Talk:Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752/Archive 1

Archive 1

Survivor Count redundant?

The fatalities count already says "(all)" and the passenger and crew count total to the fatalities count so it seems like the survivor count doesn't need to be there. --MrMineHeads (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It's standard to have both fields in these articles.Tvx1 16:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Cancelation reason

AFAIK, the missile attack on Iraqi airbase is the reason for the cancelation and rerouting of flights. This article, however, states that "Several airlines reacted to the crash by re-routing flights that flew over Iran, or cancelling flights to Iran". M4DU7 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

US airlines were prohibited before (before the missile strike). UIA (and others, I think) stopped after the incident leading to the crash. Zianon (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, here's the FAA ban on US airlines over Iran or Iraq issued "just a few hours before" the UIA 752 came down. [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

All of which is referenced in the article to reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@M4DU7:, I've tweaked the wording to reflect the missile strike as a reason. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I went through all the references, and for the unreferenced airlines re-routing as well. All re-routes and cancellations happened before the crash. Even with the rewording, "Several airlines reacted to the missile attack and/or the crash", it is ambiguous and potentially controversial. My opinion is that the cancellation and re-routing should not even be mentioned in the article. The backdrop of the current tension in Iran is already covered in the article, and this serves no other purpose except to advance a possible POV that Iranian airspace is so hostile to civilian aircraft. robertsky (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree 2600:1702:2340:9470:38F7:8A34:8243:D13D (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: NL Times say it was in reponse to the missile attack. Sky News says in response to the escalating tensions. I would argue that the crash is part of that. BBC News just states flights re-routed or suspended withough blaming either attack or crash. CBC just says flights re-routed as a precaution, without blaming either attack or crash. Flight says FAA ban is due to geographical tensions and risk to commercial traffic. My comment re Sky News applies. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: The announcements of rerouting traffic came before the crash. my take is that reports on the crash conflates both crash and the missile attack. it is clear that the reroute is primarily due to the missile attack, not the crash. Be there tension or not, with what's being currently reported, i.e. the crash being due to an engine fault, the crash would have happened anyway. robertsky (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't know that the crash was due to an engine fault. There's certainly a feeling that it may have been shot down, even if such a theory hasn't been proved yet. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

As you said it, a feeling. It is speculative, without proof. Yes, conversely Iranian's assertion is also just words without the black box being analysed. But backed by photos and videos in the reports, it is evidenced based than just... feelings. robertsky (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I decided to boldly rework the reaction section in this manner: 1. background of ongoing tension in the region and what airlines had been doing for safety sake; 2. further industry actions after the crash; 3. blurb on speculations of how the plane went down on both sides; 4. domestic responses; 5. international responses with Ukraine's response first since it is more directly invested than another other countries. There are airlines which have no references to clearly define, or mentioned if their reroute or cancellations are due to either the crash or missile attacks, hence they are tagged as failed verification for now. robertsky (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: - NO! what you did was removed references from text, and then tagged said text as needing verification. That is not how we do it. I thought that I had reworded it clearly enough to say that these decisions were either a result of the missile attack, or the crash. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: your edit made attribution of airlines actions more ambiguous than anything else. I introduced more references to clearly attribute each airline actions to either the missile attack or the crash. What I tagged, I will find sources to back. robertsky (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

With more and more sources giving credibility to the shoot-down theory, should we now amend the infobox to include "accident or shoot-down"? Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It should at least be mentioned in the lead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree should be mentioned in lead, alongside other main theories/ claims. But not convinced that any cause(s) needs to be added yet to the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No. We do not list a cause in the infobox until the official investigation publishes one. I don't think it should be in the lead either. It's one of multiple possibilities that are considered. Why cherry-pick the shoot-down option for the lead? All the sources that propoagate their shoot-down are third-party at best. None have actually come close to accessing the actual physical evidence.Tvx1 18:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Added shoot-down claim and Iran's denial to lede. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like the main theory at the moment, reported by all the main news outlets. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fair, in view of the now reported reconnaissance satellite imagery from US officials. (Trump's personal view is neither here nor there, as far as I'm concerned.) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Crew list — edit or delete?

I noticed that the listing of crew members is oddly formatted/punctuated and also unreferenced, and was going to edit it. Then it occurred to me that a list like this isn't really relevant, nor IMHO appropriate, so thought perhaps it's better to just delete it. Is there a WP policy to inform us on this? Or failing that, does anyone have views? DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete it. No need to name people who are not notable. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to make it clear for other editors: delete it and do not add it. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

ICAO reaction

The ICAO published on their site the following information:

Official notification received from Iran on Flight PS-752 accident

This statement is quite important: ICAO continues to call for diminished speculation on the possible causes of the accident until the Annex 13 investigation is permitted to be concluded and its official results are confirmed. SV1XV (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Not censored; also the people "speculating" (Trudeau, etc.) have access to intelligence that ICAO doesn't have. Geogene (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That's your speculation. I'm afraid Bellingcat and Co. are sending us through the looking glass once more, Douma style. Shtove 21:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Nope, confirmed. A reminder - the TP's are for discussion of Reliable Sources for the improvement of articles, not your personal Soapboxing. 50.111.26.55 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the Iranian authorities will hand over the black boxes to the relevant international team of analysts and allow access to the crash site for the Canadian investigators, so that the theory of catastrophic engine failure can be fully examined. Except it seems they are already bulldozing the crash site? Why would they do that? Not sure any Ukraine airlines will be keen to fly to Tehran ever again. But all of the major news sources seem to now be agreeing on a different explanation of what happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Trudeau says....

Trudeau says Canada has intelligence Iran shot down Ukrainian airliner - [2]. 2620:10D:C090:200:0:0:1:2DE1 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's in the lead section of the article, with a similar source. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is also using photos sourced from Bellingcat. Here we go again. Shtove 21:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Boris Johnson said the same. 2620:10D:C090:200:0:0:1:2DE1 (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

New York Times Video

The New York Times recently posted video showing plane being hit. Video Shows Ukrainian Plane Being Hit Over Iran 50.37.112.189 (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

CNN has it as well, but they have confirmed the authenticity, I've already added it in.JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The description of the video, "The video depicts a projectile visible from its rocket engine approaching the aircraft travelling upwards from left-to-right. An explosion then occurs, and the aircraft faces a sudden reduction in speed, continuing its travel opposite to the missile, going right-to-left while engulfed in fire" appears to be WP:OR, not verified by any cited source. In particular the statement about the aircraft (if there is an aircraft shown) having "a sudden reduction in speed" seems to be pure speculation, since it isn't even visible prior to the explosion. Likewise, the claim that it shows an aircraft "engulfed in fire" seems to me to be someone seeing what they expect to see, rather than a neutral interpretation of the video. Wikipedia should not be including unsourced and speculative interpretations of low-resolution images.

I've now reworded the description to omit everything beyond the immediately obvious. Even that may be questionable though: should Wikipedia instead quote what CNN (or other sources) actually state about the video, in their own words?

86.148.103.104 (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Further to this, statements regarding the New York Times 'verifying' the video, need to be worded carefully, if made at all. The NYT itself seems only to be claiming that the video itself is authentic (i.e. there is evidence that it was filmed in the location described), and makes clear that it isn't making definitive statements about what is actually occurring. Instead it states that it "appears to show an Iranian missile hitting a plane". There is a world of difference between stating what 'appears' to be happening, and 'verifying' that it actually did, and Wikipedia should not be making the NYT's comments seem more definitive than they actually are. It would also be wise to wait for other sources, rather than relying on a single one (even a good one, like the NYT) for interpretations of such material. 86.148.103.104 (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Flag of countries added

You see in the article in passengers and crew sub section, countries flag are included in passengers casualties to shown their nationality. In other wikis of same article, flags of these countries are included as well. Does English article include flag or should remove these flags? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.35.9 (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons, and in particular MOS:INFOBOXFLAG: "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many". I see no reason why this shouldn't also apply to the table. So no. 86.148.103.104 (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Per 86.148.103.104, MOSFLAG applies. Whilst we're on the subject, can we please use the correct denonyms for nationalities, e.g. Canadian instead of Canada. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752's real summary

Accidental shootdown by the Iranian surface-to-air missile (de facto), under investigation (de jure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTDG2005 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Provide sources for your opinion and seek consensus here before changing it again. Thanks. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Aircraft on fire before crash

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As there are claims that the aircraft may have been shot down, it is worth discussing the issue.

What is known, is that the aircraft was on fire before it crashed. A tweet from Ali Hashem shows this clearly. I think the article should at least state that the aircraft was filmed on fire shortly before crashing, referenced to the tweet. If reliable sources repeat the claim that the aircraft was shot down, then we should also mention that "it was claimed by (source) that the aircraft was shot down". If the claim is disproved then we should say so. Discuss. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Post 24 in the Pprune thread shows wreckage with damage indicative of a surface-to-air missil explosion. Not saying this means it was shot down, but the possibility needs to be considered and evaluated as more info comes to light. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream media is still not mentioning that quite yet, and Wikipedia does not accept forums (or tweets) as sources after all. Juxlos (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Juxlos: the tweet has some credibility. Ali Hashem is a BBC Arabic correspondent. The tweet has been picked up by some mainstream media. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Unless I'm looking at the wrong tweet, the BBC correspondent is only saying that the plane was on fire before it crashed, but not saying anything about it being shot down. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct, the evidence for the shootdown is in post 24 of the Pprune thread I linked to above, and other images. I accept that said images may also be evidence of an uncontained engine failure. Time will tell. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not just those sharp holes in the aircraft skin, of course. It's the apparent speed of the aircraft failure and the lack of any emergency call? Here's the latest from NYT. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Higher resolution images in the thread show the "shrapnel holes" are actually just pebbles and debris. There is no current evidence that the plane was shot down. 195.89.171.5 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

