Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:22, 25 December 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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. 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. 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. 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).

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Add image of the plane

Can someone add the image of the plane, taken from here https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/11227449 ItzChickenYall (talk) 08:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

nvm i added it ItzChickenYall (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I reached out to a few people on Flickr to see if they can change the licensing on their pics so we can have a freely licensed image instead of an NFCC one. S5A-0043🚎 08:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright thanks ItzChickenYall (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Timing

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

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

Fatality count on infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BBC currently say:

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

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

Shootdown incident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact NOT at "steep angle"

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

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

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

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

Fog?

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

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

According to flightradar, the cisibility didn't get under 2600 neter during the day of the incident.

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

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

Rm 'bird strike'

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

• Start-Class Azerbaijan articles
• Low-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles
• Start-Class aviation articles
• Start-Class Aviation accident articles
• Aviation accident task force articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• Start-Class Disaster management articles
• Low-importance Disaster management articles
• Start-Class Central Asia articles
• Low-importance Central Asia articles
• Start-Class Kazakhstan articles
• Low-importance Kazakhstan articles
• WikiProject Kazakhstan articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles