transponder signal. NickCT (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agree. But here we seem to have had (at least) three sets of players - the civil airliner, the Russian civil ATC and the Russian military. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Crash. The word "accident", in common usage, excludes any intentional action on the part of any human agency. For example, the Tenerife airport disaster article says that it is the deadliest aviation accident of all times, even though its 583 dead is less than the number of dead on the ground from each of the crashes in New York from the September 11 attacks. Animal lover |666| 15:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's simply because the September 11 attacks are considered terrorist attacks, thus they are not considered as aviation accidents. See how aviation accidents are classified via SKYbrary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not to get nit-picky, but SKY seems to have a very broad definition. "an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft" could probably apply to 9/11. NickCT (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, reading a little harder, note that Sky excludes "terrorism" and "direct military action". I think we're agreed that the 8243 crash was likely "direct military action"? NickCT (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Note: The following are not considered accidents: experimental test flights, sabotage, hijacking, terrorism, or direct military action. It depends whether or not the shootdown was intentional. If the shootdown was accidental, it would not be considered a direct military action. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  How does one unintentionally fire a surface-to-air missile? NickCT (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Intentional in the sense that that the plan was to destroy the aircraft involved. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hmmmmmmm.... If I fired a surface-to-air missile at something, what would my plan be other than to destroy the thing I was firing at? NickCT (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  If their intention was to destroy and shootdown a drone, and somehow, they misidentified the E190 as a drone, it wouldn’t be a direct military action since their intention wasn’t to shootdown the plane, hence an accidental shootdown. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you were walking down the street and US military incorrectly identified you as an enemy and drone struck you, I'm pretty sure it would feel like "military action" directed at you. In general, incidents of friendly-fire and/or "collateral damage" are not refered to as "accidents". The problem with refering to that stuff as "accidental" is that it makes it sound like a perpetrator may not have intended to attack a target, when indeed, they did. They just attacked the wrong target. There's intent to attack, and intent to destroy a specific target. Using "accident" by itself is sorta ambiguous, and makes it sound like there may not have been intent to attack. NickCT (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  There is no doubt that the subject of this article is a crash. There is a doubt as to whether or not it was intentional, in which case it would not be an accident. Animal lover |666| 17:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well the outcome was a crash. But I'm not so sure it's as clear cut as you suggest. That's why we have all the prior explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  My reading of Animal lover's comment is that this case is not clear cut. It's not clear it was an accident. It depends on your definition of "accident". Let's just not use that word. NickCT (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @NickCT: It's not clear it was an accident. It depends on your definition of "accident". I think that per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCRYSTAL, we need to presume it was an accident until an investigative body formally declares that it was in fact a shootdown. Once that happens (and I think it will happen), the event should be identified primarily as a "shootdown" in the article text even if most evidence suggests it was accidental (e.g., Iran Air Flight 655). Carguychris (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Commenting as a non-expert in aviation, and we must remember that those reading the article will in general not be experts in aviation. I’m also a Brit, so my comments may reflect a British English approach, but I recognise that this article is written in American English.
  

  “Accident” certainly has a place in the article, both because it is the correct technical term used within the aviation industry, and because we have no sources suggesting that the aircraft was specifically targeted in the knowledge that it was a passenger aircraft, let alone this particular passenger aircraft, so the apparent shoot-down was to that extent “accidental”. However, to use the term “accident“ exclusively means that the tail of the technical meaning of the word is wagging the dog of the word’s common meaning. It would make the article misleading.
  

  The word “ crash“, referring to the eventual fate of the aircraft, is the most natural one to use at various places in the article. When it hit the ground, it crashed.
  