We should not be conducting an investigation ourselves on what brought down this aircraft. See WP:NOTFORUM. I'm particularly concerned on how eager some of the contributors here are to declare this a shoot-down. We should report the investigation's findings when they are published. This talk page is not intended to discuss the accident itself, but to discuss improvements to the article.Tvx1 16:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Or before the investigation's findings are published, we might want to consider theories that are published in such sources as The New York Times? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: we are not conducting our own investigation. We are discussing what has been reported elsewhere, and assessing the credibility of such reports. Better it is discussed here and a consensus reached, than crap appearing in the article. So far, evidence is inconclusive, and such mention that there is in the article is sufficient. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Iran will never admit that it accidentally shot down an airliner believing that it was an attack by the US, just as Russia has never admitted shooting down that Malaysian airliner, believing it was a Ukrainian military transport. Several reliable sources have started speculating on if this is what occurred, so we'll have adequate sourcing soon, if we don't have already. It's telling that Iran is refusing to release the Black Box. 146.14.45.36 (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Russia?? Surely you mean "an over-stretched and terribly threatened armed pro-Russian separatist insurgency in Donbass"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 and Iran Air Flight 655 might be better analogs.Zianon (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The Independent interview a raft of experts - [3] - summary - no expert is willing to definitely rule either way, however the OPS group (aviation experts) stated: "We would recommend the starting assumption to be that this was a shootdown event, similar to MH17 – until there is clear evidence to the contrary". Zianon (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The statement by OPS is perhaps the weightiest statement of that kind so far. And I don't see any mention there of "pebbles and debris". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see why OPS would be a reliable source in any way. Any can create a blog on which they claim to be "aviation experts" (no that the independent names them "aviation risk-management group", which is something completely different). Their articles are clearly opinionated. And the fact that they recommend having a starting assumption discredits them being experts right from the start. Proper experts do not pre-assume anything. They objectively collect and analyze the evidence and make any conclusion at the end of the investigation.Tvx1 21:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, as it's a blog. Pprune is not a reliable source as it's a forum. However, these can be a source of reliable sources and a valuable research tool. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This Fox News source is already used in the article for the damage to the FDR/CVR: It says this: "A strike by a missile, possibly a Tor missile system, is among the main (theories), as information has surfaced on the internet about elements of a missile being found near the site of the crash," Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine's Security Council, told media in the country." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This tweet by Babak Taghvaee, an Iranian aviation author, suggests that the aircraft was shot down in error by the IRGC. Mjroots (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. Yes, so the IRGC. Might as well throw those black boxes away now? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

As Fox News puts. It’s theory circulating on the internet. Also please be more prudent with social media. Anyone can find a picture of missile debris on the internet and it put next to a picture of this plane’s remains and write a tweet around it that they are from the same event. This tweet has no credibility/relaibility whatsoever. Please focus your sourcing on the aviation experts who are actually conducting the official investigating into this crush. And please be patient. It had barely been 24 hours since it happened. There no rush at all to declare the cause.Tvx1 15:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I had thought that was an official statement by "Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine's Security Council", not just a "theory circulating on the internet"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

BBC News Online - "Mr Danylov said that the Ukrainian security council was examining various possible causes, including an anti-aircraft missile strike, a mid-air collision, an engine explosion or an explosion inside the plane carried out by a terrorist." (my emphasis) Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Babak Taghvaee check out as someone who should know what he is talking about. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump says it was shot down. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Study the above image closely at as big a size as you can. I believe this shows a section of fuselage, with what was the interior lying face up. Note the many places where the fuselage skin has been penetrated from outside, forcing the skin inwards (up as viewed). There are many shadows showing the locations of the punctures. This is similar to damage produced by a surface-to-air missile. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, again you're conducting your own investigation into the cause here. We should not do so at all. Again WP:NOTFORUM. It is not op to us to analyse and synthetisize the debris damage (and for what it's worth read United Airlines Flight 232 and Qantas Flight 32 for, less catasthrophical, examples of what else could cause inward bending holes in a fuselage). As for Taghvaeee, he is not involved with the investigation and thus has no direct access to evidence and thus only provides opinion which is of little value to this article.Tvx1 18:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This CBS News Article says that U.S. Intelligence picked up radar signal and possible missile launches, "U.S. intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on and satellite detected infrared blips of two missile launches, probably SA-15s, followed shortly by another infrared blip of an explosion. Federal officials were briefed on this intelligence Thursday morning. A source who was in the briefing said it appears missile components were found near the crash site, Van Cleave reports." This provides more evidence for the shot-down theory, as well as for the previous comments speculating on this thread.JackTheBestBoss (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

On my end, the source link goes to a page not found link, here are two links, [4] [5]JackTheBestBoss (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

There are officials from six different countries on the site investigating the crash. If any of them had found missile debris they would have released an official statement acknowledging that by now.Tvx1 19:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

While true, it seems, in the US case, that US intelligence(officials) has "acknowledged" the missile launch did happen, or more likely indicating evidence that it might have happened. Neither am I sure NTSB is on the scene. There has been news about missile components and even a guidance system found on the crash site, and it seems no pictures have been released to reinforce claims of shoot-down yet. Then again, I cannot really speak for anyone and an actual "official" statement regarding the potential shoot-down has not been released, as you said. JackTheBestBoss (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The Iranian missiles were fired at 2am and the Ukrainian airplane took off and crashed at 6am. There is no chance for a missile impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.53.106.133 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd respectively say that you are outright wrong in your assessment. The missiles fired by the Iranians on the bases were short-range ballistic missiles, and while yes, the times were different, the missiles allegedly fired at the airliner were anti-air missiles. The missiles fired at the two bases in Iraq have nothing to do with the airliner, in regards to missile impact by the ballistic missiles. The anti-air missiles the Iranians allegedly fired at the airliner were shot after the base attack. JackTheBestBoss (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that the plane was shot down with a ballistic missile, let alone one from the attack against US bases. Vecr (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

What has been suggested is the Tor missile system. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

As well as the SA-15 system. JackTheBestBoss (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Disregard my above comment, the Tor missile system and the SA-15 are the same thing. JackTheBestBoss (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This article from New York Times shows a video seeming to record Iranian anti-air missile hitting airliner. JackTheBestBoss (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

US-based mainstream media was reluctant at first to cover it, because they were trying to generate sympathy for Iran because of their anti-Trump bias. But now that other countries have joined in in saying this is what really happened, they're finally covering it. 155.19.91.37 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sputnik news

Why is a literal Russian Propaganda outlet a key citation in this article? I don't care if they say the sky is blue, it's not a good source and should be nowhere near Wikipedia articles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is the BBC or the CBC used as key citation sources? They are obvious propaganda outlets for NATO fictions. Such are the hazards of quoting "credible" news sources.

Considering who is in line to examine the black boxes (all American allies) it is obvious why the Iranians won't give them the box. We have been here before. These are many of the same participants who 'crafted' the report about the aircraft disaster over Ukraine. 216.113.204.185 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: - I'm not seeing anything of concern here. There is nothing controversial sourced to Sputnik. Is this a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 06:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Take a look at this list: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Salon. Sputnik is listed as "generally unreliable." David O. Johnson (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, let's see if there are other sources to use then. That would be preferable to deletion of the material. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Rubbish. The BBC and CBC are considered RS's for Wikipedia.50.111.26.55 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

either sign in, or put four tildas after your comments, anon 50.111.26.55 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Sputnik is being used as a source for saying the sky is blue. They are a blatant propaganda source from dictatorship. If it starts to be "okay" to use it for banal things, people will start to use it in other places. You gotta be rigorous and root out propaganda sources before they infect the rest of the site. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Gosh stop fighting, the sources had been changed to reliable sources.. let's just get back to work. Let us know if there are more unreliable sources in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.73.110.19 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I have zero problem with reputable Russian Sources such as The Moscow Times, though it'd be a bit strange in the context of an article about a flight between Tehran and Kyiv. Sputnik and RT though are dreadful. I deleted Sputnik. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Germans

Please do not change 3 Germans to 7 Afghans unless 7 Afghans are backed by your source. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible they are dual nationals? Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Without knowing what Hannibal means exactly, dual nationality might explain 3 Germans = 3 Afghans confusion, but probably not 3 = 7? DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the sources used by Peter Pano do not state the 3 people discussed were Afghan. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo, Swissmade11, please cite where it says people described in official Ukrainian sources as German have Afghan nationality. The sources used so far to support the statement only says there were no Germans. Thanks. And just to be clear, it was me who added the Czech and German source into the text saying they were asylum seekers. I do not care what nationality is in the table but it has to be sourced directly. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiHannibalPlease also see here: https://www.aerotelegraph.com/boeing-737-ukraine-international-was-ueber-ungluecksflug-ps752-bekannt-ist --Swissmade11 (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"two very loud noises"

The lede metions that "In addition, local witnesses reported "two very loud noises" that were supposedly coming from Parandak garrison, shortly before the Ukrainian 737 went down." based on a piece by Al Bawaba: Other witnesses who said they were in the area at the time the aircraft went down said they heard the base had been on alert at the time and described hearing 'two very loud noises'. You see, even the source does not confirm that they were witness, anyone can make a twitter account and claim that resides in the area. I'm going to remove it from the lede, especially when an AP journalist in the crash site quotes a local: "I heard a massive explosion and all the houses started to shake. There was fire everywhere,” he told the AP. “At first I thought (the Americans) have hit here with missiles and went in the basement as a shelter. After a while, I went out and saw a plane has crashed over there. Body parts were lying around everywhere". Pahlevun (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

The investigation about the event is ongoing, and the article currently does not reflect Iranian view (the country accused of having shot the airplane) and is giving undue weight to American view (which is not involved at all). Pahlevun (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should all call it the "Ukrainian view" or the "Canadian view"? No US citizens on board it's true, but the US are involved as Boeing manufactured the supposedly "faulty aircraft" and they provided the satellite imagery for the missile launches? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Federal government of the United States and The Boeing Company are distinguishable. At the beginning, media reported that that western intelligence sources believe that the cause of crash was technical malfunction (yet we do not see that in the article). Then everything changed after U.S. officials publicly stated that they have information about a missile. We know they have a record. Pahlevun (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

If we are proposing to add "western intelligence sources believed that the cause of crash was technical malfunction", then we'll need to provide a good source. My understanding was that news media were just reporting the Iranian claim, which itself seemed spectacularly premature. Theories do change, sometimes quite rapidly, when new evidence comes to light. That's how evidence works? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, we need quality sources. I will try to add them to the article to balance it more. Pahlevun (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

So far, reports one and two are added to support this. There are more. Pahlevun (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm wary of stating any conclusion definitively in Wikipedia's voice. So far all we have is competing claims of wild theories about the crash, from the US (who are motivated to make Iran look like villains given the events of last week), Canada (who are US toadies in international affairs), Iran (who are Iran), and the UK (see Canada). Ukraine (and the UN, kind of) are pleading for evidence and a rational approach to the investigation. We're not going to know anything for sure for a long time, and we should be wary of saying anything in the article that suggests preference for one theory over any other at this point.

As for Boeing, see this edit from an IP on Boeing's corporate network, as a possible example of how they're approaching the situation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any bias here. We have multiple reliable sources saying probable (if not certain) shootdown. We are covering Iran's denial of the same. WP:VNT applies. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, we're pretty spot on at this point. All I'm saying is, at this point, we don't have a basis to say "the plane was shot down" any more than any other conclusive statement we could invent, and we should be careful about that. And by extension, media sources making those sorts of statements are also suspect: since no evidence has been released, they can't possibly have a rational justification for any definite conclusion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Follow the sources. If "media" say it was shot down, then it was shot down, QED, and anything else is OR. Geogene (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. So far, reliable sources are describing the US and Canadian claims that it was shot down, as well as Iran's opposite position, and that's (properly) how we're describing the situation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Iranian Coverup Section Needed

A section which describes Iranian attempts to deny and coverup the fact that they shot down this plane is needed. 71.82.73.37 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That would be a POV funnel. Pahlevun (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources support this, it should be added to the article. This is what neutrality actually means. Geogene (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

'Iranian response' seems like it would satisfy NPOV more effectively. Darren-M talk 20:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The lead is using the word "claim" to cast doubt at the position of US and other countries. It is not neutral to describe it like that.--Drako (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:CLAIM, the use of the word "claim" is correct, because we are not saying that the shootdown is 100% verified and admitted by all involved. It is claimed that the aircraft was shot down; that claim is rejected by the Iranian authorities. The article says exactly that. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That's exacly wp:claim says you should not do. NPV does not mean equating both positions. Saying it is just a claim, "an call their statement's credibility into question" as per wp:claim. While this is the consensus among credible sources. It is not just a claim. --Drako (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Location confirmation for Khalajabad redlink article

I think the Khalajabad of the crash site is Mahmudabad-e Khalajabad; the county and province line up, but the coordinates Wikipedia has are way off to the east of Tehran, not even in the right county at all. Can someone verify this before we fix the redlink? There is an entry in OSM that seems to match up with the article, having a name that Google translates to Khalaj Abad, and an alt-name that translates to Mahmoudabad. PlusAdder (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Canadian Prime Minister - U.S. intelligence agencies evidence

"Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau said Canada's own intelligence, as well as evidence provided by U.S. intelligence agencies, suggested the aircraft was shot down.". The reference, the CBC article, doesn't mention USA. It just says "foreign" intelligence.TallGuysFree (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

According to a leading Dutch national paper, the Iranian government has admitted the shoot-down. (In Dutch) 213.93.223.201 (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Why does use source from The Economic Times instead of Sputnik

It is so interesting to see why English Wikipedia using source from Economic Times, which is from India instead of Sputnik. I think Sputnik source was reliable to coverage live update about the Incident and the source was used on many other Wikipedias outside English. Why does not used Sputnik source directly instead via Economic Times? Are this source was unreliable because ties to Russian government. If doesn't, why this article use source from kremlin simply because ties to Russia? Di English wiki have strict guideline to reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.50.110 (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

See section headed Sputnik news above. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Likelihood of Intentional Shooting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As it is, the article makes no mention of the shooting being a mistake, but instead seems to focus on Iran's denial of any shooting. However, three of the sources include "mistake" in their title. AND, there is a very big difference in saying this is "possibly" or "probably" a mistake (both are being used by officials), and that difference should be noted in this article. "Probably a mistake" means that we believe than Iran did not choose to shoot down the plane, while "possibly" clearly opens up the possibility of a deliberate attack.

Consider the circumstances. Iran fires ballistic missiles to attack US targets in Iraq, knowing they'll be detected early and no-one will be killed (US officials have stated this). Hours later, the Ukrainian plane was taking off from a busy airport, it filed a flight plan, it was a big target on radar, it was at low altitude and ascending -- it's extremely hard to believe that two missiles were accidentally fired (hence the "possibly" wording). However, Iran's vehement denials are the only things that lead us to believe this was a mistake. And if we believe it, Iran becomes a victim deserving of sympathy, while the US president can be blamed by other Western countries for creating these dangerous circumstances (potentially an incredible asymmetric victory).

Whether Iran admits a mistake or not, it's important to provide context. I hope that other users here will take this into consideration while editing the article. Adama1138 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Your statement is pure speculation. Follow the RS's, that's the Wiki policy. Leave your political bias against Trump at the door, please.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no bias here. What I'm saying is that the sources are citing a "mistake" while their use on this page makes no mention of a mistake. If the article doesn't match the sources, it's a problem. Of course speculation has no place here, but there is a duty to explain circumstances while leaving it up to the reader to make conclusions. Adama1138 (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Here are two sources clearly leaving open the possibility of an intentional strike. See that they use "unintentional" in scare quotes. WaPo adds "possibly fired by mistake." If we take journalistic limitations into account, the wording speaks volumes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-flight-was-on-fire-in-air-and-returning-to-tehran-at-time-of-crash-iran-investigators-say/2020/01/09/9b27434c-3244-11ea-971b-43bec3ff9860_story.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51073621

This question is also directly discussed in this Q&A. While a reporter is not a very good source IMO, he is supposed to be an expert, and while I disagree with the conclusion, I will highlight several parts: "Even in times of conflict, air defence units who are expecting a strike and are on high alert would, in ideal circumstances, be able to tell the difference between a war plane incoming and a civilian airliner travelling slowly, climbing in altitude, and broadcasting its location and status via transponder." ... "Although Iran has attacked civilians in the past as reprisals for other incidents" ... "while they would have been sensitive to any suggestion of an attack and may have been trigger happy or twitchy, they would have expected to find aircraft coming in from outside of Iran's borders. They would have expected to see certain types of altitude, certain types of behaviour. They would not have expected to see an aircraft with its transponder switched on." ... "there are still some big questions to answer as to how they would have made that mistake."

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.5420966/its-exceptionally-unlikely-iran-shot-down-airliner-on-purpose-says-defence-reporter-1.5420975

I'm cherrypicking here, I know, but I'm showing that this is not "pure speculation," this is a real possibility and explaining the circumstances isn't biased. Adama1138 (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It was a possibility. But no longer. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nationality chart is a mess

Hey, i really think that the nationality chart of the victims is a absolutely a huge mess and i want to change it. Is anyone okay that i change it ack to the old chart. Thanks, Drew005 (talk) 23:43, January 10th,2020 (UTC)

Tend to agree that, in its present state, it has little value. Might be better to remove it for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree - revert back to the simple and stable copy - also my "dubious" and "failed validation" templates have been removed without being properly dealt with. The problem with dual nationalities being listed is that there is absolutely no way that any organisation or government can know who has or who does not have dual nationality - this is basically a private thing. True it can sometimes be inferred in a general way but on Wikipedia such inferance is WP:SYNTH. The table if it is truely necessary needs to contain the nationality based on the passport used to board the flight this is the only thing that can ever be considered reliable. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

How about we provide two columns of casualties, one according to IRNA and one according to the UIA manifest? WWGB (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@WWGB: I suspect that the IRNA list includes the names that sound Iranian as citizens of Iran - something that can not be assumed and would be WP:SYNTH if we did this on Wikipedia (unfortuately this list really needs to be translated before it is particularly useful). By what mechanism would the news agency know the citizenship of each of these individuals, I think the only reliable list would reflect the passports used as I said above. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, could you please updateme what was wrong with the last table (below?). Also statements by the German Foreign Ministry and Boris Johnson were removed. What about changing "People on board by nationality" to "People on board by passport used", with a note about Ukraine sources + in that case list 3 Germans per UIA and add note about their Afghan nationality+Johnson's statement about 4 Britons. UPDATE: It seems the "mess" started with the edits of this user. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

People on board by nationality

Nation	Number
Iran	82
Canada	63
Ukraine	11
Sweden	10
Afghanistan	7
United Kingdom	3
Total	176

IRGC account

Commander of the Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Amir-Ali Hajizadeh has given a press conference. Here's a full transcript. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Protests in Iran due to the plane crash

Could someone possibly add this somewhere? [6]. Don't have the time to do it meself atm. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree this should certainly be added. Here's a report by The Daily Telegraph. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Rename article (January 2020)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Closing per WP:SNOW. Based on the unanimous opposition and the existence of a project naming standard, there appears to be no chance that consensus for this move will develop in the near future. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC) VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I think that this article should eventually be moved (i.e., renamed) to something like 2020 Ukraine Flight 752 shootdown incident. This is in accord with other articles (see List of airliner shootdown incidents) in which the organization that shot down the plane admits it. (Prior to the IRGC saying that they were responsible, I would have thought that 2020 Ukraine Flight 752 crash would have been better, again based on the names in the List of airliner shootdown incidents.) Right now with Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, it could have been any incident, say an airline flight which was diverted to another airport simply because a famous pop-star onboard had an appointment which he forgot.

I'm leaving out the "International Airlines" in the name because it doesn't add anything and I'm in favor of short article titles. Please note that I'm not saying that this should happen now, while it's an ongoing event. I'm just saying that the renaming should happen when everything quiets down. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. We almost always name articles about the loss of an airplane in this way, whether the loss was accidental or hostile. We use the name of the carrier and the flight number. Above I mentioned a recent example, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. See Category:Airliner shootdown incidents which lists multiple such articles; only a few of them are named "shootdown incident", and they are mostly about very old incidents; the articles were probably written before we settled on this format for titling. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I oppose renaming. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose rename, as per MelanieN above. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose nonsense. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose current title is in accordance with WP:AVIMOS#Accidents. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - we have a standard for aircraft accident titling, which this complies with. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Black boxes

"Iran says it could take up to 2 months to extract data from black boxes": [7]. I believe they are also insisting that they download the data. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Now that the IRGC have admitted they "made a mistake", what is the point of any data analysis? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Coverage of theories aka Timeline

Prior to the admission that it was a result of a shoot down, I recall I read that Iran blamed Boeing 737 as unreliabele. Also here [8] they blame GE. It would be encyclopedic to cover the meandering of the blame game. No need to get out of control and veer off into NPOV issues, but one sentence would suffice for each of the official claims. Will add a list below. Feel free to edit. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Jet was 3 years old and had maintenance 2 days prior [9]
• Blame boeing as unreliable (seeking source)
• Jan 08 Refuse to give boeing access [10] and [11]
• Jan 8th: No distress call, which is unusual. "Iran’s Disaster Mitigation and Management Organization said early assessments indicated the cause was a technical issue, while the transport ministry suggested an engine fire was involved." [12]
• Jan 08: Iran media blame technical problems [13] and [14]
• Jan 08: Iran blame engine failure [15] and engine fire [16]
• Jan 08: Iran blame GE engines [17]
• Jan 08: Engines were manufactured by CFM International, a JV of General Electric and Safran. CFM said "[CFM extends] heartfelt sympathies to the families and loved ones of those on board.” [18]
• Jan 09: US Sec of State Mike Pompeo alleges missile took down the plane and Iran denies it. “What is obvious for us, and what we can say with certainty, is that no missile hit the plane,” Ali Abedzadeh, head of Iran Civil Aviation Organization [19]
• Jan 09: US suggests Iranian missile, Russian Tor missile system SA-15. [20]
• Jan 10: Invite Boeing to particpate [21]
• Jan 11: NYT published an OP-ED stating NYT's readers blame Trump, stating "Readers hold President Trump responsible for the 176 deaths, along with the Iranians." [22]

Encyclopedic coverage of "the meandering of the blame game"? Or would that just be rehashing "an orchestrated litany of barefaced lies"? 86.189.225.30 (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The unforgettable phrase is actually "An orchestrated litany of lies". Applies erfectly here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.133.140.138 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, could be referred to as "blame game". Blame game as you refer to it is encyclopedic FYI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, but I think we should not put it in the article. Now that there is general agreement that Iran shot the plane down, including specific confirmation from Iran, I don't see any point in detailing their earlier explanations and theories and "fog of war" misstatements. Give them this much credit: the Iranians DID accept the evidence and take responsibility, and rather promptly at that. Not all countries or governments are willing to do that. Compare for example Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, where the Russians insist to this day that they didn't do it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Um, "fog of war" misstatements? No, just lies (by the IRGC it seems) for two days. Which I don't think is "rather promptly" at all. I think the article would benefit from an exact time that the admission was made. Although I'd agree that Hassan Rouhani deserves praise for calling the incident an "unforgivable mistake". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the specific Iranian insitutions that denied (etc.) the shotdown should be all listed in one sentence, with sources, something like: "X, Y, Z denied ... (and claimed it was/blamed A, B, C... instead)." WikiHannibal (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a very good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I have this timeline.

Jan 8 (Wednesday): Between 1:45 a.m. and 2:15 a.m, Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles from its territory targeting at least two Iraqi military bases hosting U.S.-led coalition personnel.

Jan 8 (Wednesday): Within hours, the FAA barred U.S. carriers from airspace over Iran, the Gulf of Oman and the waters between Iran and Saudi Arabia, citing “heightened military activities and increased political tensions in the Middle East, which present an inadvertent risk to U.S. civil aviation operations”.

Jan 8 (Wednesday): Flight 752 was scheduled to take off at 5:15 a.m. local time, but was delayed. It departed at 6:12:47 local time. The final data received was at 6:14:45, less than two minutes after departure.

According to the data, the last recorded altitude was at 2,416 metres (7,925 ft) above mean sea level with a groundspeed of 275 knots (509 km/h).

The flight was climbing at just under 3000 ft/min when the altitude record abruptly ended. The aircraft crashed into terrain located 15 kilometres (9.3 mi; 8.1 nmi) north of the airport.

Jan 8 (Wednesday): Iranian authorities immediately attributed the crash to technical problems with the plane, dismissing the idea of a terror attack.

Jan 8 (Wednesday): Qassem Biniaz, an official at the Iranian Ministry of Roads and Urban Development, told state news agency IRNA that an engine caught fire and the pilot was unable to regain control, The New York Times reported.

Jan 8 (Wednesday): Video footage shared by the semi-official Iranian Students' News Agency appears to show the plane on fire in the air before hitting the ground and filling the sky with flames.

Jan 8 (Wednesday): Ali Abedzadeh, the head of Iran's civil aviation authority, told semi-official news agency Mehr that Iran would not give the black box to Boeing, according to Reuters.

Jan 9 (Thursday): Early in the day, Iran released its initial report into the crash on Thursday morning — an unusually quick turnaround for this type of preliminary report. It said the flight suffered an unnamed technical issue after takeoff.

Jan 9 (Thursday): Late on Thursday morning US time, multiple reports were released claiming that US officials believe it is likely that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile.

Jan 9 (Thursday): Iran denied the reports, maintaining that it would not be possible for the plane to have been shot down by its missiles because the plane was flying too high.

Jan 9 (Thursday): Cabinet spokesman Ali Rabiei dismissed reports of a missile, saying they “rub salt on a painful wound” for families of the victims.

Jan 9 (Thursday): Justin Trudeau says intelligence indicates that an Iranian missile took down the Ukrainian flight with 63 Canadians on board. He added that Iran had refused to let the black boxes from the crashed plane outside Iran.

Jan 9 (Thursday): The New York Times said that it had verified a video that appeared to show the moment a missile struck the plane.

Jan 9 (Thursday): UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson was the next world leader to chime in, saying that British intelligence also suggested that Flight 752 had been shot down.

Jan 10 (Friday): Images and reports emerged from the crash site that show Iran has used bulldozers to move around pieces of debris from a crashed Ukrainian passenger jet, possibly destroying evidence that could help prove what happened to the doomed flight. Images and reports from the crash site show at least one bulldozer working in the debris at the site.

Eliot Higgins, a Bellingcat investigator, tweeted that disturbing the wreckage would make it "next to impossible" to properly investigate the crash.

US ambassador to Germany, effectively accused Iran of mounting a cover-up.

Jan 10 (Friday): Ali Abedzadeh denied any Iranian responsibility for the crash, The Journal reported, citing Iran's Channel 2. He told the local news outlet it was "not possible" an Iranian missile had hit the jet. "How would the antiaircraft system shoot it?" Abedzadeh said. "It wasn't a security area."

He stated "we should wait for results of probe into the crash, but what we can say for sure now is that the plane has not been hit by any missile."

Jan 10 (Friday): On the Western countries saying Iran shot down the plane, Iranian spokesman Ali Rabiei said in a statement that was a "big lie" and that "No one will assume responsibility for such a big lie once it is known that the claim had been fraudulent."

Jan 10 (Friday): Hesameddin Ashena, an adviser to Iran's president, said on Friday that Persian-language media had been "warned" against repeating the "psychological warfare" Iran said was being carried out by Western nations.

Jan 10 (Friday): Iran then said that it would allow Boeing representatives to examine the plane's black boxes, in an apparent reversal of its previous position.

Jan 10 (Friday): Eyewitnesses claimed that debris is being removed from the crash site, and that scavengers were removing pieces as it was not secured.

Jan 10 (Friday): Ukrainian officials said they have been given access to the flight's black box.

Jan 10 (Friday): Ukraine's Zelensky, who had called on other countries to release their data as the idea the plane was shot down has not been confirmed, said he had received "important data" from a meeting with US representatives, but did not elaborate.

Jan 11 (Saturday) : Early Saturday morning, Iran admitted thru a statement on state TV that it's military made an “unforgivable mistake” in unintentionally shooting down a Ukrainian jetliner and killing all 176 people onboard, after days of rejecting western intelligence reports that pointed to Tehran being responsible.

Jan 11 (Saturday): Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a tweet Saturday he spoke with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. "I insist on immediately completing identification of the bodies & their return to Ukraine," he said. "The perpetrators must be held accountable."

Gathered from this website and other links https://www.businessinsider.com/iran-ukraine-plane-crash-flight-752-timeline-unfolded-events-allegations-2020-1 https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020/01/09/video-apparently-showing-flight-ps572-missile-strike-geolocated-to-iranian-suburb/ RockyMaivia88 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Protests against concealing the cause of the accident

Please write about the protests at Sharif University and Amir Kabir University in Tehran. ✒✴✍✎✴ There is also a lot of photos and content in the media around the world to choose the best photo.☮☮☮▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒☮☮☮ The protests ended with the shutdown of the internet in Tehran, as well as clashes with security officials. ★★★ In the Persian version of this article at fa:پرواز_شماره_۷۵۲_هواپیمایی_بین‌المللی_اوکراین Because of what happened in Tehran, there are some useful things.--Worrywolf (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? The protests are already included in the "Reactions" section. Also we don't get to use images which have a copyright attached. But thanks for the link to the fa.wiki article. Perhaps the description of the protests could be slightly improved or expanded. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Protest images

The source of File:Gathering and protest rally outside Amir Kabir University 2020-01-11 10.jpg, for example, is [23]. The author is given as Mohsen Abolghasem. Is this image fully copyright compliant? It's hard to tell from the upload page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Licensing says: "This is a file from the Mojnews.com website, which states in its footer, "MojNews is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License."" So I guess any image can be used? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Changing the angle and perspective of this

Over the past 24 hours, the shootdown theory has gone from a popular unproven theory to now the majorly accepted truth. This article still seems to be going on the angle that a shootdown is a popular yet not provable theory due to the data from a (likely a) SBRIS satellite not being public. But we have got lots of confirmed footage. We no longer have a single unproven video of a plane on fire, but several angles and a confirmed to be true video showing a missile hitting an aeroplane at the same time PS752 was in the same area. I think we need to change things like '...the 737-800 operating this route, crashed shortly after takeoff...' to 'the 737-800 operating this route, was shot down shortly after takeoff.' - AndrewRG10 (talk) 10:00 10 January 2020 (UTC)

What we have is a number of credible sources stating that they have good reason to believe that the aircraft was shot down. We can report that. As a statement that they believe it, accompanied by their reasons for doing so. Wikipedia is not in the business of asserting 'truth'. As of now, this is opinion, and opinion, even when based on credible evidence, is frequently subject to amendment as more evidence comes to light, in situations like these. There is no hurry, and we would do best to present the evidence, and let readers asses it for themselves. The situation is evolving, and there is no necessity to be 'right with the news' earlier than the sources can justify. Wikipedia isn't in competition with the tabloid press, or at least shouldn't be. 86.148.103.104 (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Brief note to suggest that if there are reliable sources saying that there is data from an Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) satellite on what happened, then that link can be used in the article (I was trying to work out what "SBRIS" [sic] meant). Maybe even Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) depending on the satellite (if this information will ever be made public). Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree the article should be clearer and definite this was almost certainly a shootdown. Zianon (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The wording could be as such: "The US, Canada and the UK believe that the plane was stuck by an Iranian missile; several notable news outlets reported that the US believes SBRIS (Space-Based Infrared System, US military intelligence) data shows two missile launches and one missile hit. Furthermore, video evidence and first hand reports verified by the New York Times found a missile being launched and a missile striking the plane. "... though I'm not aware of the exact happenings. Tsukide (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Quite honestly, that was disgusting that we waited for an authoritarian dictatorship to say they shot down a plane when all the evidence said they had. Wikipedia is meant to be truthful and factual. Whilst also needing to be unbiased, it needs to be factual. Whether a plane was shot down or not is not perspective, it's fact and fiction. And we were perpetuating the fiction. Should never happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewRG10 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it did not go from "popular unproven theory" to "majority accepted truth"—rather, the evidence was already quite conclusive on January 10th and credible news sources were reporting that a shootdown by Iran was the likely cause. The mealy-mouthed Wikipedia article could have stated that much more clearly. Wikipedia unfortunately has an anti-Western bias problem (ironically enforced mostly by editors fortunate enough to live in free nations in the Western world). What if Iran's government had not admitted to the shootdown, but the other evidence remained unchanged? Would this article be able to report the widely conclusive fact that Iran shot down the airliner without giving credence to the Iranian government's completely false attempts to exculpate themselves—through statements only released via official Iranian government agencies and mouthpieces? Are Wikipedia editors really that incapable of discriminating between likely credible sources and obviously non-credible sources? Darkest Tree Talk 19:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Collided with terrain

As my changing of "collided with terrain" (WP:EUPHEMISM?) to "crashed" has been reverted by Tsukide, this needs to be discussed.

The fact is, that whatever the cause, the aircraft crashed. There's no need to beat about the bush, just say what happened. I propose we restore my wording. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I changed it back in the infobox; someone else changed it in the intro already. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant now that it is confirmed by multiple credible sources that the aircraft was shot down, but "collided with terrain" usually means "accidentally flew into a mountainside" or other obstruction. Crashing into the ground is colliding with terrain in a literal sense, but not what the term is used for. Darkest Tree Talk 21:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Number of missiles

The satellite imagery and the local reports of "two loud noises" suggest two missiles were launched. Should the article make this clearer? The mobile phone video footage appears to show only one explosion. Is there are any reported WP:RS explanation for this? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be a RS https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-ukraine.html : "American intelligence agencies determined that a Russian-made Iranian air defense system fired two surface-to-air missiles at the plane, one official said." but seems too week to me. Also normally you fire 2 missiles on a single target. Could have been one missile hit/exploded nearby the aircraft, pilots turn the aircraft as reported, 2nd missile hits. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Wait. Could also be a secondary explosion after the hit (which you see in some videos, in the first video you see an explosion on the plane a few seconds beofre it hit the ground). Also if two launched, they are staggered. Exact sequence and launching unit will probably come out. In MH17 or Siberia Airlines there was similar vague details in first days. Zianon (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd say a great deal less was known initially for MH17. The main huge explosion when UIA752 hit the ground was presumably all the fuel it its very full fuel tanks. Perhaps surprising this did not ignite when the missile (or one of the two missiles) detonated. Perhaps expert opinion might be forthcoming via WP:RS now that this is almost unanimously the lead theory. Russia seems to be siding with the Iran explanation, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Leonid Slutsky, Head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the State Duma: "“Any statement on the causes of the Ukrainian Boeing 737 crash made before the investigation ends is premature and could be used for political purposes... We need facts and concrete evidence, not imaginary references to intelligence. So far, it’s all unfounded.” [24]. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

He's free to doubt as he feels, but the Pentagon has satellite intel that confirms it was brought down by a missile fired inside Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Well quite. But I'm not sure he realised fully that his reservations apply equally to the initial Iranian claim of engine failure. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Video is probably of the second missile. Videographer heard a bang (referring to the first missile hit) then started recording. https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1215397996545835010 Wolcott (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Two booms are sonic booms.All missiles used in Tor system fly more than mach 2. I also was once behind a patriot missile when it launch. you see the flight of the missle before you hear anything. Bongey (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Number of British passengers

The text says there were the four passengers, but the Table shows three. Which is correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

While the fourth passenger may have been British, he could have been a dual national travelling on the passport of his other nation. WWGB (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you see this apparent contradiction in article content as an issue? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Th discrepancy is explained (sort of) in a note in the table; feel free to amend the note. Also I would vote for removing the second metion of the 4 Britons (from Reactions). WikiHannibal (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. By the way, I think the UK news media have been quite clear the number was four, since a "correction" was made. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The Multiple nationality issue goes beyond that individual, beyond the level of visibility the issue has here, and beyond this article. Saying (for example, as said in the table) 63 Canadians and 82 Iranians oversimplifies the situation re possible (probable) dual Iran/Canada citizens. Looking at the Iranian nationality law and Canadian nationality law, I would guess that some number of persons on that flight carrying Canadian passports were also jus sanguinis nationals of Iran. Either/or classification of nationality for the purpose of making a list totaling to the number of persons being considered necessarily ignores situations of multiple nationality and probably decides that either/or question by some arbitrary standard of doubtful applicability. As I said, though, this issue goes beyond just this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's easier if I just remove the second mention of the four Britons (from the "Reactions" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Nationality of passengers

Please discuss here before changing the passanger table. This applies especially to Afghan/German asylum seekers, and Canadian/Iranian dual nationality. A source saying 7 Afghans were on the plane, and 48 Canadian-Iranian nationals is welcome. Thank you. Feel free to amend/replace this introductory notice with a better explanation of the problem of your own. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Nationality in the casualty table should reflect the flight manifest. Dual nationality, asylum etc can be reported elsewhere in prose. WWGB (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is that? Is there a policy for that? Also, did you know that Iran considers Iranian citizens to only have Iranian nationality? By that rule, this table would need to be drastically changed, subtracting a lot of Canadians and adding Iranians. I'm not saying to do that, just pointing it out. I am noticing a distinct reluctance to make it clear in this article that nearly all of the passengers were Iranian, regardless of the fact that many of them had dual citizenship in Canada. Again, why is that? Is there a desire to downplay the fact that most victims were Iranian? Darkest Tree Talk 02:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article states quite clearly "Officials confirmed that "at least" 130 people on board were Iranian". I would not call that a "downplay". WWGB (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

also don't forget WP:RECENCYBIAS.213.230.114.47 (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(insert) Re "Nationality in the casualty table should reflect the flight manifest", That sounds like a good idea if the manifest is citeable in support. The manifest would be a WP:Primary source, but citeable as saying whatever it does clearly say. However, the article currently cites [25] to support the figures in the table. That source relies on a statement by Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine's Foreign Minister. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest using Flag Icons in the list of passengers so people can identify the nationalities from a glance. Talkkaris (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Casualties

Nationality	Passengers	Crew	Total
Iranian	82	0	82
Canadian	63	0	63
Ukrainian	2	9	11
Swedish	10	0	10
Afghan	4	0	4
British	3	0	3
German	3	0	3
Total	167	9	176

Note: "Mr Johnson added. He also confirmed that four Britons had died in the disaster, an increase from earlier reports of three British deaths.": [26] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned four Britons in a note and replaced Germans with Afghans per sources by other editors, thanks. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSFLAG, no flags. Mjroots (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Arad Zarei was named as the fourth UK victim: [27]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: the last stable table was clearly anti-Iranian POV; @The Huhsz: you can remove the unverifiable part of the table but don't change the fact that Iran lost at 130 life in the accident. --146.95.190.148 (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on discussion here I would not say that consensus exists to remove this table, so I have restored. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• What a strange idea. We don't need consensus to remove it! We would need consensus that it was useful to keep it. I don't see that. The Huhsz (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• See also #Number of British passengers below. The table over-simplifies and misleads. --The Huhsz (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Restored table. Flights usually get a table. Please explain what exactly is anti-Iranian. The source used is the manifest of the Ukrainian Airlines - what is not neutral about that? The claims of other coutries "correcting" the manifest are also explained in the text/table; this includes Iran: the article says "at least 130". We can add that to the table as well. According to Iranian nationality law "the Iranian government considers dual citizens as Iranian citizens only". This was explained in the article, with a ref but also some unsourced OR, so was removed altogether. Restored that sentence too. With removing the table, useful sourced info (but feel free to explain what exactly was misleading) was removed as well. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the table is useful, neutral and reflects the flight manifest, that is, the passport pax chose to use when boarding. Clarifications and interpretations can continue to be handled by Notes. WWGB (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• So we are clinging to the encyclopedic value of The list is based on Ukrainian sources, with notes indicating confirmed deviations. and There is no corresponding source about the six people said not to be Canadian, so the table cannot be changed, as the total would not add up. Hmmm. --The Huhsz (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Tor-M1: NATO reporting name (SA-15 "Gauntlet")

I've added the NATO reporting name for the Tor missile system, "SA-15 Gauntlet". I also changed "Tor M1" to "Tor-M1", as it's written that way in the articles on English and Russian Wikipedia ("Тор-М1")/, as it's written in the relevant article on English and Russian Wikipedia. Although the Russian names have been commonly used since the end of the Cold War, NATO reporting names are still used. The Tor-M1 system has been described as the SA-15 "Gauntlet" in sources relating to this incident. I haven't explained that the name is a NATO reporting name; I just put the name in parentheses. Roches (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. If anything, this weapon system is far more widely known by its NATO reporting name outside former Soviet bloc nations.Darkest Tree Talk 02:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The NATO reporting names were important in the 1960s when the actual names of Russian equipment were secret. Now that this is no longer true, I don't see the utility in using it. The link to the weapon system at first instance provides adequate explanation for those interested in the system's various names over the years. --The Huhsz (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Surely we use the name that (most) sources use, especially if that's the same name used in the article title? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Which is "Tor missile system". --The Huhsz (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

"Gauntlet" does also get explicit mention in many press sources, e.g. The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, BBC, Business Insider, Wall Street Journal, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree that clarifying it within the text of this article on the first usage makes sense, after which we can just call it "Tor missile". VQuakr (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Not needed per WP:LEDE, I moved to the body. Not everything goes in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, you can read my reply above as first usage "in the body". VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Cause of crash section, path of the plane

A couple of days ago, I added a short section supporting the Iran Civil Aviation Authority position that the plane had made no unusual course changes. I based this on the published data from Flightradar24 plotting the ADS-B data received from the plane. I forgot to add a citation and my contribution was deleted for that reason. I added it back in with a citation, but a different editor has now deleted it again, the reason being something along the lines of "original research interpreting the data, we need a secondary source".

Could I get some help on the policy here please. I've not added it back till this is resolved. (I freely admit, I'm not a very experienced Wiki editor.)

What policies are there about how much substantiation is required? This seems excessive to me.

Could we consider the following points:

1. Flightradar24 is the “go to” source for data of this type. It has been used extensively in the past by the world's media, and by Wikipedia. I don't think it is hyperbole to say they are the industry leader. (I have no financial interest BTW) 2. Not sure why my addition is original research? I added a link to published information which itself is factual. 3. I dispute that my addition is “interpreting” data. The citation piece contains charts showing precisely where the aircraft flew compared to other flights that night, and compared to the path of the same flight on dates stretching back three months. No interpretation is required. The charts are based on ASD-B data. This is about as factual as you can get. 4. Why is there an objection to my addition when there is an opposing unsupported claim in the same paragraph? “When the airplane seemed to head toward a military centre of the IRGC” This comes from a Gizmodo article, but there is no reference to who said it, or what evidence it is based on. I am simply trying to balance the article based on actual facts.

I'd like to add back my text in the “Cause of the crash”section, as shown below. Views?

Preceding sentence: Iran's Civil Aviation Organization, however, disputes the timeline, arguing that the airplane was on the correct course all the time and that there is no proven flight deviation of the airplane.

Indeed, flight tracking data, as published by Flightradar24, shows that the plane's track and altitude were both well within the normal parameters for flights leaving the airport and heading for Europe. The minor change of heading towards the right was also completely within normal parameters. kritikos99 (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kritikos99: interpreting raw ADS-B data would indeed violate WP:SYNTH. You provided a source that presents the information graphically but does not draw any conclusions from it. Is there really no reliable source out there that has done on the interpretation about whether the aircraft's track and altitude were abnormal? Lacking a source that does the interpretation this was a good revert; our threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. VQuakr (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr:OK, I hear what you say. But what if the source did not draw any conclusion because the conclusion is so obvious that there is no need to spell it out? The same applies for why no other source has done any interpretation. It really does seem to me that no interpretation of the graphic is required. The graphic is the interpretation of raw ADS-B data as received by local receivers. The graphic shows that the plane's track and altitude were clearly not abnormal. They were completely within normal parameters as demonstrated by previous flights that night and during the previous three months. I doubt if there will be any other sources doing any interpretation of the data because there is no need. It has already been done. If we must have a secondary source for this particular piece of evidence, then we can forget it. It seems a shame though, that information that balances a spurious claim cannot be included. And I return to the fact that the claim about the plane seeming to head for a military centre is unsubstantiated. So we are not deleting an unsubstantiated claim, but disallowing one that has some claim to verifiability? kritikos99 (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(Commenting from the sidelines) I just looked at the graphic and its present article context for the first time and, from that, I agree with VQuakr. You say that "[the flight path was] completely within normal parameters as demonstrated by previous flights that night and during the previous three months", but the graphic does not show the context on which that relies -- it shows the PS752 flight path in isolation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(followup) I found some of the missing context. See a graphic in "PS752: How could Iran have made such a terrible tragic mistake?". rcinet.ca. January 13, 2020. The text in that also mentions aircraft transponder response (by its military term: IFF), but I'm guessing that tactical military units don't routinely monitor nonmilitary sources, and would disregard them as possible deception if they did (these also may be in nonmilitary frequency bands, encoded differently from military IFF, etc. I do know that it is common, at least in the U.S., for military units not to be equipped to monitor or communicate on e.g. the 121.5mHz standard civilian emergency frequency). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell:Slightly bemused by your first comment about missing context. Did you not scroll down to the other graphics that show the track and altitude of the flight overlaid on the other flights that night, and other instances of the same flight over the past three months? The first graphic does not analyse anything. It is simply a screen capture of the playback. There are four further graphics that make detailed comparisons as I have already described.kritikos99 (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kritikos99: agreed that other flights are shown on the images. An example of analysis that we are allowed to do is calculating a person's age or adding two numbers. Drawing a conclusion from images of flight tracks does not qualify. Fortunately, Wtmitchell found a source, rcinet.ca, that does this analysis so if you like my wording above feel free to re-add it with both sources as far as I am concerned. I also agree that the sentence When the airplane seemed to head toward a military centre of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, controllers mistook it for a "hostile target" and shot it down. should be rewritten to more clearly attribute this as a claim by the IRGC not a statement of fact. VQuakr (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(responding to Kritikos99) I was/am not arguing a POV -- just trying to contribute some info which seemed to be missing from the discussion. Re "It is simply a screen capture", there also seems to be some analysis of the image in the image caption saying: "Radar track shows flights from Tehran airport showing PS 752 was on a standard flight path and climbing when brought communication suddenly ended, two minutes after leaving the runway ( Flight24)" (emphasis mine). The source may or may not be competent to make that judgement, but I don't think WP or WP editors are competent to make a judgement re their topical competence. Re that, WP:RS says: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently senior UIA officials gave a press conference in which they "[insisted] that their aircraft had not deviated from its assigned flight path and that the same course had been flown by other aircraft departing Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport." This article mentions it: "Ukraine International Airlines Demands Full Investigation Into Iran 737 Shootdown".. Perhaps this could be a source for statements in the article (or better yet, an source specifically reporting on the press conference, preferably with a transcript or direct quotes). There is already a statement in the article from Iran's Civil Aviation Organization saying that the plane did not deviate from its expected course, although that statement does not reference previous flights. Ketone16 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr:Quite confused now. I don't see anywhere you have suggested wording. Also the source found by Wtmitchell simply shows the graphic all my arguments have been based on, lifted from the Flightradar24 blog. How is this any better? Or are we going on the fact that the expert's caption states that the plane was "on a standard flight path"? Bearing in mind that he is a professor of political science, not an aviation expert. I'll add my wording back in with both sources anyway, if everyone is happy now. I'll have a look at re-wording the supposed IRGC claim, but as I said before I've not found this claim substantiated anywhere. In fact the IRGC statement by Brigadier General Hajizadeh specifically states that the aircraft was on a normal track. So my feeling is this should be deleted.kritikos99 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really following this discussion, but I see the comment above asking, "How is this any better?". I didn't have any more idea about this than I indicated when I made the comment re the flight path graphic here and its caption, but I've taken a second look. I initially took the source, rcinet.ca, at nothing more than the name in its URL and the name Radio Canada International in that linked web page. I now see the WP article Radio Canada International, and note that it is the international broadcasting service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Accordingly, I think that the analysis in the image caption ought to be considered as coming from a reliable secondary source -- not the final word by any means, but worthy of mention per WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kritikos99: I don't see anywhere you have suggested wording. Sorry, I forgot I removed my suggested wording from my first post after determining that the FR24 source alone was inadequate. The graphic isn't reasonably described as "lifted" when it is credited to the original source. And yes, that caption and the analysis in the article that the aircraft was "on a known regular flight path" are examples of the analysis that was missing from FR24. Since the claim we are supporting here is unexceptional, I am fine with rcinet.ca as a source. Now that the sourcing/synthesis concerns are worked out, let's talk about the tone and wording. You wrote:

Initial wording
Indeed, flight tracking data, as published by Flightradar24, shows that the plane's track and altitude were both well within the normal parameters for flights leaving the airport and heading for Europe. The minor change of heading towards the right was also completely within normal parameters.

This has a few issues. The "indeed" is awkward; the change of heading isn't discussed in the rcinet.ca source; and it is a bit repetitive. How about instead, we say:

Proposed wording
Political scientist James McKay noted that based on ADS-B signal information, the aircraft appeared to have been on a regular flight path prior to the missile strike.

The IRGC bit just needs to be properly attributed as their claim and not a fact. We can move it below the mainstream viewpoint if that gives it less prevalence. VQuakr (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr:I'm a bit lost with this format now. Do I just respond as before or is there some clever way to deal with your suggestions under the green bars? kritikos99 (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Responding to VQuakr's revised wording suggestion, I agree that would be fine, except that if one reads the rcinet.ca article carefully, it's not clear whether the interpretation/caption is McKay's view/quote, or the RCI journalist. Is this unimportant? kritikos99 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Subsequent edit. How about this? "An early IRGC statement claimed that when the airplane seemed to head toward a sensitive military centre of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, controllers mistook it for a "hostile target" and shot it down.[78] Iran's Civil Aviation Organization disputes the timeline, arguing that the airplane was on the correct course all the time and that there was no proven flight deviation.[79] ADS-B tracking data in the public domain was also used to support the Iranian CAO position in an article published by Radio Canada International." I would suggest citing both the FR24 blog and the RCI article. kritikos99 (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

References

When update the article, use Canadian English

For editors and readers I have some information about edits of this article, when someone update info about Ukraine flight 752, this should be use Canadian English, which have spelling such as colour, centre, travelled, analyze, realized, and many more despite the accident was happened in Iran and involve many Nationals from multiple countries because there are many Canadians on board. Any editors that add information but not using Canadian English spelling must be respelled in order to confirm with Canadian English edit notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

No reason for Canadian English here. removed the notice. --Bohbye (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Number of Swedish citizens

Gianluigi02, I noticed that you changed the statement on the number of Swedish citizens (added by WikiHannibal) from seven to ten. Do you have a source for this? The article by Omni (which is the source currently cited) agrees with WikiHannibal:

17 personer hemmahörande i Sverige dog i flygkraschen i Iran, bekräftar utrikesminister Ann Linde (S) på Twitter. Sju av personerna hade svenskt medborgarskap och de tio andra var folkbokförda i landet.

Translation:

17 people in Sweden died in the plane crash in Iran, Minister of Foreign Affairs Ann Linde (S) confirmed on Twitter. Seven of the persons had Swedish citizenship and the other ten were registered in the country.

0x9fff00 (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notification, I restored the original wording and clarified the note+ref, which might have been the source of the confusion. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: I think it’s still worth including the number of residents (17) as that’s the number most commonly used by Swedish media. Or do you think this would be too confusing? 0x9fff00 (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to do that; we shall see. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up again, but the supporting source says, "7 Swedish citizens and a total of 17 people who lived in the Nordic country died in the crash.", crediting that to the Swedish foreign ministry. How do we get from that to an assertion in the People on board by nationality table that 10 Swedish nationals died in the crash? I see that this source, which looks weighty to me, says:

In the Swedish language the term citizenship [medborgarskap] is used to indicate the legal status of an individual, as well as the legal and political consequences of belonging to the state (rights and duties). The term nationality [nationalitet], on the other hand, is in legal context used primarily to indicate ethnic origin and language affiliation. In daily language the term nationality is, however, sometimes used as a synonym to citizenship to indicate affiliation to a certain state.

Color me confused. This is just a guess, but I would guess that this might describe the situations of the ten noncitizen Swedish residents who died in the crash. If my guess is correct, those ten persons would be "registered in the country" and on the population register mentioned in that source, but they would not be either citizens or nationals of Sweden. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: I agree that this is a bit confusing. As I understand it, the numbers in the table are based on Ukrainian sources to make sure they add up to 176, which they wouldn’t if you used the number of citizens reported by each individual country because of people having dual citizenship. Not sure how they got 10 Swedes though as that doesn’t seem to be reported by anyone else (4 people with Swedish passports according to Iran and 7/17 Swedish citizens/residents according to Sweden)... Maybe this article about the people who died could help: https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/Wb290j/har-ar-svenskarna-som-dog-i-flygkraschen-i-teheran 0x9fff00 (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. It seems to me that the table is making assertions in Wikipedia's editorial voice that Wikipedia editors interested in this article do not understand. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I propose removal of the People on board by nationality table pretty darn quickly until the above is resolved by consensus here. Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The table has a source and a note right after the headline ("People on board by nationality"), which says "The list is based on Ukrainian sources, with notes indicating confirmed deviations." I do not understand how come editors interested in the precise numbers are willing to delve into definitions of Swedish citizenship and fail to read the note. I will add part of the note into the headline itself, fell free to edit the headline to make it clearer. As another step-up, we can add the note about Ukrainian sources to every note in the list, so that the reader interested in one country only, UK for example, reads a note like this: "On 10 January, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirmed four Britons died on the flight. It is unknown at present, which country's passport the fourth Briton presented. This table is, however, based on official Ukrainian sources." Also when proposing to remove the table, do you propose to add the sourced info about the deviating numbers of citizens of respective countries reported into the article or not? If added into the article, would that just not move the perceived confusion into the text itself, where the confusion would be (as I believe) even harder to decipher? @0x9fff00: seems the combination 17-10-7 is still causing problems, so I wil again drop the 17, as not directly relevant. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"Cause of the crash" speculation

I do not think it useful to record ill informed speculation about why the Iranians might have fired missiles at the aircraft when we have the firm conclusion of the Iranians that it was due to an error by the missile operator. Doing so opens up every conspiracy theory as legitimate to report on (and there are many!). The article should aim to stick to facts. e.g. when and if we get the accident report and black box analysis and the conclusions of the Iranian judicial investigation, it will enable facts to be updated, and imperfectly known items to be replaced with harder facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.185.159 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a relevant part of the narrative. It's not "every conspiracy theory", it's just valid reporting from a WP:RS. I don't believe the black box analysis will tell us anything we don't already know; the Iranian judicial investigation might (if it's ever made public, of course). The identity of the person who took the video is not a "known fact", but we still include as reported. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC) p.s. as per WP:BRD that material should remain while it's being discussed here?

I think we have quite a bit still to learn from the black box. It will likely help confirm which parts of the aircraft were struck by each missile, the precise locations of the aircraft when it was struck (although the updated NYTimes/Bellingcat investigation is already pretty good on that on the back of three separate videos and the flightradar24 data), the explanation for and direction of the track it took from there to the crash site especially since the pilots were already dead, and what happened to it in the last 20 seconds of flight, where videos show it apparently lurching/turning before the fire turns from whiteish to yellowish and enlarges, and then goes into a steep dive while travelling almost due South as it crashes - not aiming for the airport. It might even record the missile battery radar in some way. The likely fate of the passengers may also be revealed: some may, like the pilots, have died a quick death, but others may have survived in horror and anguish perhaps with painful burns until the final crash. Meanwhile, it is clear that the conjectures of these so called experts are speculative: the purpose of the air defences were alluded to by General Amir Ali Hajizadeh in his press statement ("Under such circumstances, a number of air defence systems was added to Tehran’s air defence ring. The first system – which was behind the incident – was deployed in Bidganeh in western Tehran"), and the Tor missiles are specifically designed for tackling cruise missiles, which are not suited to taking out mobile missile batteries, but rather for attacking predefined targets. It would make much more sense to report on the US intelligence sources that said that US satellites observed the aircraft being painted with radar by the missile battery, and the infrared traces of two missile launches, followed by the burning aircraft, and their immediate assessment that this had been a fog of war mistake. The context was also clearly explained by the IRGC General: a warning had just been issued to expect cruise missiles since the Iranian attack on US bases was over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.185.159 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Flight and Crash section

This is now something of a mess, and fails to take account of later information.

It is important to note that the flight heading of 313 degrees was the normal departure routeing as demonstrated by the Flightradar24 blog. This was originally described as an unscheduled turn to the right, in line with early Iranian propaganda that denied the shootdown. Rather, it is in accord with the statement of the IRGC Aerospace Commander that the aircraft was on track and did nothing wrong.

The information given about the height of the aircraft above the ground when its last data transmission was made is also wrong. It should either be omitted, or corrected to reflect the several hundred feet higher ground of Parand town and the immediately hills North of it which it was overflying. Perhaps relevant is the elevation of the location from which the first video to reach public prominence was shot in SW Parand, as Bellingcat used the location and flight data to estimate where the missile intercept occurred. Elevations can be read from online maps

The flight data did not stop after the aircraft was hit by two missiles. As the latest version (archived 18th January) of the NYT article makes clear, it was hit immediately after the last data transmission, and 23 seconds later by the second missile. The first missile knocked out the transponder, but had no effect on its course. The second missile caused the aircraft to catch fire and turn. To be clear the full sequence of events is radar detection by the missile battery (at 19km range according to IRGC Aerospace commander statement, which would put the aircraft having just overflown Parand powerstation, and of the order of 16 seconds flying time before the first missile launches or 34 seconds before it hits, but this timing needs proper confirmation: NYT's latest version of their video of events appears to confirm their estimate of missile launch site as close to 35.5764, 50.8865 ). At 18+seconds after launch, the first missile explodes. The second missile is launched about 12 seconds later, and intercepts about 11+ seconds after launch, giving a 30 second gap between launches and 23 seconds between intercepts. The aircraft turns back towards central Tehran in what can be viewed of the video that covers both the launches, but it takes some seconds before flame can be seen. The other two videos showing the second missile confirm the location of the second missile intercept, in turn confirming that the aircraft maintained course and speed after the first hit.

There is a gap in video coverage until the last minute of the flight, with at least 4 videos offering some evidence but little clarity as to what finally caused the aircraft to lurch, change direction sharply, billow with flame and dive into the ground on a Southerly heading, as the crash site demonstrates. This is one such from the Guardian newspaper This tweet contains another and another in this one plus of course the one from the crash site itself.

Perhaps we can now assemble a more sensible version of the information for the article without reverting to outdated lack of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.185.159 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to put this together. I was aiming to show that the aircraft was headed back toward the airfield. With the citations we have, the aircraft must have been sufficiently damaged to drift rightwards toward the airport coincidentally. The CBC citation of the Ukraine expert says it hurtled to the ground, not all the videos show that, especially . If that video is valid, there's another minute almost plus an unknown gap before.

I hope the facts are established fully, to help avoid another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.194.192 (talk)

Good find of the English subtitled version of the video. Makes it almost like Bohemian Rhapsody, the Queen song! (Bismillah!...) It's unfortunate that on that video a truck is overtaking and obstructing the view during key seconds just before the final dive into the ground. But it does clarify that the plane is coming towards them part way through the video. I would recommend including it as a reference. I think you are exactly right that the plane only appears to be drifting towards the airport coincidentally: indeed, had it remained aloft it might have kept circling had whatever final catastrophic event that sent it to the ground in a dive not occurred. However, we await proper confirmation of such suppositions. There is another video that AFAIK has not been geolocated which might show a different segment of the flight which might or might not add to knowledge about the track. I have tried unconvincingly to estimate the track of the 80 seconds of initial turn from the 2 missile video, whose camera location I have geolocated. NYT went with assuming that it followed a constant radius circle to the crash site heading, but I think the plane altered heading just before crashing. Nothing fit for publication here though.

