Talk:2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:SAY

I changed "Turkey said" into "Turkey reported" for simple reasons of English: Turkey can't speak. It was changed semi-back into "Turkey says", which IMHO sounds pretty bad, on the basis of WP:SAY; however, I note that apart from superficially looking at the "SAY" shortcut, WP:SAY doesn't actually say that "say" is the only allowed verb. In fact, it lists a few acceptable verbs and a few problematic ones, and it never explicitly lists "report" (which I'd personally deem pretty neutral) among either.

How about at least finding something that doesn't make the sentence grammatically and semantically awkward? LjL (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If Turkey cannot say, Turkey cannot report either. If one construction bothers you, the other should to. If you prefer, you could use "Turkish officials" in the place of "Turkey", though I will note that the metonymic use of a country name for its government is widespread and acceptable in many reliable sources, to the point where I wouldn't worry over its use. In this way. In summation, it shouldn't both you, because it doesn't bother scrupulously reliable sources, but if it DID bother you, and you felt the need to fix it, that's how you'd do it. --Jayron32 21:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You say the "use of a country name for its government" (emphasis mine), but while a government cannot speak and "say" things, a government certainly can report. LjL (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How can it report? Can it report with its vocal cords or use its fingers to type? Again, the objection to one synonym of the word "say" does not make the other "OK." Not that there's any problem with either, but if there were problems with one, the use of a synonym does not remove the problem. --Jayron32 21:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me give some definitions / synonyms of the verb "report" from Wiktionary: to convey, to make a formal statement, formally to notify someone of. In this case (see source), they formally notified the UN. Governments can and often do make such formal statements, because they have members who can say or type things. They cannot, however, say or type things directly. Anyway... have it whatever way you feel like, but "Turkey says" just sounds like what a child would say, not what an encyclopedia would say. LjL (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to "according", which is also recommended by WP:SAY and I think shouldn't be awkward anyone. Ironically, your last sentence contains "not what an encyclopedia would say" even though an encyclopedia can't speak :) HaEr48 (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The irony was entirely intended (however, it was not written on an encyclopedia, but on an encyclopedia's informal talk page). Anyway, thanks for changing the wording, it looks good now. LjL (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath (speculation as of now)

Just a heads up that most of the repercussions are going to be "Aftermath". So to get the ball rolling, should we just hae a section after reactions? That's gonna be the bulk of repercussions. War talk is already under way. (mind you im not saying we create it now but when sourced) Lihaas (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Name of this article

Should this article be renamed as Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown incident in similar manner as 1960 U-2 incident. The article already covers more than just the shootdown e.g. the search and rescue attempt where another Russian soldier was killed and the rescue helicopter allegedly destroyed. Currently the infobox lists as fatalities just one of the pilots, but we already know this incident has claimed at least two, potentially 3 lives.ViperFace (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No need. Its all reated here. Although with the aftermath that could be more.Lihaas (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding "incident" seems redundant but things happen quickly in cases like this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2015

Two clauses in this sentence should be reversed for comprehension:

Current: a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft was shot down near the Syrian-Turkey border area as it was returning to the Khmeimim Air Base by two patrolling Turkish Air Force F-16 fighter jets

Suggested: a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft was shot down near the Syrian-Turkey border area by two patrolling Turkish Air Force F-16 fighter jets as it was returning to the Khmeimim Air Base

Grammar police and thieves (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for suggesting —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Other events

This section makes limited sense to me. The event is entirely unrelated, in a separate location by different actors. In addition, neither of the presented sources links the events. Otherwise we will be listing everything that happened around the Syria-Turkey border that day... If sources tie these two events together in some way (either through analysis or because of a RL link) then it would be worth including. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Its against similar targets by rebel fightrs (the capturing of the pilot is also by rebel fighters).Lihaas (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure; where is your source making that link? If it's you making that link then unfortunately it's original research --Errant ^(chat!) 14:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Per ErrantX, I've removed the section until a source says the events are related, rather than just occurring at the same time. --Jayron32 14:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Better solution...moved it to backgound context.Lihaas (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that's even worse; it's not background at all. :/ It's just not relevant to this article. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's good information, just not relevant to THIS article. May I suggest moving it to an alternate article, perhaps Spillover of the Syrian Civil War? --Jayron32 15:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It is on the same dy at the border involving Russians...Lihaas (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There are billions of other things that occurred on the same day. Unless a reliable source says it was related to (as in caused, was an effect of, or was connected in any other way) to this event, we should not report it as such. That two events happen in nearby locations are not sufficient to establish causation. --Jayron32 15:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How many things on the same day near the Turkish border involving ATTACKS on Russian state employees?Lihaas (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Find a source that says they are related. --Jayron32 15:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What is backround? its ocontedxt. That's what all background sections are about. Look at such articles.Lihaas (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

An event that happened almost simultaneously can't be "background" because it can hardly have had an influence. I echo the others: add information only with sources backing its relevance to the topic at hand. LjL (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well then it should be in a related section as "other events"

anyhoo , @Jayron32: the current background has a hodgeposh of a bunch of stuff that is not related as you said above. Ill remove that then in accordance wth your view above (note- ive accepted consensus and not added it back, even though I thinks its related).Lihaas (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

pCheck it. Okey? Or remove some more?Lihaas (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Just found a link b/w the two.Lihaas (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

At some point, the infobox was changed from "military conflict" to "aircraft occurrence". This seemed appropriate to me, given Turkey and Russia aren't (yet!) at war, and the military infobox actually calls them "Belligerents".

However, this was undone later, and now we have an infobox that suggests a war between these two countries. Thoughts? LjL (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think that we need this infobox, at least, in the way the information is structured there. It seems like indicating that Russia and Turkey entered in a military conflict with armed forces on the both sides, which is absolutely untrue.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above, see how the Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down and 2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan pages are structured. These were obviously the results of hostile military situations, but still use the infobox for a airline incident. It should be noted that Turkish authorities did not even know the plain was Russian until after it was shot down. How then could they be identified as belligerents? While it was not an accident by any means, the situation may need more clarification before the infobox should be changed from an airline incident. TransHAJAI (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles about air to air combat events (called dogfights), usually use the conflict infobox. The exampless you mentioned did not involve air to air combat, this incident does. Furthermore this is a combat incident that involved more than just the shootodown, there was combat on the ground between the russians and turkmen rebels as well and this is not reflected in the incident type infobox. The incident infobox is not reflective of the size of the forces involved, while the conflict infobox does. The term Belligerents in the context of the infobox is equivelent to combatants. Though in fact turkey and russia are both belligerent powers in the Syrian Civil War and have been before this incident, both turkish and russian militaries have undertaken combat operations (namingly air attacks) in Syria. As i stated in my edit summary, the conflict type infobox is commonly used for these types of incidents, as well as battles, skirmishes, and other incident involving combat. See for example Air_battle_over_Merklín, Atlantique incident, T-39_Aircraft_Incident, Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1989), Gulf of Sidra incident (1981), Operation Vengeance, Ofira Air Battle, Hainan Island incident, just to name a few.XavierGreen (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There are already two fatalities arising from this incident. One pilot and a marine participating in the rescue attempt are confirmed to be dead [1]. The infobox should list all casualties related to this incident, not just the pilots of the jet. Please fix this. ViperFace (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I did it by myself. Please fix it if there's more conventional way of doing this. ViperFace (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with recent restoration of conflict infobox, as shootdown infobox seems more appropriate. The main problem is that by declaring Turkey and Russia belligerents we step into WP:OR. Even considering all prior tensions between Russia and Turkey, they don't fight against each other in Syrian Civil War or anti-ISIL intervention and there were no prior preparations to that alleged combat. Brandmeister^talk 18:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There was never such a thing as a "shootdown infobox" in the article, though: it was Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence, a much more generic infobox. Even though I initially raised this issue, I am relatively convinced now by User:XavierGreen's arguments. If several articles about similar incidents have used Template:Infobox military conflict, there are probably merits t it. If anything, it might be worth tweaking the template itself to use less terminology that's less reminescent of an open, declared war, like "belligerents". LjL (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I know, just used another word. Per Template:Infobox_military_conflict#Usage and as it's name suggests, it's intended primarily for battles, campaigns, wars, or group of related wars. This particular incident is none of them and is not technically a military conflict. Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence instead can generate the relevant Shootdown summary. Brandmeister^talk 18:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Combat betwee

Incidents involving Aerial combat (ie dogfights), falls within the general usage of the conflict infobox, see for example Air_battle_over_Merklín, Atlantique incident, T-39_Aircraft_Incident, Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1989), Gulf of Sidra incident (1981), Operation Vengeance, Ofira Air Battle, Hainan Island incident, just to name a few similar instances where it is used.XavierGreen (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Brandmeister, the term belligerents refers to the combatant states involved in the incident in question, which indeed are Turkey and the Turkmen Brigades on one side and Russia on the other. No OR is involved, all of the sources clearly state that both countries were involved in this incident. As i mentioned above and as noted by user:LjL, there have been a myriad of similar incidents of air to air combat in the past and the vast majority of the pages on such incidents use the conflict infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

In this particular case Russia is not a belligerent, as there are currently no indications of its hostile intentions in Turkey (and, specifically, to engage Turkish jets). The surviving weapon systems officer also claims he didn't receive any Turkish warnings before shootdown (although that has yet to be proven). Brandmeister^talk 19:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The original intentions of the russians are meaningless in this regard, the fact that there were two military forces pitted against each other in the incident warrants the miitary conflict box. The incident box does not reflect such relevant facts as the size and composition of the forces engaged and the particular parties involved. Also it is evident that some type of combat occured beyond even the brief dogfight between the SU-24 and the two F-16s. There are a whole range of different articles which use the military conflict infobox for similar incidents involving "out of the blue" encounters such as this. See for example the Hainan Island incident, T-39_Aircraft_Incident, Air_battle_over_Merklín, and Atlantique incident i mentioned above.XavierGreen (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2015

{{Syrian Civil War map}}

Conquers (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Crucial but muddy sentence

   The 1st sent after intro reads

According to Turkey, the aircraft was shot down in Turkish airspace, which it violated up to a depth of 2.19 kilometres (1.36 miles) for about 17 seconds, after being warned to change its heading 10 times.

It may be either most, or second most, important sent in the article, but at the least its syntax is too ambiguous. I read it as stating the same facts as

According to Turkey, the aircraft was shot down in Turkish airspace. The aircraft violated that airspace up to a depth of 2.19 kilometres (1.36 miles) for about 17 seconds, after being warned to change its heading 10 times.

i.e., asserting as fact two things that, like the shoot-down location, can't yet be independently confirmed. At best careful readers are stumbling over the sentence, and rereading it, to see that the depth and duration are nearly as likely as the shootdown to be pending confirmation, and maybe rereading again -- if they even focus long enuf to notice that certainty about the warnings also hasn't been explicitly claimed or disclaimed.
   Here's my quick and dirty rewrite:

Turkish authorities report, of the Russian aircraft:

that it was shot down in Turkish airspace;

that violation of that airspace lasted 17 seconds and included penetration to a depth of 2.19 kilometres (1.36 miles);

that its crew had been warned 10 times to change its heading.

(Tho i said "10 minutes" at one point, i now recall dividing five minutes by 10, and deducing "at 30-second intervals".)
   My understanding/assumption, tho i don't think it belongs in the article -- let the reader draw the conclusion, or not -- is that each warning was (either or both)

• that they already were violating international safety protocols by being too close to the border off to their north, in terms of international standards for avoiding unintended incursions, misperceptions of incursion, and/or avoidable conflict,
• (at least implicitly) that if the SU failed to alter course, it would reach a point where the Turkish pilots would

conclude the SU was violating Turkish airspace,

believe international law justified them in attacking the SU with intent to destroy it, and

do so.

--Jerzy•t 21:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The sentence seems fine to me. You "transformed" it into separate sentences, making it seem like only the first part is "according to Turkey", but in fact, it's clear enough from the original (single) sentence that it's all "according to Turkey" - which is what the sentence starts with. LjL (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I have reverted, as it's not written in prose, as per MoS. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Consistency

Try to keep your measurements/conversions consistent throughout the article. For instance, in the lead it says "1.36 miles (2.19 km)" and then in the Reactions section it says "2.19km (1.36 miles)" and "1.85km (1.15 miles)". There is no conversion for 1,000 metres in the lead, nor is there a conversion for one kilometre in the 3rd para in the Shootdown section.173.218.58.224 (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

use statistics and add covariance to the disribution of data points. Using multivariable corelation one may identify factor biasing the measurment. This is general scientific methods but since intel data are not acesible and network of agent in media not easily tracable sicientific metod is somhow limited since it is based on repetitions of measurments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Turks or Turkmen

Why u call Turks in Syria have -man added in name ? They are not Turkmen terrorists from Turkmenistan which is very far away a palace behind seven mountain range. Change it to proper name of the Turkey People?

Syrian Turkmen is the proper name for ethnic Turks in Syria. No relation to Turkmen of Turkmenistan origin. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

well you picked one of 4. Called as Turks in Syria or Syrian Turks which is copy where your link direct. Is this Trurkmen word to higlight the fact that they mass migrated to Syria throught land of Turkmenistan around 10 century ? So why the people controled sometime by Seljuk Turks are caled here as folks from from Turkmenistan? . Wikipedia is not a source and picking up one of 4 names is antisamentic POV. (against the semantic) . It is not OK to blame other nation which is very far away a palace behind seven mountain range. Anyway they call themsesm Türkleri not Turoman's.

The English Wikipedia uses English words that are in common use and/or widely employed by reliable sources. Your personal views have nothing to do with any of this. LjL (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

So you saing Turks is not a common name. But Turkmen is now name for Turks ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No. This is not about "Turks" or "Turkmen", but "Syrian Turks" or "Syrian Turkmen". Feel free to check Google Books hits for either phrase (in quotes). LjL (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Re Comon use. One diging the wikipedia history may see is far from common. Turks was the comon name but changed in 2007 and the only source there usesd (not available) is titled "Turks in Syria" not Turkmen. So unsourced change around 2007 to propagate new name[2]. many edits/moves [3] [4][5][6][7] some centered around 11/26 [8] indicate lack of unquestionable consensus. Parallel development of name change in Iraqi Turkmen (used as argument in change Turks to Turkman) starts with redirect to unsourced new in 2006 article.

What about, in order to be neutral, to use older (before Buches) sources to avoud war building lie or circular wikip media wikip references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"Common" is not about what Wikipedia used before, it's about what the English language and reliable sources use. LjL (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You just repiting yourself but you are not providing any sources. I showing there was not to much sources or concesnsus when the articles was build asumng if there were sources nobody will be using so obscure refersnces. See also Fallacy of composition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty much clear (or should that be unclear) from the Syrian Turkmen article that there is complete confusion about who and what is being talked about. The 1930s French ethnographic map in the article separates "Turcomans" (the ones who are the subject of the article, and the ones who are being talked about here) from "Turkmenes" and from "Turcs". Some proper neutral sources are needed (i.e., sources that predate the Syrian Civil War period and sources which are not advocating for particular ethnic groups) to clarify things. I have also noted some news reports (such as the BBC, displaying its typical high standards [9]) that use the exact wording used on Wikipedia, suggesting that they are just lifting their info from here. So caution should be held when citing current news reports. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

1.36 miles (2.19 km) for about 17 seconds, after being warned to change its heading 10 times

do you get impresion Newton's laws of motion are freefall violated? Please fix it. 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that clarification of your question would be nice. dschslava 07:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twomcvms (talk • contribs)

The allegation proves its wrong because mathematically the jet would have to be going way faster than it was/can to do so. (that's a WP problem of blindly parroting media nonsense).Lihaas (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you show your calculation and why it is impossible? HaEr48 (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Simple math really...calculate mph if you want

at ny rate, i was clarifying the OP. not adding it to the page.Lihaas (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

do it realy make a sense apply motions equation? Just add to the art the distance on Turkish map it is ~ 3 km. Anybody on bike know he can travel 3 km in 5 minutes (36km/h). Even if he was warned 10 times of speeding too fast. But military jet LOL. The truth is the first casualty of war but prawda jak oliwa zawsze na wierzch wypływa . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

According to my math, 1.36 miles in 17 seconds would be 288 mph/463 km/h. The Sukhoi Su-24 goes 1.35 mach (1027 mph/1,654 km/h) over land. So >300 mph sure is leisurely. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The figure was the depth of the incursion, not the total distance traveled, so dividing depth/time traveled doesn't make sense here. For example, you can fly 2 kilometers deep inside the border and then travel parallel to the border. This way, you can fly for hours and still be within 2 kilometer of the border. HaEr48 (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, the speed quoted is the top speed at high altitude. At sea level the top speed is 1,315 km/h. Furthermore, this it the *top* speed, not the cruising speed. The plane could have been flying slower than top speed for a number of reasons. Observer31 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not gonna take the time to understand the issue in the immediately preceding dispute in detail, but could it be the disagreement reflects an editor not realizing that warnings delivered during something like 10 minutes were about being too close to the border and/or on course to violate the border, while clearly roughly paralleling the border, before the claimed incursion that (if real) legally justified the shootdown? That (unlike actually crossing, which has been respectively claimed and denied) was not legal cause for firing, but would have been a serious violation of conflict-avoidance protocols. It may be the warning implicitly or explicitly was about being on course to violate the border (with actual crossing of it being adequate cause for firing, especially after the warnings, but i think only until it crossed back out of Turkish airspace). In practice, confirmation that the warnings were given as claimed, and were on the proper frequency, would put the Russians in a lousy position, whether or not the missile was fired while the SU was inside Turkey and whether or not it was still inside when the missile hit it: the protocols are there to prevent mistakes, and it appears Russ were reckless in failing to err on the side of caution, even if it turns out the Turks also screwed up.
--Jerzy•t 20:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to invoke WP:NOTFORUM... whoops, I just did it. LjL (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

formum no forum but the insane wording has been removed so as was my goal to higlight it. Althought it may be added back becouse if law of physic were violated criminal law need to be invoked. Maybe we can makke a section on how the story was medialy pearded or in separate article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

well it lasted for moment, now you go araund in header "..in Turkish airspace, which it violated up to a depth of 2.19 kilometres (1.36 miles) for about 17 seconds, after being warned to change its heading 10 times.[5][6]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: that's why I added the tag above thi page.Lihaas (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Neutral does not mean "non-controversial". It's accepted that Turkmen were restricted under Assad's regime and that Turkey opposes Assad. I have provided a source as such. Why is it non-neutral? --Errant ^(chat!) 09:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Accepted by who? That's a POV. and so is the wording

as per above the background section needs direct relevance. Jayron32 just asked for that above when I tried adding something. Bit hypocrticial to cheery pick.Lihaas (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry what? Turkmen rebels are directly relevant... and the sources are all clear about that... The content you wanted to add has not been linked to this event at all. So, no, not hypocritical or cherry picked. Just to remind you that NPOV does not mean "no POV" it means not our POV and to treat things fairly: which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.. Turkey says it opposes Assad, Russia says it supports him. Turkmen were subjected to repression, as reported by RS. This is all fine. What you actually seem to be saying is "you removed my content so I am removing yours". Please restore the content. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

NPOV, UNLESS you mention Saudi and usa/nato arms drops anddn dfunding on the other side; why is that relevant? Suadi arabia is not involved in this incident, nor is the US. and the sources are not mentioning them in this context (which is the important point). Now, clearly that content is relevant in other articles but here we are establishing the background of disagreement between Turkey and Russia.... I'm actually quite concerned that you're bringing a strong POV to this area (especially reviewing your user page) so I am going to suggest you to stop editing the article and just use the talk page, I think that's safest. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The other side is as relevant as you showing their status of where they stand on the Syrian civil war. Then show all sides. The wording of your historical interpretation is not NPOV.

That said witgh different wordng it could fit, IMO.Lihaas (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you please clearly explain why it is not reflecting the significant views as published in reliable sources? (e.g. what is not NPOV about it) For my benefit. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

for one your use of the word "regime". secondly you have not mentioned the Turkish "regimes" backing.Lihaas (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Is regime a non-neutral term? It seems to be in liberal use in sources to mean "the official government" during a civil conflict. But sure, happy have disagreement over that, and to use a different word... (question: why didn't you just address the word if that was the problem?). "secondly you have not mentioned the Turkish "regimes" backing"; sorry I don't understand this. Turkey is anti-Assad and backing the Turkmen. Russia is backing Assad and (as we already say..) against anti-Government forces. As I read it so far we are now only mentioning that very last point... how is that NPOV exactly? --Errant ^(chat!) 11:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Not instrisically but its pejorative. What do youo propose instead? looks ike we can easily resolve thus.Lihaas (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I can buy that argument. FWIW I'd say it's negative, not pejorative, in that it's used related to Authoritarian or Dictatorial govts. which sources say Assad's is. But I'm not so sold on the word that it matters. See below for proposal. I also think it's worth clarifying that Russia support Assad, for balance (I agree my attempt to do this was jarring contextually). Any ideas on that? --Errant ^(chat!) 11:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be mentioned as it's relevant - the Turkmen (not ISIS) are the ones who (reportedly) murdered the Russian pilot by shooting him while he parachuted, which is a war crime. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well there were also western monitors at the election (I actually met Armeninan las summer). but I guess were basically agrred.Lihaas (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

proposed text

Ethnic Turks, known as Turkmen, have lived in Syria for hundreds of years. Under the government of Bashar al-Assad their culture and language was restricted. The Syrian civil war broke out in 2011 following an armed uprising, leading to the formation of numerous rebel forces in the country. In 2012, following encouragement from Turkey,Turkmen formed their own armed brigades in opposition to Assad, loosely affiliated with other rebels such as the Free Syrian Army. In the Latakia Province they formed the Jabal al-Turkman Brigade.

Propose: "Syrin government" or "Syria" (but others wont agree, so agreed on consensus?)...its not the fiefdom of an individual. Otherwise id relucantly accede.Lihaas (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so sure it isn't according to sources which very much cast it as an Assad government (which it is, really). For example, the BBC source in this case: "Under the Assad regimes in Syria, the Turkmen were banned from publishing or writing in Turkish. The government did not recognise them or other ethnic groups as minorities, preferring to stress the unity of the Arab nation.". We must be careful not to editorialise, just because a phrasing is negative doesn't mean it's a problem. By dumbing down content we violate NPOV; remember NPOV is about not applying our voice. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I've popped it back (using Syrian government, as requested), as I think we're in agreement? --Errant ^(chat!) 13:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think having this blurb, especially as the very first thing in "Background", slants the article towards a view that Turkey had a right to be "upset". As I see it, the history of Turkmens is prominent "background" only as far as Turkey's stance is concerned, for the time being. LjL (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's hard because usually background is done chronologically, and it is one of the earliest things. I think ideally the section should start by mentioning the start of the civil war, Turkey entering it, Turkmen background, Turkish jet shootdown, then Russian involvement and finally the Russia/Turkey dispute of recent months. I'm totally happy to rephrase, expand and improve; I lacked a good source earlier summarising Turkey's involvement in the war which is begging to start the section. Perhaps drop the sentence about being repressed? --Errant ^(chat!) 19:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

BBC source is unusable - its content is derived from Wikipedia. Same for the one on VOX. So this proposed content cannot be added because it is unsourced.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidence please? LjL (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

References

BTW- I just minr tweaked the OP.Lihaas (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Deletion of maps

Why were both of the maps removed as copyright violations? The Russian Defense Ministry map image is protected by a license which includes "news reports on events and facts". SkoraPobeda (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering the same. To me it looks like those should fulfill the fair use criteria, but who knows. ViperFace (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Firebrace (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Woops, the Turkish one was straight from th media iearly in the day. Def Min probably isn't. Lihaas (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll put it back on. SkoraPobeda (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If somebody is feeling creative, maybe one can create a map with both countries' claims superimposed. Release the map with an appropriate license, then we don't have to deal with copyright issues.. HaEr48 (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Ask at WP:Maps , theyre very helpful. You just need to add the links to the two and they can get something.Lihaas (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Added a request here HaEr48 (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

At this moment there is the Russian depiction of events illustrated, but not the Turkish one. I think until it's clear which one is correct (and we may never know...) both or none should be shown. Observer31 (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No issue with both, but it cant be copyvio.Lihaas (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I can do a superimposition tomorrow, combining two maps. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that the accuracy of both maps is disputed, with both sides using them to push their case, it seems a violation of NPOV to include only one of them - if even on copyright grounds. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no copyright ground to delete the maps. This falls squarely under #9 of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images: "Images that are themselves subject of commentary". It is obvious that any Wikipedian-created replacement would not be as informative as showing the actual claim maps released by the parties, which is also an important point for claiming fair use. And the images have no commercial value, just to pile on the reasons for why this is an obvious case of fair use. Thue (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely, and it's good to see that the Turkish map is back. A very strong fair use claim can be made for the Turkish image. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, we should still wait for a better one. User:WikimandiaLihaas (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as copyright issues are concerned, I think we should remember that *both* the Russians and the Turks would want their versions of event spread far and wide, there really isn't any doubt that permission would be granted. So please let's keep both Observer31 (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just reverted the removal of the Turkish map. While the reason given for its removal was that it was a copyright violation, it's covered by what I think is a very strong fair use claim given that the map has been the subject of significant discussion and is very important in helping readers understand Turkey's account. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

My mistake - I didn't realise that there was now a usable map. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No probs.

My bad first time as it was copyvio free and admin readded. We just go the new WP one that covers both ;)Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Background

Is there any particular reason why the background section should mention anything about French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91)? I can't see the relevance to this article, but I'm hesitant to remove it as I got reverted earlier, although it might have been an accidental revert. Lihaas, was it you who reverted me? I have had two notifications of you reverting my edits, but you seemed to self-revert yourself with the latest one. There's so much activity right now that I can't keep up with what is happening. ViperFace (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The same reason as the above was put in, if you must. There was an increase in tensions in the region this week. Which is the background purpose.

I took it off for now. Don't remember if it was me.Lihaas (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! There has certainly been increase in tension, but Russia has been minding its own business in the area well before the Paris attacks and French presence in the area will likely change nothing with that respect. ViperFace (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The relevant background here is broadly between Russia and Turkey - the France/IS axis is somewhat related, but not directly to this topic (remember; the civil war is bigger than just IS). There has been increasing tension between Turkey and Russia recently. Turkey objects to Russian bombing of Turkmen rebels (we don't cover this yet) and it alleges civilians in N. Syria. It is also anti-Assad whilst Russia is pro-Assad. Finally;Turkey is super protective of its borders and airspace, and has been for decades. For reasons historical and political. They've threatened to shoot down planes in its airspace for years and have been pretty much waiting for a chance to prove that it will. There is a lot of context here, but not involving France. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright lets stick with directly relevant then. (as per above)

We can always review it when the next World War gets way in earnest ;)Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone referenced 2 youtube videos, and while technically they can prove things, should they be referenced?(HarryKernow) (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2015 (CT)

I removed the entire paragraph. The YouTube videos are, at best, very WP:PRIMARY sources, which, in practice, we cannot interpret on our own at all. We need actual sources to talk about their content. Aside from those videos, anyway, the paragraph was entirely unsourced, with several claims that went beyond anything that those videos could show. LjL (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Currently the section has this paragraph: "Turkmen formed their own armed brigades in opposition to Assad, loosely affiliated with other rebels such as the Free Syrian Army. In the Latakia Province they formed the Jabal al-Turkman Brigade." This brigade is not mentioned in Syrian_Turkmen_Brigades#Brigades_of_Turkmen_Mountain_in_Latakia. Should we change the paragraph in some way that we could link to that section or mention this group in the other article? Having a wikilink to that specific section would be useful to readers, me thinks. ViperFace (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Youtube is not inherently wrong because many RS use youtube.

It's certainly not inherently right, either, especially when it's about raw video footage of action without an analysis by actual WP:RS. By the way, would you mind starting to WP:SIGN your messages? --LjL (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@ViperFace: go ahead. Or propose it here ither way be BOLD.Lihaas (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiar with the separate groups or brigades. I might look into this, but to me it would be very time consuming. If someone already has knowledge about current groups operating in the area, they could do this relatively easily. The references in that other article are dated to 2013. I'd assume that some groups have merged and are currently operating under different names.

First Russian jet shot down by NATO since 1950s

What about the migs piloted by Soviets shot down by US air force during Vietnam war? Boom Digity (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If planes didn't have Soviet markings, they don't count. Firebrace (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Inclined to agree with both. But those could be added with sources/caveats.Lihaas (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. Firebrace (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Whats origina:/?Lihaas (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's OR because the sources being cited don't specify what they mean. Though presumably they are talking about the Korean War period. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

What about the SU moon program shot down by move US-moolanding. Several SU spacecraft were shot down by this or one can even say grounded. But do you know SU do not exist? So first RU plane . Also it do not appear to be done by NATO rather by some rouge shadow elements in NATO country or countries (+/or some ME countries). NATO officially still do not seem to prove starting hot WW3 by sidelining with terrorist supporters. Even if it my not work because in NATO countries or structures are people who want to live. 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay now, this is not a forum to discuss unproven theories or anything like that. Let's drop it. LjL (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

extinguishing the fire that is burning in Syria

change/clarify

"urkey has the right "to take all kinds of measures" against border violations as a "national duty," but that it did not amount to an aggression against any foreign territory and the country called for NATO to hold an extraordinary meeting later in the day.[64] {insert} He {put name} further called for working towards "extinguishing the fire that is burning in Syria."[61]"

Propose:

...because coalition[][][] hit thousand[] of oil tankers which ship stolen[] by ISIS Syrian[] oil to Turkey[] ... called for "extinguishing the fire that is burning in Syria." (+ eventually} so Edrogan son[] can continue profiteering on terror.

In the hit add refs+ nomber of tankers Ru Us and Fr hit. Attention PBS show Ru hits as Us valor.

I don't understand a word of this... LjL (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

do spelcheck im driving please. Perhaps my sentence has more than 4 words?

ffs Maybe your driving license has more than three points?? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Driving?! Seriously... Anyway it's your onus to make yourself understood and take care to write decent English, not mine to interpret your broken sentences. You're filling this talk page with barely-parseably gibberish and it's not a lot of fun. LjL (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

7 misspelled words, but computer have higher-IQ :) 99.90.196.227 (talk)

Even ignoring your (you're still the same user as before with a different address, right?) repeated attempts at insulting my intelligence, your text still makes no discernible sense. Perfect English is not required, but at least try not to be arrogant about your lack of it, hmm? LjL (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That's pretty stupid. What you are going to tell the police when you kill someone. "Please, officer... I was just trying to build an encyclopedia whilst driving." ViperFace (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the IP wants to add something about the strikes where Russia destroyed around 100 ISIL tank trucks carrying oil. If that is the case it does not belong to this article. Putin hinted that the ISIS oil eventually goes to the market through Turkey, but I'm not sure if there's any WP:RS that says this explicitly. ViperFace (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

so what (if not oil tankers or smuggled oil) is the fire that is burning in Syria ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I took the "fire burning in Syria" to mean the Syrian Civil War generally. A crisis, like a building burning down. Legacypac (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian press briefing

Nov.26 press briefing from the Russian side here, has some interesting claims/statements that could perhaps be added/sourced:

• 0:14 - the rescue operation lasted 12 hours
• 0:23 - besides the Russian search team, there were also "militants and a number of other units equipped with special purpose locators" who were searching for the surviving Russian pilot. After the Russians successfully rescued their pilot, the "terrorists" and the "other mysterious groups" were "eliminated" by heavily bombarding the area. Any thoughts on who those "other mysterious groups" could be?
• 2:19 - On Nov. 25, the Russian military attache visited the General Staff of the Turkish Armed forces and asked for the recordings of the "alleged radio talks between the crew of the Turkish F-16 fighter and the pilots of the Russian Su-24 bomber on November 23. The Russian military representative was informed that there was no possibility to hand over the materials concerning the attack of the Turkish F-16 fighter on the Russian aircraft on November 23. Moreover, representatives of the Turkish General Staff stated that they had not published any of those materials in the media." The Russians claim that this means that the tapes published by the media are fakes, sourced from "unspecified sources or other radio enthusiasts".
• 4:27 - all channels of communication between the Russian and Turkish militaries, including hotlines, have been closed.
• 5:11 - S400 air defense system has been "deployed and put on combat duty in the Hmeymim airbase"
• 6:14 - at 10am on Nov.25, the Moskva Guards missile cruiser arrived to the Latakia shore in order to perform air defense of the Russian base.

Esn (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to Boldly add what yu want. We can then work from there.Lihaas (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Alpaslan Celik, Turkish neo-nazi, Grey Wolf, IS-Terrorist

Alparslan Çelik, the commander of the Turkmen unit circulating around the news where he said he and his men shot at the Russian pilots, is a Turkish citizen. He is from Keban district of Elazığ province. From Turkish neo-nazist Grey Wolf movement. Son of ex-mayor. Openly admitted to committing an act which violated the Geneva Conventions. On camera.

• http://www.dha.com.tr/mhpli-eski-baskanin-oglu-savasmak-icin-iraka-gitti_715269.html
• http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/11/24/turkmen-says-his-forces-killed-two-russi?videoId=366438602
• http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/nov/24/turkmen-rebels-say-they-shot-at-russian-pilots-ejected-from-downed-jet-video
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xbxdAbUfNg
• http://www.harputtv.com.tr/Hbr-2894-Turkmen-Cephesinde-Bir-Elazigli.html
• http://www.sonnokta23.com/haber-7842-isid_ile_savasmaya_giden_alparslanin_babasi_konustu.html

-- --91.10.23.69 (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Certainly notable.

Feel free to add it.Lihaas (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

current event tag

Although the event itself is done, the media coverage and political fallout continue to evolve, so I have added the {{current}} tag to the top of the article to reflect that the coverage of this event is not static. It can be removed when the article becomes more stable. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  12:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I personally agree with you, but WP reasons for the tag mean several edit a day.Lihaas (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Other governmental bodies

That section really needs to be cleaned up--it's more or less unreadable at this pint. I'm not sure if there's another page specially devoted to international reactions to this incident, but if there is, all of this needs to be moved. Or we can just clean it up. Twomcvms (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but what way do you want it changed?Lihaas (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose we could break the paragraph up into little pieces. We could also make a list-thing like that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2011_military_intervention_in_Libya, complete with little flags and all. That could be done on a separate article or in the section itself. Twomcvms (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Views of Retired Army Major General Paul Vallely

I've just removed the lengthy material presenting the views of "Retired Army Major General Paul Vallely". There's no indication of who he is or why his views are significant, especially to be presented in such detail, and the source is PressTV which isn't reliable anyway. He also appears to be something of a crank given that he's claiming that Turkey is somehow not really a member of NATO but also calling for it to be kicked out of NATO. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

From Googling him, I presume that he's Paul E. Vallely, a Fox News commentator. I'm still not seeing a reason to include this, especially in detail and presented alongside the views of national leaders and senior ministers. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Army Major General" is "no indication of who he is"? Are you serious?l

In that case, if Press TV is not reliable, then we cant use BBC an NYT for blatant;y LYING about the reports. (oh, 12 years ago for one big example_).

His credential speak for itself and being a "crank" because you don't agree, just proves the disingenuity of your appeal even if it were not to pass.

Nevertheless, he s notable enough for WP. TRIM the quote if you need be.Lihaas (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Not retired Army Major General Arthur Streeb-Greebling, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just about every security/defence commentator world wide is presenting their opinions of this crisis, and I don't think that this is very helpful to readers. If we went down that path I could add in the views of half a dozen or so Australian security commentators which have appeared in the local media, to the interest of probably no-one. Being a retired mid-tier general obviously doesn't make you an undisputed expert on international affairs, and your comments about sourcing are a bit odd to put things mildly. Why are you repeating the nonsense that because someone has a Wikipedia article their views have to be included? Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D:, most of them do not come straight out of the Armed Forces. Im sure there are views on both sides and they should be added too.

And so should turkeys suppression of the media recently

because theyre notable by WP. Others aren't. and Major General is not "mid-tiered"Lihaas (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Only retired general can make any comments. We wont here honest opinion of any working general since they are prohibited to express own opinions. This is obvious for any military except perhaps group on rebellion. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkey clarify own misleading statement

" EU: “17 seconds in Turkish airspace, is that really a reason to shot down a plane?”

Turkey NATO ambassador: “If you take into account the total length of their stay in our airspace, you have to multiply it by 4. So I mean if you just confine it to 17 seconds, that would be misleading, [10]...” "

Do it mean because there was 2 planes then travel distance must to be multiplexed by 4 ? Coming out and returning? We known already avionic mathematics is challenging, not 2=2 but rather 2=3. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to take sides in this issue, but having some familiarity with flying, I suspect that what was meant was that if the aircraft's pilot had, at that exact moment, decided to turn around and leave, the total time in Turkish airspace would have been multiplied by four (unless the aircraft were to speed up or exit via a different route). In any case, if the situation were reversed and a Turkish military aircraft were to enter into Soviet airspace, in an area with active defenses available, I doubt that it would be given much more time than this before being shot at. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  12:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

We have Turk map (the IS-black one). It claim straight fly path over distance ~3 km. Over turkey valley. We need add to the map description self contradicted by Turkey gov. No muss, no fuss. No muss lime lye lie.

No, we don't. That would be WP:OR. Also, please sign your posts. LjL (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you consider OR ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If we don't have a reliable source claiming that Turkey self-contradicted, we can't claim that Turkey self-contradicted. See also WP:SYNTH about attempts to make own conclusions from separate sources (like the map and government statements). LjL (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it synthesis because in African countries army is over government? But if Turkey gov may be synthesis. What if we put Turkey NATO ambassador contradict Turkey Army map. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

What...? No. It is synthesis because it is making own conclusions from multiple sources. Plain and simple. LjL (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

So how those Turkish sourced fly paths (in 2 sources) do not contradict each other? What about using Template:Contradict? Will be beneficial apply here inconsistency-tolerant logic reasoning? And put as a minimum - 17 seconds is misleading - as in above Turkey Nato ambassador sourced statement?99.90.196.227 (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

done broked the reference!

But to be serious, there is a broken reference note that needs to be addressed. I hate flashing red text - it tends to trigger my metabolic transformation into ... PUNY HUMANS! HULK SMASH! 98.67.0.254 (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Should be fixed shoots tranquilizer. LjL (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Placement of the sections

It seems that chronologically, the "Aftermath" section goes on top of the "Reactions" section, so I've placed it there for now. epic genius (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well not chronologically, but ok.Lihaas (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Please remove non-facts

This edits claims to "add the facts"; however, there is no citation given to show that the mission was to attack Syrian Turkmen. I'm avoiding reverts on this article because I've already made a revert less than 24h ago (and others are being reported for benign reverts of this kind on articles with WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sactions), but this shouldn't stay. LjL (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I took that out [11] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. LjL (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wheres 1RR? THERES not note on this page.Lihaas (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, I've been (repeatedly) informed that the absence of a note does not make an article or its editors exempt. This article talks about Syria and ISIL, so I'm pretty sure the editors who are in favor of these sanctions would consider it under their scope. LjL (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There is this: "Turkey’s Foreign Ministry says it has summoned the Russian ambassador demanding that Russia cease operations in Syria targeting Turkmen villages." [12] Of course we may never know the true intent of government/military operations, but "cease operations in Syria targeting Turkmen villages" implies they had at least once targeted Turkmen villages. Be it what it may.

What have Ukraine statement to do with global stock market?

IF it may do something with it change as I did. If nothing remove it. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Reactions

Are we already starting with the never-ending series of international reactions, even though there was a comment asking not to do that, which was subsequently removed? Now I see reactions from Czech politicians. Seems pretty random. LjL (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Im the one who made the comment, I am trying my best to avoid another "International reactions to..." debate. (Last one for those interested [13]). If you, or any other editors want to make an international reactions separate article complete with tiny flags go ahead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we should include only the most relevant reactions; Turkey, Russia, EU and US. Volunteer Marek  20:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, really, NATO (esp. Turkey) and Russia. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And instead, here we go with the little flags... let's start the dance! LjL (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it usually leads to really disjointed prose and literally has no usefulness. But better maybe to wait till people lose interest in the subject to rewrite it properly. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need these? Probably writing about Russian and Turkish reactions is fine, but the other countries will just say something "appropriate" but not really informative. HaEr48 (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You are entirely right. FWIW in the future it would almost certainly be possible simply to not have a reactions section. It's bad structure because you're out of the chronology of the piece, and now we have subsequent events the ordering is awkward to say the least. As you say; reactions from anyone but NATO command, Turkey and Russia are mostly going to be routine. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we propose a Wikipedia policy to discourage "Reactions" section except from directlyy involved parties? That way, next time something happens we can just cite the policy to directly remove the boring reactions. HaEr48 (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You can try, but there were just recently several "Reactions" articles (WP:SPINOUT articles, not simple sections) nominated for deletion, and they were virtually all kept (some as WP:SNOW) with wide support. On the flipside, that does mean there was previously support for separating many of those "Reactions" sections into their separate article, without cluttering the main one... LjL (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That was my intention, it is never too early to start a reactions section in prose. I consider this article successful as editors managed to keep the reactions section from becoming a long bloated list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we please avoid the temptation to make this a collection of quotes? It should be a summary of the most important ones. And please, no flags. --John (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I see we have the flags. Any benefit to them? I can't see it. And we still have about 50% quoted material. This is way too much. The quotes need to be summarised and the flags removed. --John (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I've summarised the quotes. It would be great if folks could abide by the hidden note and refrain from adding or re-adding the quotes. We don't do that. Now, does anyone see any overwhelming rationale for the flags, or can we remove them as well? --John (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't do that. I don't know why you're on such a crusade against quotes: they are not forbidden, as MOS:QUOTE provides detailed information on how to use them, and WP:QUOTES explains their usefulness. They can be excessive and lists of them can be a WP:QUOTEFARM, sure, but what I've seen you doing on various articles is remove every single quote, including standalone ones, sometimes without actually replacing them with indirect speech that makes sense. Speaking of indirect speech, anyway, can you see that just replacing a quotefarm with an equivalent list of indirectly reported speech makes little real difference (and once again, no, WP:NONFREE has nothing to do with this as copyright doesn't really apply to short quotations of public speech)? If anything, it can be good in preparation for condensing the quotefarm into prose ("prose" meaning doing away with listing every single comment by every single public figure, and replacing it all with a summary, not simply "removing quotations"), but it is not beneficial per se. LjL (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I know you don't know. Hang around a while and you will see how it works. --John (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I've edited Wikipedia for around 10 years. Can you be more explicit about this? LjL (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Misleading lede