  “ Shoot-down“ (I would prefer the gerund based phrase “shooting down“, but that ship sailed long ago) also belongs in the article, although in some places we would need to prefix it in some way, eg with “apparent“, “alleged“ or “probable“ - but for readability there would be no need to do this in every case. However, there is something of an issue over the time between the apparent missile strike and the crash. In my mind, in a shooting down the missile or whatever hits the aircraft and the aircraft then crashes straight away. The damage is immediately fatal. That is not the case here. The apparent missile caused severe damage which ultimately led to the loss of the aircraft, despite the skill and heroism of the pilots, but “shoot-down“ does not seem the most natural word to use. Still, not calling it a shoot-down seems more odd.

  
  

  Finally (you’ll be pleased to read that word) when it comes to the Info box summary I would go for something like “Crashed on approach during emergency landing after apparent anti-aircraft missile strike”

  Springnuts (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I cannot disagree with that summary or its conclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. • Per the FAA and NTSB, The FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) define an accident as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, AND in which any person suffers death or serious injury or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.
   • Per Air Safety Support International , SKYbrary , the Ministry of Transport of Singapore , and the Air Accidents Investigation Branch among others:

   • An “accident” is defined as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which, in the case of a manned aircraft, takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, or in the case of an unmanned aircraft, takes place between the time the aircraft is ready to move with the purpose of flight until such time as it comes to rest at the end of the flight and the primary propulsion system is shut down, in which:
   • a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of:

   • being in the aircraft, or
   • direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or
   • direct exposure to jet blast, except when the injuries are from natural causes, self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew; or

   • b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:

   • adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and
   • would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component, except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to a single engine (including its cowlings or accessories), to propellers, wing tips, antennas, probes, vanes, tires, brakes, wheels, fairings, panels, landing gear doors, windscreens, the aircraft skin (such as small dents or puncture holes), or for minor damages to main rotor blades, tail rotor blades, landing gear, and those resulting from hail or bird strike (including holes in the radome); or

   • c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

   • See Vocabulary.com with states that n accident is an unfortunate event. By their very nature, accidents are not planned. Rear-ending the car ahead of you, spilling milk, losing your footing on an icy sidewalk — all of these are considered accidents.
   • See the Cambridge Dictionary which states that something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone.
   • Per Collins Dictionary, f someone has an accident, something unpleasant happens to them that was not intended, sometimes causing injury or death.
2. • From The Independent – 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.
   • From the Associated Press via ] – The crash is the second deadly civil aviation accident linked to fighting in Ukraine.
   • 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.

no real Pravda website is quoted

In the article, the source of "Azerbaijani resources report that a passenger on an Embraer plane was wounded by shrapnel while still in the air" is reported as Pravda; i think this is wrong, as the website for real Pravda is gazeta-pravda.ru, not news-pravda.com.
Not sure about this, as i don't know who is "news-pravda.com", please check. If i'm right, please remove wikilink to Pravda. --151.38.129.30 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears that it is a completely different website and was registered "privately" with no ownership or contact information, about 7 months ago. It would seem to be a dubious feed at best. TiggerJay (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I replaced the citation with a "citation needed" tag at the following diff for future reference if needed. TiggerJay (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"hush up" as a quotation?

The article uses the term "hush up" (including the quotes) in both the lede and the reactions section, but this sentence is not quoted. The sentence does say that it is President Aliyev who said this, but I have a hard time believing Alia gave this announcement in English, so those words are most likely from a translator. In either case, more encyclopedic language should be used. Do we have a source for those particular words? If not, I would prefer rewriting as "President Aliyev accused Russia of covering-up their involvement" or similar. guninvalid (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It very well could have been said in the sense of emphasis on the phrase or perhaps to "air quote" the English idiom as part of the translation. I'm not opposed with removing the quotes, but it does appear to me that the intent was to convey some sort of emphasis on this term, which might be appropriate in some form, perhaps either to replace the quotes with italics or perhaps a link to the Wiktionary (wikt:hush up) entry as the WP article seems less precise for the meaning. But leaving as plain text is not a problem either. TiggerJay (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Crew/total losses misleading