References

User Iamumar.thegeek

You have been reverting a several people's edits without any justification, even though those editors provide justifications for their edits in their edit summaries. It appears that you've been introducing original research, grammar errors, and non-encyclopedic content into the article (in addition to some helpful edits). Please use this space to explain your reverts of these users' edits. Ketone16 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO. You should be coming here as soon as an edit is contested, not attempting to force it through. VQuakr (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

For the benefit of the discussion, I will add here fuller detail behind my edits that have been subjected to geek treatment.

Most recent edit was to add a fuller version of President Rouhani's statement, including that "missiles fired due to human error caused the horrific crash" with the added ref from NBC news to justify the full text only partly quoted by the BBC. This is relevant because it refers to missiles (plural), which was not admitted by the IRGC until some days later - they only admitted to a missile.

I removed the references to Rich Kids of Tehran (RKoT) and the discussion of the 2 missile video from the "subsequent developments" section, because logically discussion of that video belongs with the others in the section on analysis based on social media.

Social Media Section I added discussion of the 2 missile video to the social media section, which was unceremoniously removed on accusation of inadequate references. I would plan to reinstate that edit with added references that justify its content in full.

I removed the unsubstantiated claim concerning RKoT that is in direct contravention of the information provided by the NYT and Bellingcat on the provenance of the original video, and replaced it with information from the NYT and Bellingcat references. I removed the instagram RKoT reference. If RKoT has relevance, it might be to disseminating information inside Iran that led to protests, which is a different topic. They had nothing to do with the analysis by NYT/Bellingcat that has been substantiated in any way.

Flight and Crash I have previously explained above why it is relevant to include the comment that the flight was on its regular path (as reported in e.g. NYT and demonstrated by Flightradar24's analysis of previous flights) when it turned from its takeoff heading. It confirms the IRGC General's comment that the aircraft did nothing wrong; it provides context against the various early claims that the aircraft had strayed made by the Iranians, and also to the question of the use of the missile radar (on which we have too little information beyond the as yet unverified IRGC claim that the radar spotted the aircraft at a range of 19km to be able to include fully sourced comment here). It offers nothing beyond fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.184.218 (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

We have further edits from this user with now at least rudimentary edit notes. However, the edits are misleading. Working backwards:

23:05 30 Jan: edit replaces a link to the video described in the article text that shows the second missile during flight and the flash from its explosion overhead with a CNN link to video of the actual crash site, which has nothing to do with the text. This appears to be vandalism.

22:04 and 22:02 30 Jan: edit refers to a video that is actually of the last few seconds of the flight, which has been widely covered by the reliable press (e.g. published by the Guardian on 9th January), along with several other videos that show the same portion of the flight. The caption "The actual footage from the moment the #Ukrainian flight was shot down by a Russian-made Tor-M1 missile just moments after takeoff" is entirely wrong (and undermines the credibility of Rich Kids of Tehran as a reliable source). The video is nothing to do with videos of portions of the flight where missile attacks have subsequently been proven and admitted by the Iranians. The reference is therefore unreliable and does not show the moments when Tor missiles were fired at the aircraft. Better verified versions that understand the location and content (or at the least do not mislead) should be used for this portion of the flight.

19:57 30 Jan: edit removes all reference to analysis based on social media (the purpose of the section), and replaces it with a series of references relating to Iran's initial denials of wrongdoing as a contrast to RKoT posting on Instagram. While I would agree that there is a good case for a section on the development of Iran's position (and perhaps too of other key actors) on the various issues surrounding the crash (with providing a useful framework source for that history), it is not here. The main purpose of the edit seems to be to big up RKoT and vandalise other content.

19:40 30 Jan: edit includes some alleged reference to Tonya Harding, which is plainly nothing to do with the topic. It also deletes other relevant references for no good reason.

Until this wrecking editing is resolved, it makes no sense to attempt to put together a proper version. The perpetrator appears to be hijacking the article for the purpose of giving publicity to RKoT. There has been no attempt to discuss the issues here by the perpetrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.184.218 (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Reliable Sources? - Rich Kids of Tehran (RKoT)

Does this source meet the minimum requirements of a reliable source? There appears to be conflicting information added that appears to supersede newer more reliable sources? It seems obvious to me that we should only be using reliable sources of a higher quality when building articles of such high importance, especially when an investigation is still ongoing. Can we get an Admin's view on this? Any about familiar with this issue? I am a bit new and am not aware of all of the policies and guidelines. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.194.192 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Nationality of passengers

Please discuss here before changing the passanger table. This applies especially to Afghan/German asylum seekers, and Canadian/Iranian dual nationality. A source saying 7 Afghans were on the plane, and 48 Canadian-Iranian nationals is welcome. Thank you. Feel free to amend/replace this introductory notice with a better explanation of the problem of your own. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Nationality in the casualty table should reflect the flight manifest. Dual nationality, asylum etc can be reported elsewhere in prose. WWGB (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is that? Is there a policy for that? Also, did you know that Iran considers Iranian citizens to only have Iranian nationality? By that rule, this table would need to be drastically changed, subtracting a lot of Canadians and adding Iranians. I'm not saying to do that, just pointing it out. I am noticing a distinct reluctance to make it clear in this article that nearly all of the passengers were Iranian, regardless of the fact that many of them had dual citizenship in Canada. Again, why is that? Is there a desire to downplay the fact that most victims were Iranian? Darkest Tree Talk 02:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article states quite clearly "Officials confirmed that "at least" 130 people on board were Iranian". I would not call that a "downplay". WWGB (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

also don't forget WP:RECENCYBIAS.213.230.114.47 (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(insert) Re "Nationality in the casualty table should reflect the flight manifest", That sounds like a good idea if the manifest is citeable in support. The manifest would be a WP:Primary source, but citeable as saying whatever it does clearly say. However, the article currently cites [28] to support the figures in the table. That source relies on a statement by Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine's Foreign Minister. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest using Flag Icons in the list of passengers so people can identify the nationalities from a glance. Talkkaris (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Casualties

Nationality	Passengers	Crew	Total
Iranian	82	0	82
Canadian	63	0	63
Ukrainian	2	9	11
Swedish	10	0	10
Afghan	4	0	4
British	3	0	3
German	3	0	3
Total	167	9	176

Note: "Mr Johnson added. He also confirmed that four Britons had died in the disaster, an increase from earlier reports of three British deaths.": [29] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned four Britons in a note and replaced Germans with Afghans per sources by other editors, thanks. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSFLAG, no flags. Mjroots (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Arad Zarei was named as the fourth UK victim: [30]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: the last stable table was clearly anti-Iranian POV; @The Huhsz: you can remove the unverifiable part of the table but don't change the fact that Iran lost at 130 life in the accident. --146.95.190.148 (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on discussion here I would not say that consensus exists to remove this table, so I have restored. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• What a strange idea. We don't need consensus to remove it! We would need consensus that it was useful to keep it. I don't see that. The Huhsz (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• See also #Number of British passengers below. The table over-simplifies and misleads. --The Huhsz (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Restored table. Flights usually get a table. Please explain what exactly is anti-Iranian. The source used is the manifest of the Ukrainian Airlines - what is not neutral about that? The claims of other coutries "correcting" the manifest are also explained in the text/table; this includes Iran: the article says "at least 130". We can add that to the table as well. According to Iranian nationality law "the Iranian government considers dual citizens as Iranian citizens only". This was explained in the article, with a ref but also some unsourced OR, so was removed altogether. Restored that sentence too. With removing the table, useful sourced info (but feel free to explain what exactly was misleading) was removed as well. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the table is useful, neutral and reflects the flight manifest, that is, the passport pax chose to use when boarding. Clarifications and interpretations can continue to be handled by Notes. WWGB (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• So we are clinging to the encyclopedic value of The list is based on Ukrainian sources, with notes indicating confirmed deviations. and There is no corresponding source about the six people said not to be Canadian, so the table cannot be changed, as the total would not add up. Hmmm. --The Huhsz (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• • @The Huhsz: Is there any consensus or policy in Wikipedia that the state of the aircraft company can judge its passengers nationality? --146.95.190.148 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I have not looked back at the conflicting edit - no time - but the following is a comment I had ready to insert before the conflict.

The table note does say that it is based on "Ukranian sources" (without specifics) with notes indicating deviations; at this point I have not looked at those other notes and I don't have time right now. The second paragraph of the section, like the Nationality table, numbers Swedes at 10. It cites three sources, and one of these three (this article in The Telegraph), says that those killed included 10 Swedes, 11 Ukrainians and 3 Germans. That paragraph also says that another source asserted that no Germans were on the aircraft and the table doesn't list Germans. The first paragraph says that ten pax used Afghan passports, five Canadian, four Swedish, and two Ukrainian, citing this source in which the English content below the Persian script does not seem to provide support. I ought to re-read all of that more carefully but, from what I have read there, I don't have any clear idea of the nationalities of the passengers. It seems clear to me that the article needs more work regarding this but at this point I don't have specific suggestions. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I just looked back at my comment above, and see that its intro is confusinng in relation to what follows -- that looks like incomplete editing prior to save on my part. Sorry.

I think that it is that (1) the number of nationalities held by the passengers exceeds the number of passengers and (2) sources making assertions re nationality tend to ignore this and to assign one nationality per pax based on criteria which vary between sources. All of this together is problem in making a table summarizing pax by nationality. I don't think the solution to this problem is finding a source which is qualified to opine definitively re nationality. I propose that the Nationality table be removed and that the Passengers and crew section rewritten to reduce statements of nationality to a cite-supported assertion that statememts re pax nationality by various sources differ from one another, possibly due to some pax holding multiple nationalities. Comments? Disagreements? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Here] I added a bit to the section pointing up the fact that identification of passengers by nationality varies from between sources. I left the Nationality table in place, as it is clearly attributed to one particular source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References