Talk:Smolensk air disaster/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Article locked

Due to what appears to be an edit war, I've locked the article (no doubt at the WP:WRONGVERSION™). The locked version is not necessarily one that I endorse or disapprove of. It is simply the version of the article at the time I decided to intervene. @GizzyCatBella:, @Trasz:, I'd prefer that you discuss the issue please as an alternative to administrative action being taken. Also pinging @Thebiomat:, who has edited the article today and may wish to contribute to the discussion. Any other editor in good standing is also welcome to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussing it might be somewhat complicated due to the nature of this thing. The Macierewicz's commision is basically promoting a fringe theory for political reasons, and fringe theories - by definition - have fanatic proponents, as is in this case. Especially given that one of people involved here - Thebiomat - might actually be Chris Cieszewski, the Macierewicz's team member who mistook trash bags for trees. Trasz (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've asked for assistance from WP:MILHIST editors. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Trasz, the Parliamentary Commission you are calling "Macierewicz's" does not promote "fringe theories". The Russian investigation is flawed as we all know it (British expert opinion for example). Given that conflict the independent Polish commission have been formed using various sources and evidence to tease out official Russian story. Among these people are, scientists, engineers, pilots, flight controllers, physicians, mathematicians etc. You can not call them fanatics only because you think so. Please be unbised here and if in fact user Thebiomat is Chris Cieszewski that does not make him unwelcome here. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That is true, but if the assertion is correct, it would be useful for it to be confirmed by the editor in question. In the interests of transparency, of course. That said, I'm a little bit concerned that we also need to keep WP:OUTING in mind. There is no obligation on Thebiomat to either confirm or deny the assertion; should he/she wish to remain silent on the issue the we must respect that. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm calling the commision Macierewicz's, because it was formed by Macierewicz, and that's how it's commonly called in Poland ("Komisja Macierewicza"). The russian investigation was indeed somewhat flawed, but the polish one was independent, and come to very similar conclusions. Macierewicz, meanwhile, was formed by opposition (PiS) to gain political capital, and the idea of assasination was assumed upfront. That's why it's conclusions were ridiculed by aviation experts, and that's why it's crucial to note that its members have no experience in actual air crash investigations, or that eg Binienda's simulations are suspected to be ripped from his student's thesis.Trasz (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who Thebiomat is. What matters is what is the truth and what are the facts in question. I will go over some points that Trash is not only misrepresenting facts on the subject page of Wikipedia, but which also demonstrate that Trash is acting in bad faith when insisting on undoing the legitimate corrections.

First, the matter of the Parliamentary Committee, which Trash insists on misrepresenting as an organization of PiS (Law and Justice). This organization not only has been formed by the Polish Parliament, which makes it constitutionally parliamentary rather than a single party organization, but in addition, this committee has in fact members from different parties, such as: Tomaszewski Jan /PO/ (Citizens Platform); Popiołek Krzysztof /ZP/; and Poznański Marek /niez./ (independent). Full membership is available on the Polish Parliament website here: http://www.smolenskzespol.sejm.gov.pl/zespolsmolensk.nsf/SkladZespolu.xsp, where you may see that majority is from PiS, but the affiliations of individual members are not important, since the statue of this committee is defined as a non-political organization, which you can read on the Polish Parliament website here: http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/opinie7.nsf/nazwa/zesp_tu154/$file/zesp_tu154.pdf.

If Trash wanted to include a statement that majority of the Parliamentary Committee members belong to the Law and Justice party, that would be colloquially OK (i.e., it would be just a loaded statement, but not a disinformation), but saying that this is a Law and Justice committee is simply inaccurate distortion of the facts, from both organizational and from statutory points of view. Then the Smolensk Conference organization, which is completely apolitical and it has never been either involved in or connected with any political organization or activities. Any allegations of that type are simply slanderers disinformation. The Smolensk Conference doesn't even collaborate with Min. Macierewicz; although, several members of the Conference serve also as experts for the Parliamentary Committee as they do for some other institutions and for their universities or affiliations. The Smolensk Conference was initiated by three professors: Piotr Witakowski, Jacek Ronda, and Grzegorz Jemielita, writing an open letter to the President of the Polish Academy of Sciences on June 10, 2011, which is accessible here: http://konferencjasmolenska.pl/dokumenty/l1.pdf. Subsequently more professors have joined and more letters were written to other leaders of the Polish science, such as the deans and directors of technical faculties at Polish Universities (see the letter to deans and directors here: http://konferencjasmolenska.pl/dokumenty/l6.pdf). A press release was eventually issued, which you can read here: http://konferencjasmolenska.pl/dokumenty/l8.pdf, which was describing the growing consolidation of independent university professors' organization that was going to do the investigations on their own relying on the science and expertise of the members (unlike the Parliamentary Committee, which didn't consist of experts and relied on hiring experts).

The Smolensk Conference is a grass root organization that has nothing to do with any political organisations or any politicians. It has been largely kept secret by the official media, which is consistent with the actions of Trash wanting to simply delete the information about the Smolensk Conference, which in fact, produced more publications and findings than all other governmental organizations added up together. I don't have the time to continue this documentation right now, but I will continue it later. The problem on the table is twofold, we may dispute the facts and I'm glad to provide the evidence that my information is accurate. However, more importantly, I see a pattern in Trash's modus operandi, which potentially shows a bad fate and likely intentional disinformation, and that troubles me greatly, because the matter of the Smolensk tragedy of Apr. 10, 2010, has from the outset been subjected to massive propaganda and disinformation actions supported by the mainstream media and trolls supporting the very establishment that got to power in Poland as a result of the very airplane destruction and all the previous elite killed.

Hence, this could be just a part of the Active Measures so prominent in the communist and post-communist countries. If not, that is if Trash is just ignorant of the facts and can stand corrected given proper evidence, I'll gladly apologize. In closing, please do not take my word for anything I'm saying here but just check the provided documents and ask for whatever you may need more to see that all the information I provide is 100% accurate and unbiased. Thebiomat (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It does matter who Thebiomat is - if he's indeed Chris Cieszewski, then he's even mentioned in the sources, as one of the "experts" brought in by Macierewicz, only to make an ass of himself by mistaking trash bags for trees (he's a dendrologist).Trasz (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of the same story as with Macierewicz's commission - Binienda et al, isn't it? Trasz (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It was never apolitical - it's all the same people, Solidarni 2010, WPolityce, and Niezalezna.pl. It was heavily marketed in right-wing media, while the rest generally made fun of it. Trasz (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Majority - as in 49 PiS members and 1 from other parties. Trasz (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Jan Tomaszewski was in PiS until about a year ago. At the time when Macierewicz's Commission was formed, ZP didn't exist - all it's current members were members of PiS. Krzysztof Popiołek (PO) was indeed the single person not from PiS. Trasz (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't kept secret by media. Some of its findings were quite popular - like proving the explosion based on experiments on sausages (I'm not making this up, http://wyborcza.pl/1,75968,14819318,Naukowcy_smolenscy_w_natarciu__Tu_154_pekl_jak_parowka_.html), and also because it tried very hard to look like being independent from PiS, which was blatantly false. Trasz (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

And finally, the comment that you've removed, Chris/Thebiomat. Please don't do that again:

I'm calling the commision Macierewicz's, because it was formed by Macierewicz, and that's how it's commonly called in Poland ("Komisja Macierewicza"). The russian investigation was indeed somewhat flawed, but the polish one was independent, and come to very similar conclusions. Macierewicz, meanwhile, was formed by opposition (PiS) to gain political capital, and the idea of assasination was assumed upfront. That's why it's conclusions were ridiculed by aviation experts, and that's why it's crucial to note that its members have no experience in actual air crash investigations, or that eg Binienda's simulations are suspected to be ripped from his student's thesis.Trasz (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Trasz, I'm sorry, but I don't see anything constructive in your comments other than personal attacks and rants. Thebiomat has provided some credible information linked to the sources. Also, the Parliamentary commission has its proper official name, (here is the link). Its not called "Macierewicz commission" as you want to called it. If Krzysztof Popiołek and Jan Tomaszewski is from PO and the other is independent, then the parlamentary commission is indeed not only PiS. Why conservative Polish media (you call right wing) is less credible than left sided Gazeta Wyborcza? This page is not intended to ridicule or critisize one side or another but to present known and well sourced facts. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've just spent about 15 minutes restitching back together after an edit that wiped out links to 10 previous archive pages and appeared to have removed a helpful discussion link. There is a large amount of accusations of bad faith flowing back and forth here, and I'm also conscious this is a fraught political issue. I will remind you all that you are required to WP:Assume Good Faith and follow our discussion rules. Otherwise I will personally make sure that this article is either locked for a good deal of time to come, or reverted to a state that does not discuss the current issues. Follow our rules, people!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Buckshot06, appreciated. Cheers GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Macierewicz commission's findings (or whatever it's called) do sound like the work of some lunatic charlatan, possibly with an added political motive. Even Frank Taylor, the "well known British expert" invoked by user GizzyCatBella, describes the overall explanation contained in the MAK report as 'plausible'. Taylor only criticises some aspects of the investigation in which the Russians did not display much professionalism, like moving the wreckage around or neglecting 'the crashworthiness and survival aspects of the accident' – which is like saying "they would have crashed anyway, by attempting such a suicidal approach, buy maybe, with a different or more modern aircraft type, some of the occupants could have survived." --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I would be very, very careful calling commission findings "fringe" or "work of the lunatics". Since Russian investigation is flawed and official Polish investigation was based ONLY on Russian findings (with all the evidence, including the wreckage of the aircraft, still in Russian hands) work of "the lunatics" may be the only way to find out what really happened there. Also, Frank Taylor calls for further investigation, correct? So? Is he "a lunatic"? That's my point. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Polish investigation was not based on Russian findings at all. Our prosecutors had full access to the wreckage and flight recorders. And no, Frank Taylor isn't lunatic, because he didn't support Macierewicz's Comission in any way. As for "fringe" - that's what people in the field say about it, pretty equivocally. Again - that's why it's important to mention that Macierewicz's "experts" had no experience with air crash investigations. Trasz (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Negative user Trasz. Polish investigation was based almost exclusively on Russian (MAK) report and its findings. Original evidence material, including the wreckage of the airplane and even black boxes are is still in Russian hands. Poles worked on copies supplied by the Russians. The wreckage was cut into pieces, moved around and finally dropped near the Smolensk airport. Poles did not have unrestricted access to it. The coffins of the victims has been sealed by the Russians and never allowed to open once arrived in Poland. No autopsies, no DNA identification has been condacted in Poland before burials. I can go on and on.. GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is just not true; for some reason you're repeating Macierewicz's delusions. Polish investigation was not based on MAK at all. Miller's team had access to the evidence; they were able to analyze the wreckage, assisted in making copies of two of the black boxes, and physically got the third one. It's all explained on http://www.faktysmolensk.gov.pl/. Trasz (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Im not repeating anybody, Im just presenting simple true facts. Where is the wreckage of the airplane today? Where are the black boxes? Where are the autopsies done by the Polish side? Where is K3-63 flight recorder? Where is video recording from the control tower? Where is ballistic and pyrotechnical expertise? I can ask here many more questions...no wondering one in two Poles thinks Smolensk crash unsolved. I think this is first time in aviation history that committee presented a report and came to final conclusions without even examining the wreckage of the aircraft and without carrying out autopsies. Again, the wreckage is still in Russia! LOL! GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I won't comment on calling anyone's work "lunatic charlatan". I'm here to reason about what facts and evidence should be included in the considered article, and what unsubstantiated speculations should not. I have given sources and documents to back up the facts that I want to put forward. If these documents are insufficient please let me know and I will provide more. However, please respond professionally. I don't care about the politics left or right, but I do care about the facts, and don't like propaganda and disinformation or confusing facts with rumors.

Trasz, sorry for removing your comment -- I didn't intend it, and I'm not sure how did it happen; I don't do this kind of things knowingly, so if it happens ever again, you'll know that it will be an error.

A theoretical question I have to the Wikipedia administration is if it is possible that a Wikipedia article can be shut down or blocked by one party not giving up arguing? Thebiomat (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thebiomat: - the article can only be locked by an administrator or beaurocrat, and any changes to the lock can only be done by those people. Other editors may request changes at WP:RFPP, including unlocking or extension of the lock. Let's be clear - the version of the article I endorse is one that follows all policies and guidelines, but most especially WP:NPOV. If the article currently does not represent NPOV, it is only a temporary measure. I locked the article to stop the edit war. Wherever possible, I prefer parties to discuss issues rather that hitting them with the banhammer. That is the position we are now in. Discussion is taking place and outside assistance has been called for. Mjroots (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Mjroots - thank you for the explanation. I wanted to know if the rules may allow something like a Filibuster in senate or Denial-of-service attack on the web, whereby one party can prevent an action of another party through mare persistence, or if the resolution depended on merit of arguments. From what you wrote I conclude that the merit is important. Thebiomat (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

We could put all the stuff from the Macierewicz commission in a section headed 'Conspiracy theories'; they are essentially that, and as such they usually have a place, in a Wikipedia article, as long as they are not given undue weight. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

+1. As it is now, all the sourced information about critique of their "findings" was removed. Trasz (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at its findings this no longer fits into "conspiracy theory section". Personally, I think it never did anyways. GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Deeday-UK and Trash - this discussion started about proper naming of the 'Parliamentary Committee' and unbiasedness and accuracy of the reported facts. It is not supposed to be about personal interpretation or sentiments or putting a spin on things. The 'Parliamentary Committee' is an official organ of the Polish government and it needs to be reported by its proper official name, which is available on the government web site. The 'Smolensk Conference' is an organization in its own right with its own statue and membership, and it also needs to be reported using its official name and statue.

All informal interpretations used by individual special interest groups with their own political agendas should be -- and here I agree with you -- listed under the heading of 'Conspiracy Theories' as you proposing, but that really is not the topic of this discussion. Finally, the 'Smolensk Conference' is a significant body of international scientists organized to investigate different aspects of the Smolensk catastrophe, and it needs to be explained regardless who you think created it and who you think is involved with it. Again, you can add in a section of 'Conspiracy Theories' your take on who stands behind the 'Smolensk Conference', and others can include refutation of that, but whatever you think exists behind the scenes doesn't give you the right of censorship regarding reported facts and sources, nor should you be twisting the names of the official organizations to reflect your own biases and sentiments.

The most ironic part of this dispute is that misnaming the 'Parliamentary Committee' and the 'Smolensk Conference' with Macierewicz's name would really make Macierewicz himself extremely happy and it would likely promote his political goals, while only within the rather minuscule microclimate of only a part of the 'English-speaking fraction of the Polish society' it would achieve the intended by Trash pejorative effect (i.e., this is assuming that Trash doesn't actually want to promote Macierewicz). However, we're not here to please Macierewicz, or to promote his political goals, nor are we here to feed any passions or prejudice of different fractions of the Polish society, but we're here to promote objective information to serve the English-speaking population of the entire world. That is a privilege that should not be taken lightly. Thebiomat (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Question are there any sources discussing any of this that are independent of Poland and Russia? I really think we need to move away from sources in the area as each side will have its own biases and agenda to push. Other countries are more likely to take an objective view. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Macierewicz is one of the most widely known - and discredited - polish politicians. He's basically the face of what's usually called "Smolensk Sect" ("Sekta Smoleńska"). Trasz (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. There are some sources, and I can prepare a comprehensive list of them, but I'm sure that they will be also questioned by both parties, and this is why I was suggesting staying away from any interpretation and sticking with the facts, such as what is the statue of given organization according to this organization, as opposed to how others can see it depending on which site they want to be on. One comprehensive source is the recent book by German journalist Jürgen Roth. I have not read the book, and I believe it's still available only in German; although, I'm hearing now and then that it is supposed to be translated to English soon.

There are many English websites such as, and a few other (I need to look for them), and there is the English website of the Smolensk Conference at that has not been updated for more than a year, but that has basically all the same information into English as the Polish website of the Smolensk Conference has at. Then there is the University of Akron website of prof. Binienda at and many other sites relating to conferences and research studies. In other countries as well as in Poland the problem is the same, and it is that different fractions try to put different spins on what is what, and this is why it is the most reasonable to avoid any interpretations and to stick with giving only facts. In particular the media in Poland tend to give unreliable information on both sites putting their spins on "behind the scenes" interpretations.Thebiomat (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to Jürgen Roth book. Still in German but transcripts can be translated into English using Google Translate. Below is the summary of the book in English: "Putin's war in Ukraine holds the world in suspense . But even five years ago, harbingers of Russian aggression politics showed : On April 10, 2010, crashed in the Russian city of Smolensk from a military plane , 96 people died . Aboard the Polish elite , including President Lech Kaczynski and high Nato generals . Was it a tragic accident - or an attempt , as it not only claim BND sources ? Jürgen Roth shows for the first time the true background of the crash of the Polish presidential plane and is at the same time the highly topical question of what the catastrophe of Smolensk , the downing of Flight MH17 and Ukraine conflict have to do with each other . ( 2015-10-09 )" GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Mjroots - Please consider that an important question is if it is appropriate to use any other sources than the Polish government for defining what a Polish government organization, or unit, should be called. The same goes for academic organizations. Surely, we could not start calling the FBI a 'Hoover's bunch' just because some people, or newspapers, would like to use this kind of phrase to depict FBI. The same goes for calling, for example, NSF a 'Córdova's committee' or calling TeX a 'Donald Knuth's language'. It doesn't matter what others think about it, what matter is the respect to any self-declaration even in such eccentric cases when someone chooses to call himself, for example, Malcolm X, let alone when a congress or a senate of a country announces a name for its committee, or a number of respectable University professors establish an organization. Thebiomat (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point, which is: the whole "parlamentary commission" was created to give credibility to the assasination theories, for political reasons. The assasination theory was a given, not a result of any kind of research. Macierewicz fished for people who would give credibility for his theory, such as Binienda (who faked the simulation, apparently reusing the thesis from one of his students), and you - Chris Cieszewski - discovered fallen trees on the aerial photos, which later turned out to be just trash bags. Also, everyone calls it "Macierewicz's Commission". Trasz (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Mjroots asks for sources that are independent of Poland and Russia and this is what Thebiomat comes up with:

• konferencjasmolenska.pl – Can't get more Polish than this: official website of the 'Smolensk Conference'.
• smolenskcrash.com – It states openly that its purpose is to support the Smolensk Conference ("This site is [...] for conference database management that the conference organizers are allowed to use" – FAQ section).
• smolenskcrashnews.com – Dubious and completely anonymous website decorated with exploding Tupolevs caught in cross hairs. If a conspiracy theorist tried to knock up a website, that's how it would look like.

On the other hand, here's just a quick selection of international media covering the subject:

• BBC – try googling smolensk crash site:bbc.co.uk: no mention of any Smolensk Conferences and explicit mention of conspiracy theories. Also here.
• Financial Times – Polish commission probing 2010 air crash descends into farce [1]
• New York Times – column about the 'Smolensk religion' ("wild theories abounded: The Russians had produced the fog; a “vacuum bomb” had been set off") [2].

Of course they could all be part of the 'conspiracy of silence' that Binienda cries out about, together with the Russian agents that planted no fewer than three bombs on the Tupolev that went off right when the aircraft flew over a birch tree that had been broken in half by the Russians a few days before. And you want to put all this stuff on a par with the official reports of both the Russian and Polish authorities, which essentially come to the same conclusion, despite the two countries being politically at odds? --Deeday-UK (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Deeday, you are cherry picking editorials like this one written in 2013 by Polish pro-government journalist Artur Domosławski of Gazeta Wyborcza but you are missing the point here. The point is that despite anything those pro-government Poles say, Independent Parliamentary Commission is still called Independent Parliamentary Commission and NOT ”Macierewicz commission” or “Conspiracy theory commission” or whatever. If you want to look at some other international media coverage, below are some links to look at. The articles in these links are not written by pro-government Polish journalist and later reprinted by the NYT etc., but are more independent and unbiased ones.

• Jerusalem Post of Israel "...The Russian investigation has been faulted for several strange measures in securing the crash scene, moving around debris and handling the wreckage. A Polish independent parliamentary commission was established..”
• The Scotsman UK “..yesterday, a Polish parliamentary committee published a report..”
• The Daily US “..findings of an independent Polish parliamentary committee investigating the crash.."
• The Cleveland US “..Polish researchers who also are working with the Polish parliament inquiry..”

Here is the link to the conference organized by the European Parliament in Brussels and recorded by the European Parliament services where the commission is CLEARLY named by its proper name. If this is not unbiased international enough, then what is? :) GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Deeday-UK -- Thank you for the additional links. The more we have the better. It would be best if you could find links to web sites with collections of many articles and data, instead of a single article, but individual isolated newspaper articles are also valuable. They all should be made available to the public with no taking sides when presenting them by the editors consistently with NPOV.

Mjroots asked about foreign sources independent of Poland and Russia, which I interpreted as English language based sources independent of the Polish and Russian governments. The sources I found are such very sources, and they need to be included consistently with NPOV without any endorsement or criticism. I hope to find more of such links and I hope you too will find more sources, and I thank you for that in advance. I really appreciate that you turned from solely destructive criticism and just insulting, to lesser criticism combined with contributing some new information.

If Mjroots would like to have sources independent from any Polish or Russian influence whatsoever, it will actually invalidate your links and will really limit the availability to the earlier mentioned German book and just isolated articles about different journalists takeing on different aspects of the matter at different times. Then, providing such information in the forms of individual articles, including those, for example, by James Buchanan, and others, who state outright that the president of Poland was murdered in a staged airplane crash, will be very challenging to make NPOV, especially if some of the editors do not give up their derogatory tendencies of referring to others using such foul language as "ass", "crying" and "charlatan".

Finally, I would like to bring back the attention to the source of this discussion, which seems to be getting diluted time after time. The issue on hand was that someone deleted from the page the information about the Smolensk Conference, which originally was not put there by me but by someone else. This information was there long before for a very long time in the past, and only just recently someone took the liberty to censorship it out. I noticed that, and thinking that it was taken out by a mistake, I put the information back in. Then Trash took it out again. Still not sure what was going on I put it back in, and corrected the name of the 'Parliamentary Committee'. Then I couldn't even quite figure out what was going on when the page got blocked, and we started having this discussion, where both Trash and Deeday-UK went on insulting others, and redirecting the discussion in different directions irrelevant to the original topic. I think I'm correct when I state that: we are not here to solve the Smolensk mystery or to take a stand on what people should believe in; we are here to make whatever information we can find available to the public in one place easy to find and linked to other information and sources according to NPOV rules.

GizzyCatBella -- I have just read your comments after I finished writing my reply above, and I'm very impressed by both the relevance and quality of both the links and the comments. Thank you very much; that's a true team-player spirit. Some of the links you provide are even better than I thought was possible to find. BTW, I didn't notice before that any of the links from DeeDay-UK had anything to do with "Gazeta Wyborcza", and quite frankly probably DeeDay-UK didn't know it either (I hope;), so thank you for noticing it. Indeed, showing links to Gazeta Wyborcza is not a good idea, because this newspaper is the most infamous for biased propaganda and disinformation. They even have lost in court with the presidential candidate Grzegorz Braun and had to apologize to him during the last elections (see here). If you google "Gazeta Wyborcza klamie", which means "Gazeta Wyborcza is telling lies" you'll get over 8,500 hits, but if you do the same for other Polish newspapers you will get one to two orders of magnitude less: "Niezalezna 239", "wPolityce 32", "wSieci 7", "Polityka 359", etc. In accordance with NPOV it is OK to say "Gazata Wyborcza" said ... something, but it's not prudent to say that something is one way or another based on what Gazeta Wyborcza said.Thebiomat (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, it doesn't matter how the Independent Parliamentary Commission chooses to call itself: if what they produce is the stuff of conspiracy theories, then it should go under a section so headed, possibly in a subsection headed Polish Independent Parliamentary Commission investigation. In summary, the commission claims that multiple bombs planted on the Tupolev exploded (without leaving any trace of explosives) exactly at the point where any aircraft attempting such a hair-rising approach would have met its fate, right above the tree that those pesky Russians must have chopped down in advance to stage a ground collision. All of the above has obviously been covered up by a Russo-Polish secret plot, since the authorities of both countries keep repeating that the crash was 'only' an accident. If this stuff is not a conspiracy theory, what is it?

Thebiomat, yours "we are here to make whatever information we can find available to the public [...] according to NPOV rules" is significantly out of order. Please familiarise yourself with WP:VER and WP:RS. To be included in Wikipedia, a source must be reliable, not just 'found somewhere on the net', which rules out from the start things like smolenskcrashnews.com (and I'll go through the others you mention when I find the time). By the way, I didn't see anyone calling somebody else an 'ass' here, while charlatan is not foul language; it's how within Wikipedia are known those who claim to follow the "true scientific discourse" while doing exactly the opposite; and the Whatever-It's-Called-Commission or the Smolensk Conference seem to do precisely that. --Deeday-UK (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

DeeDay-UK -- I'm sorry but I don't know what order you had in mind, but my NVOP understanding is right on the target, and you are acting, and soliciting to act, in contradiction not only to NVOP, but also in contradiction to VER and in contradiction to RS, both of which you cited w/o reading. Here is why:

* By imposing your personal believes to force a censorship deciding what can be made available to readers and what cannot, you are violating the VER principle that: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors".

* Next, by cutting off a significant portion of views from inclusion into Wikipedia you are violating the RS principle that: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered".

* Further, you don't have the basic understanding of the Wikipedia rules by the standards of English comprehension. In the phrase you are quoting, the words "reliable sources" do not indicate what a self-proclaimed "expert" may believe in, but it simply means that the given source should be "published", as opposed to originating from "word-of-mouth rumors". Hence, "... based on reliable, published sources...". It means that if the material in question is published in the sense that it is veritable in terms of its address and availability, then it is reliable.

* smolenskcrashnews.com and the web site of the Polish Congress are published and verifiable as such, and while I have not read them in detail, I see there very serious scientists with many Ph.D.s and publications, and according to Wikipedia rules it is not up to you to judge their scientific competence, values or credibilities either on the bases of your experience or on the bases of your believes, which you so persistently are trying to force on others against the Wikipedia rules; it is not your place to judge their research, judgement and results, and it is not your place to discredit, or to promote, or to qualify, the contents of their findings.

* If you still don's see something in the text, please use the search function in your FireFox.

* As above, if you don't see the problem, resource to external help. I'm sure that just about anyone can explain to you why using the term charlatan in the given context is a foul language, and I'm sure that you would not be pleased if it were applied to you. Thebiomat (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Deeday, I'm afraid you don't quite understand what a “conspiracy theory” is. The "conspiracy theory” is a BELIEF that somebody is responsible for a circumstance or event. In case of the Parliamentary Commission and Smolensk Conference their findings/conclusions are NOT based on ANY beliefs but exlusively on evidences and analysis of various international scientists/engineers that used the most technically advanced tools. Jürgen Roth's book is neither based on a belief but on BDN (the German Federal Intelligence Service) files and reports. Just in case you didn't know, in June 2015 German Prosecutors launches their own investigation into the Smolensk crash. Therefore no, Parliamentary Commission doesn’t produce any "conspiracy theories", and it should't be named as such only because for some strange reason you insist on it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Deeday, one more thing, on the contrary what you have said in your comment ("Tupolev exploded without leaving any trace of explosives") actually traces of explosives where found. It's hard to believe that you didn't know that. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Deeday, here is another one for you. This one is from German Federal Intelligence Service or Bundesnachrichtendienst. Jürgen Roth writes about it in his book - March 2014. It is on that date that the German intelligence operative sent his report to the headquarters in Pullach. The report drew on interviews conducted with a senior member of the Polish Government, and a leading officer of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). The document asserts the following: "A possible explanation for the cause of the 04-10-2010 crash of the TU-154 in Smolensk is a highly-probable assassination operation with the use explosives carried out by the Department of the FSB, operating under cover in the Ukrainian Poltava, under the command of General Yuri ‘D.’ from Moscow“. Are you going to insist that this intelligence had been fabricated by the German BND? Is this a "conspiracy theory" also and should be censored out or ridiculed as you and Trasz have done in the past? The only reason Im continuing with my presentation of Smolensk crash FACTS is that I'm trying to convince myself that you guys are editing in good faith. As of now I have serous doubts about that. Sorry GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC

GizzyCatBella – you’re right, and I thank you for the feedback, but you should not let DeeDay-UK to chase you down the rabbit hole. The point of dispute is that the Wikipedia editors must be impartial and must not engage in propaganda or censorship using as criteria their own believes and experiences. Doing so is a direct violation of Wikipedia rules, as I outlined earlier above. It is not up to the editors to decide which points of view may be included and which may not – they all have to be included w/o pejorative prejudging or labeling them. In my opinion, for advocating such violations of Wikipedia rules and principles of objectivity and impartiality, both DeeDay-UK and Trash should be banned from editing the Smolensk crash article. If I start this kind of practices, I should be banned for it too, just as anyone else. If such simple principles as no censorship, and neutrality, cannot be enforced within Wikipedia due process, then that indicates a breakdown in the Wikipedia editorial functionality, and the matter should be taken to the public. Thebiomat (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, the article you quoted about alleged traces of explosives on the Tupolev tells only half of the story, which is fairly typical of the Daily Fail (as that tabloid is commonly known around here). The original claim made by Rzeczpospolita and cited by the Mail was subsequently denied by the very people who went to Smolensk and carried out the tests, as reported by more reputable sources like the BBC. That claim was so unfounded that Rzeczpospolita's editor-in-chief and the journalist who authored the piece were sacked as a result (but I bet you knew that already), so nobody who is seriously researching the Smolensk crash would claim that some explosives detonated on board the Tupolev; the evidence is just not there. As for Jürgen Roth, he relays some speculation ("A possible explanation...") allegedly made by a German intelligence officer; so what? Even if Roth is credible (I have no idea) and those words did come from an intelligence officer, it remains just that: speculation, which at best deserves no more than a passing mention, in the article.

And now some breaking news: from yesterday's article on the BBC about the recent general elections in Poland: "[Law and Justice's leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski] has actively encouraged wild conspiracy theories that the plane was brought down by a plot, not by pilot error as both the Russian and two Polish investigations have so far found." (not to mention the article from The Economist I've just linked). Can someone (Mjroots?) please unlock the page, so that we can create a section titled Conspiracy theories for all the stuff about multiple bombs, fake fog etc, and get on with improving the article? --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Deeday, I’m sorry but you are wrong again and again. Traces of explosives were found on the wreckage and Military Prosecution in Warsaw (including Ireneusz Szeląg) first denied and then confirmed that TNT traces had been detected in the Tu 154M wreckage. Here is an official video of him saying exacly that. So again, Im sorry, you are wrong and the BBC story is as reliable as their handling (cover up) of peadophile scandal involving their own employee. I can agree with your that some media still call it "a conspiracy theory" but other does not at all. They already are taking more serious approach regarding the matter since there is more than enough evidence that there was an explosion. So 3 big NO's. No, these are not “conspiracy theorries” since “ conspiracy theories” are based on beliefs ONLY. No, you have no right to censor this article. No, you have no right to ridicule independent findings. Please refer to my previous comments and links since I dont want to repeat myself. Regards. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

To administration of Wikipedia: both Deeday-UK and Trasz are pushing their extreme POVs in ways that appear to be consistent with generally undesirable and harmful internet activities ; and therefore, they should be banned from editing the subject article.Thebiomat (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You are lying again - intentionally, because there is no chance you, a member of Macierewicz's Commision, could miss that crucial part: the automated explosive detectors (a handheld device used for screening for particular residue; no idea how it's called) did detect something that _could_ have been TNT; however, this is only a screening. Proper analysis confirmed that this was false positive. Trasz (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not minded to unlock the article yet. If anything, the lock is likely to be extended. Re the above discussion, it may be possible to add a section on conspiracy theories, but WP:FRINGE needs to be borne in mind, especially what is said there about NPOV. Thebiomat, WP:ANI is the place to raise issues with other editors, but only if you've fully exhausted other avenues with them, such as discussion. One avenue open there is to propose a topic ban, but be aware that all parties will come under scrutiny once a report is made at ANI. As I said above, I prefer it that editors discuss issues rather than edit war, which is why I didn't issue any blocks - blocking would have prevented discussion. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Been asked to look at this discussion and the related edit war and I have to recommend that we change the text back to the stable version at 14:37 19 September 2015. I cant see any of the recent additions adding anymore to what the Law and Justice investigation section in that version says without clearly breaking WP:UNDUE. Adding info on the so called Smolensk Conferences does nothing for the article other than act as a promotional material. We dont need a conspiracy section as most of the major points are covered in the Law and Justice investigation section per 14:37 19 September 2014. If the users think that the Smolensk Conferences is notable and encyclopedic value then they should consider a seperate article on that conference and defend it at an AfD if required but is has no place here. And also to support Mjroots keeping the article locked as it is clear some users will not drop the stick. Thanks, MilborneOne (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Per MilborneOne's recommendation, I've reverted back to the version dated 14:37 19 September 2015. I agree that a stand-alone article on the conspiracy theories may be the way to go, but it will need to present both sides of the argument and is likely to end up at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify my position: I'm calling for the current Law and Justice investigation section to be moved under a section titled Conspiracy theories and to be trimmed down as required to comply with WP:UNDUE (never mind creating a separate article). No matter how much official endorsement this parallel investigative commission claims to have (even by sporting the European Parliament logo on their report only because they were granted a hearing), what they produce bears all the hallmarks of the pseudo-scientific, non-peer-reviewed 'research' typical of conspiracy theorists, so let's call a spade a spade. There is plenty of examples in mainstream media where the expression conspiracy theory is used precisely to refer to those fringe ideas about the crash (BBC, The Economist, TIME, The Times, New York Times, Al Jazeera etc), so shouldn't this article reflect that? --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Protection has been extended a further ten days. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Locked

OK, fair warning was given. Following a request at my talk page, I've now locked the article indefinitely. It will not be unlocked until we get agreement on the article. It is likely that further action may follow, including blocks. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Mjroots, on request of ONE almost anonymous user with one edit history last year you locked the article and threatening established users of being blocked? Regards GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the edit history of the requester. The request was made, I looked at the history of both article and talk page and locked the article. I'm not feeling up to detailed investigation atm due to a severe cold, so I've asked another admin familiar with the situation to take a look - or I could just block the pair of you indefinitely and open the article up. NOW BACK OFF!!! Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

WOW! Easy body.. I didn't mean to be rude or anything, I was just asking. PS. Get well soon. Regards GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm slightly baffled by the decision to lock the article. The main bone of contention (i.e. in which section to place all the info about non-official investigations) was settled a few days ago. There have been a couple of reverts today (one was mine), about a single sentence (possibly 0.1% of the whole article) but nothing particularly dramatic, compared to a week ago, and the matter was being discussed rather constructively, in fact (and I don't have a too much of a problem with how that sentence is now, anyway). Yesterday a newly-registered user went on a revert rampage against my edits, giving little and generic explanation; I undid his reverts and everybody seemed happy with that, so that was sorted as well. If this is an edit war, then Wikipedia as a whole must be one big raging conflict. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there is nothing dramatic going on and in fact our discussion is very constructive. Our editing patterns and exchange of arguments should serve as an example of proper way of settling disagreements. Not the other way around. Regards GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll take another look tomorrow morning, including both of your talk pages. If I like what I see, I'll unlock the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MjrootsGizzyCatBella (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. I've unprotected the article. I see that the pair of you are discussing things between you. Hopefully, this article will settle down and become stable before too long. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories section

‎GizzyCatBella, if you keep reverting constructive edits without a good reason, you risk getting banned. Your reason for reverting my edit is the opinion above from an admin that "We dont need a conspiracy section as most of the major points are covered in the Law and Justice investigation section per 14:37 19 September 2014". If you read it, that actually means "all the major points about conspiracies are already covered in the article, so we don't need to add a further section about them". I totally agree with that, and indeed I did not add a new section; I moved all the information and grouped it under a new section with a more appropriate title (and size).

If you don't like the expression "conspiracy theories", that's your problem. I did not invent it and it's not "my own POV": that's how numerous international, independent media (see above) describe the assassination theories that you are trying to push. Either come up with equally independent, reliable sources that describe those ideas as credible and scientific, or stop reverting my edit. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You have removed sourced information, pushing your POV ignoring long discussion that supposed to keep article stable. This page needs to be locked or this censorship pf your will not stop.GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

At last, you've started talking again. I've been keeping a weather eye on this.

My 2p worth -

There have been consipracy theories re this accident. Therefore the article does need to cover them. What the theories are needs to be stated; references that may not ordinarily pass RS may need to be used to verify the claims. That the conspiracy theories are claimed to be just that also needs to be shown, references for this will need to pass RS. English language references are to be used whenever possible, taking precedence over Polish or Russian language sources.

If I find it necessary to lock the article again, it will be for an indefinite period. I don't want to have to do that, so I suggest that you sort this out between yourselves. We are firmly at the D part of WP:BRD now. Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so what do we do now? Im absolutely against removal of all information regarding independent findings or incorporating it into conspiracy theories section as Deeday has it now. Official government Polish commission will resume work within days using independent findings, so this will absolutely not fit into conspiracies theories section. Can we work on Deedays version in here together (talk page) before inserting it into the article? Deeday please paste your changes into talk page and lets work on it together. Ok? Please don't force your way, this is not right. Thanks, I hope we will find a solution. Regards GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, it doesn't work like that; changes are made to the article and discussed here. And I'm not 'forcing my way', in doing so; I'm simply editing in the spirit of Wikipedia, which is to keep reason and scientific discourse firmly at the heart of the process, no matter how unpleasant the result is to our own convictions – and I wish you did the same. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Lets wait for the third opinion regarding this issue before starting editing the page OK? ThanksGizzyCatBella (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I've reinstated the section in question, adding a further source. To address Mjroots' points, claims in general that the accident was in fact a political assassination are by definition conspiracy theories (i.e. claims that the Russians conspired to assassinate the President of Poland) and that's exactly how numerous media describe them:

♦ BBC: "Mr Kaczynski [leader of Law & Justice] has actively encouraged wild conspiracy theories that the plane was brought down by a plot, not by pilot error as both the Russian and two Polish investigations have so far found."

♦ New York Times: skeptics have variously insisted that it was an assassination, a declaration of war against Poland by Russia or perhaps an elaborate coup attempt. The range of conspiracy theories is dizzying. So-called truthers accuse the Kremlin of pumping artificial fog over the runway, planting explosives on the plane and doctoring and then sewing victims’ bodies back together in fake autopsies.

♦ The Times: The disaster, in thick fog near the western Russian city of Smolensk, traumatised Poland and gave rise to widely believed conspiracy theories blaming the Kremlin.

♦ TIME: The Conspiracy Theory Roiling Poland [...] Citing its own investigation, as well as flaws in the government’s, the main opposition party, Law and Justice (PiS), has openly claimed that the crash was deliberately planned.

♦ The Economist: "Fanning the flame of conspiracy theories [...] On the day the Rzeczpospolita story was published [about alleged traces of explosives], Mr Kaczyński said it was proof that the Smolensk crash was a "murder" of 96 people".

And there are more.

‎GizzyCatBella, it doesn't matter that the main supporters of the above views are now in government in Poland: such ideas remain just that: conspiracy theories (but if new official documents are published about the crash, they will obviously be mentioned in this article). Also, most of the sources in Polish have to go, and that – mind you – includes at least five sources that seem to debunk Binienda's dubious crash simulations and similar claims; so much for "pushing my own POV". The only pro-conspiracy sources in English suitable for inclusion (and already included) are http://smolenskcrash.eu/, which seems to be the official outlet of the Law & Justice-led investigation, and the two sources about Binienda's work: his page on the uni website and the Cleveland.com article about him. All other sources in Polish are essentially included in the final Law & Justice report, which is already referenced in the article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You are pushing your extreme POV backing it with cherry picked outdated media information, you are removing other sources and information, you are refusing settling the issue on the talk page. Your version and the way you are acting is not acceptable.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, I'm still waiting for you to provide reliable sources that give any credit to the assassination theories you keep pushing (which a host of reliable sources clearly describe as conspiracy theories – see bullet list above), and what do you add to the article? A useless page from a certain Guide Travel News that simply mirrors the already referenced Reuters dispatch, and a page from an unheard-of Poland.us portal, which is a piece of such high-quality journalism that it even contains text copied straight from this very Wikipedia article (search for "The official investigation by the Polish authorities found serious deficiencies").

Take heed from Mjroots: this article will have a Conspiracy theories section, and I am going add it back. If you or Thebiomat keep reverting without a good reason, crying censorship, "sabotage" and "extreme POV", eventually you'll manage to get this article locked – and it may well get locked at a revision that you won't like. You can either take the gamble or keep the opportunity to continue contributing – constructively – to the article in future. --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to remove all revelant information that has been there for months replacing it with some useless information about some Arthur Górski guy that nobody even heard about. You are backing it with waaaaay outdated media articles from few years ago that are irrelevant today and on top of that are reprints of polish journalists from Gazeta Wyborcza that is not a reliable source. Your text is written in such way that the reader can't learn anything from it other that everything else is a conspiracy theories. This is complete and total manipulation. What are your intentions Deeday???? Check the Polish version of the same article and compare it with what you you trying to introduce into the English version here, I also invite other to do the same. Thanks.GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, you clearly missed that the paragraph about Arthur Górski was there before (and is there right now). I simply moved it to the section it belongs to, but I agree that it doesn't add much to the article, so that one can go as well, as far as I'm concerned.

Outdated sources? in your dreams. Outdated means that some new information has become available that makes the existing information no longer valid; what new information is there now? and where is it published? Come up with something and let's discuss it (oh and by the way, the BBC article is from last month). With regard to allegedly non-reliable "polish journalists from Gazeta Wyborcza", you've got to elaborate (and quote) on that, otherwise the sources I cited remain reliable. Here are some more, by the way, all referring to unfounded assassination theories as conspiracy theories:

♦ ABC News: "Kaczynski had been a vocal critic of Moscow, which some people have suggested would be a possible motive for any assassination. Conspiracy theories have echoed since the deadly crash took place, and this is not the first time the late president's brother has expressed concerns about the circumstances of the accident".

♦ Financial Times: "[The crash] shook Polish society and became a lightning rod for political debate in Poland, sparking politicised conspiracy theories over its cause that drew deep divisions between voters [...] Various members of Polish society, including nationalist right-wing Poles, continue to promote theories such as the crash being the result of a political assassination, or allege that the blame lies with Russian officials. Mr Kaczynski’s twin brother Jaroslaw, the current chairman of Law and Justice, has long sought to blame Moscow for the crash".

♦ Al Jazeera: "Conspiracy theories suggesting an explosion brought the plane down have gained momentum in recent months, mostly among President Kacynski's supporters, and continue to polarise the Polish electorate [...] Politics is also contributing to the rise of conspiracy theories about the plane crash, observers say. Kaczynski's brother Jaroslaw, now chairman of the main opposition Law and Justice party, has publicly claimed sabotage brought down aircraft".

♦ The Telegraph: "Mr Macierewicz and Mr Kaczynski have long maintained the president was assassinated, possibly by the Russians, and the present Polish government was involved in a cover-up [...] The report may add some momentum to the belief many Poles have that the Smolensk disaster was no accident, but is unlikely to sway the view of the majority, who dismiss conspiracy theories".

You don't like the way my text is written? then go on and change it, expand it; don't just blanket-revert everything. Also, I cannot read Polish and Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself, so whatever is written in the Polish version of this article is pretty much irrelevant to the point we are discussing here. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Section re-added with updates: the referenced governmental website with the analysis of the crash explained in simple terms has been apparently taken down, so I've removed the reference and associated text (I guess the newly-elected Polish government is already busy trying to rewrite history). The source from The Brussels Times recently added by GizzyCatBella looks reliable and is now included; it doesn't substantially change the picture, but it adds information on the shortcomings of the Russian-led investigation. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Im sorry Deeday, Polish government is not trying to rewrite history, Im afraid you are. Im not sure what your intentions are but you are clearly removing very significant and important information from this article. The are so many new media coverage regarding the matter like this one all you have to do is google it and not cherry pick articles that are outdated or written by people from Gazeta Wyborcza. By the way..Yes, Fakty Smolenskie propaganda website you are referring to has been closed. GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I said it before: I want to improve the article following reason and scientific discourse, and that's what Wikipedia is about. I don't care one bit if that hurts someone's political feelings or partisan loyalties. You say "The are so many new media coverage regarding the matter [...] all you have to do is google it". No my friend, you have to google it; the onus is on you, otherwise the article will go by the sources I listed above, which make it abundantly clear that the work of the Law & Justice commission falls squarely within the field of conspiracy theories. The fact that L&J are now in government doesn't change the substance of their claims; they are no more scientifically sound now than when the party was in opposition.

Here's another quote from the FT (which you have conveniently just deleted), about the chair of the commission:

♦ Financial Times: "Mr Macierewicz, the MP who heads the commission [...] has become a devotee of increasingly radical conspiracy theories that sees Russia’s baleful influence in many of Poland’s problems".

Not sure why you keep banging on about that piece from The Brussels Times (which I'm happy to keep in the article, anyway): Taylor's opinion is that the Russian investigation had some "serious deficiencies", e.g. regarding "the crashworthiness and survival aspects of the accident", but still "the reports appear to offer a plausible explanation for the crash". To conclude from the article that the Russian investigation is completely meaningless and so there must be a different explanation would be a logical fallacy (typical of conspiracy theorists).

With regard to Fakty Smolenskie, to be honest I don't know what it was exactly about, since it was all in Polish, and I don't know why it has been taken down. The matter in any case is irrelevant now, because the source is gone. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Massive removal of information does not improve the article. New official governmental findings are not radical conspiracy theories. Just check the Polish version of the same article (google translate it). And please stop showing me media news from 4 years ago, many fact where unknown then.regardsGizzyCatBella (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The idea that a conspiracy theory stops being what it is simply because its main supporters win the elections is just laughable. Follow this: the Law & Justice commission keeps trying to prove that the Tupolev was brought down by explosions → If the Tupolev was brought down by explosions, somebody must have planted the explosives → If explosives were planted, it means that some people conspired to bring down the Tupolev and kill its occupants → Therefore the L&J commission is supporting the theory that the disaster was in fact a conspiracy. Which part of the logic is not clear to you? because it's pretty clear to just about every English-speaking media that covered the subject. Come on, GizzyCatBella, be honest with yourself. The Law & Justice commission itself admits to it, in this beautifully self-contradictory statement on their smolenskcrash.eu website:

Our aim is not to fuel conspiracy theories. The only conspiracy theory is the birch tree theory.

that is to say: "We don't do conspiracy theories. Er... actually we do, but only one".

Good find, the BBC article from today. You'll notice how much coverage is given to all alternative explanations of the Smolensk crash: none whatsoever. That's a hint of how notable those fringe theories are, by the way. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, instead of reverting my edit, answer the question above. I have provided an abundance of reliable sources that clearly describe the core ideas behind the Law & Justice commission's work as conspiracy theories. The only thing that has changed since their publication is that Law & Justice is now in government; have those core ideas changed? No, they still claim the same things; are they any more credible than before? No, their scientific value is exactly the same, so please stop insulting the readers' intelligence by pretending that claims of multiple explosives planted on the aircraft, in the absence of any serious evidence, are not conspiracy theories. They are.
So far, your response to all the reliable, independent sources that I've quoted has been:

• "I don't like it"
• "The article has been like that for months"
• "That's how the Polish Wikipedia article is"
• "That's propaganda"
• "Yours is an extreme POV"
• "You are rewriting history"

so don't be surprised if you can't have it your way. Ask Mjroots for a second opinion, if you are not convinced. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

My stance with links is already covered in discussion above, trying not to repeat myself as editor above. Please refer to the whole discussion starting Archived 10. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, don't try to wriggle out: I put the question to you in the simplest logical terms and you keep ignoring it. When you provide reliable sources, independent of Poland and Russia, that present the Law & Justice commission's findings as a credible proposition, backed by solid evidence, we'll move the related content to its own section. Until then, it will stay in the Conspiracy theories section, overwhelmingly supported by all the sources I've ♦ quoted. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Im sorry, Im not ignoring you. All has been said already (please look at archive #10). You just repeating yourself and Im sending you to our previous discussion to avoid exactly that. RegardsGizzyCatBella (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Deeday-UK, you are sabotaging the good work that GizzyCatBella is doing to serve your personal POVs. Your "extreme POV" and "rewriting history" are serious violations of Wikipedia rules and it's astounding that you have the goal to complain about GizzyCatBella not wanting you to do it. Also you should not have archived the Talk conversation to hide your dubious deception of what you're trying to do here. I don't see a problem with having a section on Conspiracy Theories, but this kind of section has to contain a legitimate information not to be a basket for your derogatory POV about how you want to classify who. In other words, and I'm writing this for the editors, it is proper to report who called whose ideas "conspiracy theories" giving the sources, but it is improper to take the judgement in your own hands, taking sides, and proclaiming who you're going to call conspiracy theorist and who you will call legitimate. Such practices are simply dishonest in addition to being unintelligent and against the Wikipedia rules. Thebiomat (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"There is no worse deaf man than the one who doesn't want to hear", especially when people put political, national (or should I say tribal) loyalties before intelligent thinking. I will leave the structure of the article broadly as it is now, although the Conspiracy theories section will obviously need to be expanded. By the way, Thebiomat, the previous discussion here was automatically archived by a bot (surely a 'dubious deceptive' bot). That's how much you understand about Wikipedia and its rules. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Deeday, but there is nothing political here, its all about the facts. Also, discussions are not always automatilally archived by the boot and this has nothing to do with knowledge of Wiki rules.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thebiomat should really familiarise himself with the workings of Wikipedia, and learn to read a page's change history, before launching that sort of accusations and questioning other editors' integrity (not that I particularly care, mind you).

Nothing political here, GizzyCatBella? Tell me something: why did you say that Gazeta Wyborcza is 'unreliable' and instead you consider Gazeta Polska as a reliable source (since you keep linking to it)? Is it because Wyborcza is liberal and Polska instead conservative, close to the Law & Justice party, whose word you seem to take as the gospel? And why did you describe faktysmolensk.gov.pl as 'propaganda', despite the fact that it was the official website of the Polish government about the crash (the previous, liberal government, of course)? When the new, conservative government puts the website back on (no doubt adding all the 'corrections' from the Law & Justice commission's report), will you still call it propaganda? Your editing does not exactly seem politically neutral, let's say. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Deeday, look, one has to be familiar with Poland and its history, especially post-communism times to understand why Gazeta Wyborcza is not a reliable source of information. It would take too much time for me to explain that. In short Gazeta Wyborcza is "a child" of post-communists and its collaborators who in 1990's after the transformations created media to manipulate Polish public opinion. Gazeta Polska on another hand is indeed very conservative, but I dont care about it. I care about media that in the case of Smolensk dos not lie. Faktysmolensk.gov.pl web side was created by former polish government that was in power in Poland when the crash happened, it was mostly a coverup of faulty Polish investigation and repetition of MAK storyline. New government commission is starting its work next week, I hope you will help me with updating this site as things develop. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Deeday, the rule you’re quoting comes from the ancient Greeks ("Ο χειρότερος κουφός είν' αυτός που δε θέλει ν' ακούσει"), and since the ancient times, as I suspect you know, Lenin and Stalin have advanced this rule in the art of deception much beyond what the ancient philosophers were ever dreaming of. “There is much worse blind man than one who doesn’t want to see, and it is the one who pretends to see something different than he’s shown. There is much worse deaf mean than the one who doesn’t want to hear, and it is the one who pretends to hear something different than he’s told. And, there is much worse madman than the one who doesn’t want to understand, as it is the one who deceptively pretends to understand something different than he’s explained.” Hence, Marxist dialectic. And, that is what you seem to be doing here since the beginning of your sabotaging of the subject article editing.

I did not question your integrity by saying that you should not archive the past conversations. I question your integrity based on what is in the past conversations, and based on that I consider you an intelligent person, given the info about your computer and programming skills. I do not believe that you are blind, deaf, or a madman, and given that, there is no other explanation for the persistent madding of the water in this talk and for your determination to sabotage the objective development of this article by pretending that you do not see eye-to-eye, and do not hear the arguments, and do not understand what does objective reporting mean. There is no way that an intelligent person may not understand the actual meaning of POV, NPOV, or RS. I'm convinced that you are just playing it, because you know that a normal American administrating Wikipedia couldn’t tell an Active Measures agent, or a pro-Soviet troll, even if one came up to him and introduced oneself. The best illustration of that was the guest-administrator who recommended reverting the page to what he called "last stable version” that was a version edited by Trasz, who demonstrated only too many times his bias and mal-intention similar to yours, for which he was bounced twice from editing the Polish version of Wikipedia article (see: https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katastrofa_polskiego_Tu-154_w_Smole%C5%84sku&offset=&limit=500&action=history and https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katastrofa_polskiego_Tu-154_w_Smole%C5%84sku&offset=20120331224707&limit=500&action=history). Similarly Mjroots, who’s integrity I’m certain, just followed the advise of reverting w/o investigating who was the last editor of that version -- it was anything but a "stable version". Ever since then we’ve been going in circles with you destroying all GizzyCatBella hard work. In short summary, my questioning of your integrity here is a compliment to you comparable to the alternatives, except perhaps for the greatest possible "compliment", which could be calling you a paid agent of Russian propaganda, because in such a case you’d be just doing your job.

I don’t need to learn how Wikipedia bots work. I’m an editor in multiple first-tear international journals indexed by Elseviere Scopus and Thomson Reuters Web of Science, and other top international databases, and an author of many articles in such journals. All I’m doing here is volunteering my time for public benefit, while you are deliberately wasting my and GizzyCatBella’s time by what I consider basically pushing of pro-soviet disinformation propaganda and biasing the presentation of facts. I really wish I knew that you were a paid agent, because I could then at least respect you for it, but as it stands the best I can do is just to question your integrity. You are making a mockery of the Wikipedia editing process and the fact that the administrators don’t see it, and don’t kick you out of here, is an embarrassment to the Wikipedia integrity and to their competence and commitment to their own rules of reporting. Finally, I saw that you messed again with GizzyCatBella edits, and when I can afford it I’ll have to waste more of my time to likely revise it again. You are persevering in destroying my ability to contribute to Wikipedia contents, as clearly you have more time and determination for your destructive subversion of this work than I have for my constructive contributions.Thebiomat (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Deeday-UK, you can't modify facts according to your personal views. Most of your modifications in the recent times reflects to me, "your view on the facts" rather than the actual facts. I request that you stop doing that as you are sabotaging others' contributions. I would like to remind you that this is not your personal blog -Acskian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acskian (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Acskian, what is it exactly that you object about my last four edits? You can't just blanket-revert everything without giving specific reasons, that's too easy. Why did you reinstate a duplicated reference, for example? Don't you think it's a bit untidy to create two identical footnotes when one is enough? And do you really think that sentences like "Jürgen Roth [...] shows for the first time the true background of the crash" express a neutral point of view? Shouldn't we say instead that Roth discusses the background, and maybe summarise what his views are? --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Acskian, please calm down, this article is nobody's "personal blog" LOL! I can understand your frustration because this article needs a lot of attention and but please do not revert without better examination. There was a double reference you reverted and "discusses" instead of "shows for the first time the true background of the crash" is more neutral indeed. Maybe change that to "shows the background of the crash" if you think "discusses" is not the right word here. Thanks Acskian GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I didn't notice the double reference, but as far as Jürgen Roth is concerned it is important to communicate that he published for the first time information from two German Intelligence reports, which nobody had known about before. The words "discusses" or "shows" just do not cut in this context. It is reasonable to assume that German Intelligence reports are more credible than any media, and that would justify the original wording of the sentence. Alternatively, trying to be completely objective and assuming that German Intelligence reports can be wrong too, the text should read then that "Jürgen Roth for the first time reveals the reports of the German Intelligence on the subject", or something along these lines, but just "discusses" or "shows" is incomplete and therefore inaccurate.Acskian (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acskian (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct Acskian, Jürgen's book based on German intelligence reports is more credible than any media reports. People have to be also aware that German prosecutors are conducting their own investigation right now. That is not mentioned in the article yet. I'm not sure where should be that information entered but maybe you can help with that? Or Deeday? I'll add "reveals" into the sentence for you if you don't mind. Thank you for your comments and contribution. Regards GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No, reveal implies something that is true but not yet known, which is then brought to light; that's definitely not a neutral term. Has anyone read that freaking book? then please summarise in one line what it says. For example: "German publicist Jurgen Roth has interviewed some former East Germany spies who claim that such and such happened to the Tupolev". That's what's supposed to go into an encyclopaedia. Note that it all must fit in one sentence, not to give undue weight to a source whose reliability is not at all proven, regardless of what you guys think of him. This Roth is not even notable enough to have a properly sourced page on the English Wikipedia; what are his credentials? his track record in checking facts? how often is he quoted by other independent, reliable sources? The space that should be given to his work should reflect the answers to these questions. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No, reveal implies to make known something that used to be intentionally unavailable; it means "to make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others", and that is exactly the correct meaning and application of the word needed in this case. Also, giving only one sentence to a book is unreasonable and out of proportion with giving accounts to single few paragraphs articles, not to mention that the sadden checking of credentials and ranking of journalists comes across here as an improvisation inconsistent with all previous and other Wikipedia practices. 74.232.35.51 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"reveal" - make previously unknown or secret information known to others. Im quoting English dictionary. You are correct. Jurgen Ruth "revealed" something not "discusses" or "analyses" . Sorry Deeday, looks too me that you are wrong here.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, Deeday, Jurgen Roth has its dedicated Wiki page in German and English and few other.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Forget revelations, discussions and analysis. Why not write a brief summary of what Roth actually says in his book? The sentence as it is now tells the reader a big fat nothing, apart from the fact that a certain Jurgen Roth has written a book on the subject (by the way, I said "properly sourced page on the English Wikipedia"). --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a brief summary is a great idea. Amazon.com has this: Putin's war in Ukraine holds the world in suspense . But even five years ago, harbingers of Russian aggression politics showed : On April 10, 2010, crashed in the Russian city of Smolensk from a military plane , 96 people died . Aboard the Polish elite , including President Lech Kaczynski and high Nato generals . Was it a tragic accident - or an attempt , as it not only claim BND sources ? Jürgen Roth shows for the first time the true background of the crash of the Polish presidential plane and is at the same time the highly topical question of what the catastrophe of Smolensk , the downing of Flight MH17 and Ukraine conflict have to do with each other. Sounds more like getting people hooked to buy a book rather than a summary in my opinion. Here is a short interview with him in English as well. There are more but unfortunately in Polish or German. GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a sales pitch, not a summary. The sentence as it is now is unencyclopaedic, but personally I'm not interested in changing it until somebody reads the book and can write a proper summary. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)