While initial final crash reports at the evening it happened were told there were 3 crew survivors with 38 dead and 29 survived total:

https://www.instagram.com/ladakz/live/18046477829165407

https://t.me/tass_agency/293345

https://caliber.az/en/post/three-crew-members-survive-azal-plane-crash-in-aktau

https://www.nur.kz/incident/emergency/2205078-iz-pyati-chlenov-ekipazha-upavshego-pod-aktau-samoleta-troe-vyzhili/

https://total.kz/ru/news/zhizn/krushenie_samoleta_bliz_aktau_troe_chlenov_ekipazha_vizhili__karabaev_date_2024_12_25_21_52_12

https://arbatmedia.kz/news-kz/cernyi-yashhik-naiden-na-meste-kruseniya-samoleta-pod-aktau-7099

3 days later were told about 3 crew members killed and only 2 survived without changing overall killed in the crash value:

https://massaget.kz/news/aktauda-apatka-ushyiragan-ushaktyin-bortserg-hokume-alieva-122774/

WHy do we hide there's clear disrepancy exists between initial official losses report and later news that "Nationalities" table @ Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243#Passengers and crew still hiddenly reflects (you can count the last line manually - Total surviving = 26 of passngers + 2 crew that is 28 and not 29 as it widely shared and stated as overall survivors number)? I think it's worth noting initial official reports stated 29 survivors and 38 dead you base the article on were false as next only next morning the body of Hokuma Aliyeva were found, identified and stated her as dead, according to:

https://qafqazinfo.az/news/detailru/-40131 https://ru.axar.az/news/aktualno/930222.html

There's also said the next:

"It was previously reported that out of 5 crew members, 2 pilots died."

which clearly confirms previous evening stated losses (despite it was official) were wrong and Hokuma Aliyeva is a 39th killed victim of the crash.

Can we reflect it at the article? 83.142.111.107 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

ASN as a reliable source

This has been danced around in several difference discussions and I see there has still been some article space edit warring going on over the reliability of ASN as a WP:RS for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. I think it is important that we firm up consensus here. Also very much welcome references to prior talks on other aviation articles that might show a broader consensus on the topic. TiggerJay (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Unreliable - but may contain useful information as a consolidator of reliable sources, however, like WP, we cannot cite ourselves as a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. So while the admins at ASN might(??) be doing an admirable job over there, I would proffer since it's essentially unvetted user contributed (and we cannot even see the change diffs), that we must have a reliable source to use their information. It is simply a WP:SPS sort of cite which would not be considered reliable. YET, I would have no hard-objection to using some of their rather objective narrative, such as a timeline, but when it comes to conclusions or synthesis, is where we cannot consider it reliable by any means. TiggerJay (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The proper venue for this discussion would be the Reliable Sources noticeboard. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed! I didn't have the chance to dig through that yet, hence my encouragement of such... But yes, it looks like the best match I've found broadly speaking has been Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283 § Airline fansites, which apparently makes a distinction between their database (reliable) and wikibase (unreliable) for which this article is using the wikibase. There might be others out there as well, and we probably should do that before opening another discussion on this matter. TiggerJay (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that since the time of that discussion, ASN has largely changed the way they work. There's no clear distinction between their database and wikibase, because they are now accepting edits from users on all incidents that are relatively recent (like this one). The distinction comes in when it's a major incident (the former definitions used for inclusion in the database), in which case, because of their high profile nature, while they accept edit suggestions, the ASN staff has made 33 of the 55 edits to the page (60%). RickyCourtney (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a more recent discussion that has been had that also came to this conclusions via consensus? I couldn't find one at RS/N. TiggerJay (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss this. The "unreliable source" maintenance templates that I placed have been removed, which means it has already been decided that this is a reliable source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

No damage on ground?

I've not seen any reports of injures to people on the ground, nor damage to buildings. Can we source this? Was the impact area agricultural? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you take a look at video footage of the aftermath, it looks like very empty waste ground/ scrub, with no signs of human habitation or activity, e.g. at about 3:15 - 3.25 in this one. I have seen no reports of any deaths or injuries to people on the ground. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2025 (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
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment