Jump to content

Talk:UTA Flight 772

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversy

[edit]

Although one of the references provided for this article (www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/03/PEAN/14934 ) is about the very questionable evidence brought against Libya (as for the Pan Am bombing), no mention of that controversy is made in the article. The article needs to be modified to that effect. Hudicourt (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One-line response

[edit]

Is there much point in listing the one-line response here about Pan Am 103? It doesn't seem to give any information about UTA 772. Strandist 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear as to which one-line response we're talking about.Phase4 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's this line, I have just removed it: "On June 28, 2007 the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was granted a second appeal against his conviction.[1]"
It seems pretty much entirely irrelevant here, as the story is already covered adequately on other articles actually related to the Lockerbie bombing. Terraxos 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be the line you removed, because that was added in July 2007. As to that line's relevance in a section headed Parallels with PA 103, if it transpires that Megrahi's conviction is overturned on appeal, then Libya can say it wasn't responsible for the Lockerbie bombing in the first place. A new PA 103 investigation will then be needed.
How such a court decision impacts on the UTA Flight 772 case (where the trial of the Libyans in Paris took place in absentia) is anyone's guess!Phase4 10:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to fall under OR: without a reliable source explicitely stating the connection in the way you put it, Terraxos was correct in removing the sentence.--Aldux 11:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree Terraxos was right but it wasn't the line that Strandist (above) was exercised about. As to the question of relevance of the Megrahi appeal, see http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=184&id=1007912007 Libyans want their £1.4 billion payout back. Next thing, they'll be wanting their $170 million back from the UTA Flight 772 relatives.Phase4 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Libyan jailed over Lockerbie wins right to appeal

Fatalities

[edit]

According to reliable published sources, there were 170 fatalities (and no survivors) on UTA Flight 772 - see for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3163621.stm . Unless they can cite their sources, Anon IPs should stop editing the article and increasing the total to 171.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was 171. Easily confirmed by looking at the Aviation Safety Database and Air Disaster, as well as some books which had details of the disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobman84 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reliable citation for 171 fatalities.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Aviation Safety Database is the reliable citation. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The French families organisation (Les Familles de l'Attentat du DC10 d'UTA) know better. They confirm that there were 170 victims of 18 different nationalities - see http://www.dc10-uta.org/ .---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the definitive answer will come from the accident report. PJHaseldine, do you know if Niger and/or France have their accident reports posted online? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harro Ranter of the Aviation Safety Network has now corrected the ASN entry - see http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19890919-1. Fatalities are 156 passengers and 14 crew, as per Wikipedia article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map Error

[edit]

The maps of Chad and Niger appearing in this article is partially erroneous. While the map does show accurate international borders, the shaded-in portions of the two contries are incomplete, missing all portions of Chad south of the Chari river and Samalat Wadi (http://www.freeworldmaps.net/africa/chad/map.html) and missing the portion of Niger west of the Niger river (http://www.freeworldmaps.net/africa/niger/map.html). One-Off Contributor 20:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:UTA.JPG Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:UTA.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:UTA.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected coordinates

[edit]

According to the group's website, the actual coordinates are: 16⁰ 51' 53.748 N ; 11⁰ 57' 13.362 (see for example this photograph: http://www.dc10-uta.org/photos/img/2007%20Memorial/2007_10_Memorial_DC10.jpg ) - that's also the location given on OpenStreetMaps: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/16.86493/11.95371 - I assume that the coordinates in this article were chosen so that someone using GeoHack can find the Google Maps aerial photography that shows the feature, but I guess the Google aerial photography is slightly misaligned. I've therefore left the information on where to find it in Google Maps intact, but changed the other location tags. --Slashme (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

>> The Sahara memorial seen from space(Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on UTA Flight 772. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Webcitations of UTA English appendices

[edit]

I tried to use Webcitation.org but the results look like garbage text :( WhisperToMe (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit documents:

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:UTA_Flight_772&oldid=1252609192"