The statement in the lede that "According to United States officials, the aircraft was shot down in Syrian airspace after being in Turkish airspace for "2 to 3 seconds, a matter of seconds" is simply incorrect. One anonymous person, who claims to be a "US official" made that claim. But the official response has been to support Turkey. The statement in the introduction is, I believe, entirely misleading as to the US position.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This is why I keep asking for clarification when editors add "officials". WHO the official is and his COI is important.Lihaas (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the names are important in that case. But I don't think template you added to "Turkey also said that it did..." is warranted. That is Turkey's official statement, not a person's. Article is full of such statements, "according to Turkey", "According to the Russian Defense Ministry" etc. Official government claims do not need a name attached to them.--Orwellianist (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree, that's why its important to note which part of the regime. They do, because foreign ministries are more diplomatic than defence and, thus, if the former is belligerent its a sign of heated rhetoric. (Lavrov yesterday).Lihaas (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The previous sentence starts with "According to Turkey". If it doesn't require the template, nor does the next sentence. And I don't think countries' different ministries would make uncoordinated statements on such an important issue. Again, we are not talking about something some guy said, it is the official statement of the government, sent to the UN.--Orwellianist (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh if you regularly read these "pofficial" statements, there is plenty of conflict.

Gayane Chichakyan exposes this crap (and boy would you be scared shitless getting grilled by her, I woudld).Lihaas (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to change the wording, do so. I don't see any point in adding the template, there is nothing unclear here and Turkey certainly is not a weasel word. I think unless a contrary statement is made by Turkey it is safe to say that that is Turkey's position and "Turkey said ..." is perfectly unambiguous, but if you want, just edit it to say "According to Turkey" like the previous paragraph. Or change it to "Turkey's report also said...", "Turkey's letter to the UN also said...", whatever you like. But that template is very unneeded there at this point.--Orwellianist (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but who in the Turkish regime said it??? obviously the UN one is their ambassador to the UNLihaas (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

In the link given as the reference the ambassador says that he's writing "upon instructions from my government", so it's sensible to attribute this to the Turkish Government, of whom the ambassador is obviously the representative of. I've tweaked the wording according. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I don't know why anybody would wonder who in the Turkish regime said that. It's not like there is an ongoing power struggle in Turkey, or one minister went rogue and told the ambassador "quick, hand this letter to the UN, before other ministers see it!" All functioning countries do it within a hierarchy, and if they submitted it to UN, it means it is the government's official statement, not a person's or particular agency's.--Orwellianist (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I too was wondering these templates appearing everywhere yesterday. It does not matter who does the talking if the person is a representative of the government. If an individual official neglects his duty and talks on his own account something that is not agreed by the government, we will certainly find that out. If that happens we will edit accordingly. What comes to the opening post: It is no brainer why U.S. is supporting Turkey. They both are allies through NATO membership, and both are opposing current Syrian government while Russia supports it. I find nothing misleading in the lede. ViperFace (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Lihaas, Why did you change "Turkish government" to "The Turkish Ambassador to the UN Halit Cevik", when the consensus was clearly "Turkish government" and you didn't even argue against it? (Nick-D, ViperFace and I agreed that "Turkish government" was enough and you didn't express an opinion on the discussion). This Cevik person didn't make a statement, the Turkish government did. He is merely handing his government's statement to the UN. How is his name relevant to the article, and especially to the first paragraph?--Orwellianist (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this should be changed back per the above discussion. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

...and Lihaas has edit warred it back in without bothering to even comment on this discussion [14]. Totally unacceptable, and I've just reverted per the apparent consensus above. Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we accept anonymous sources? Are anonymous press sure relases such kind of pasquills? Best to trace those by money - who own those outlets. If they converge to one $bag the article is hardly neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we do when WP:RS reports on them. The statement is assigned to anonymous U.S. official just like accounts of Turkey and Russia are assigned to their official positions. The article does not try to say that any of these accounts constitutes an indisputable truth. All we have are these three accounts. ViperFace (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No , false. WP:RS no found word 'anonymous' not even 'anon*', So tracking who pay $bags for anounymous pasquills propaganda landing in WP seem to be a sound proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

We give that statement the value it deserves. It's an account of unnamed U.S. official and nothing more. We let the reader decide whether or not it is trustworthy. "So tracking who pay $bags" That would be WP:OR. I too have my own conspiracy theories on many things, and it is possible that you might be right, but our gut feel does not dictate how encyclopedic articles are written. ViperFace (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Polish response

Are such additions [15] actually relevant to this article or merely coinciding with the recent Polish elections? Even if they are (very) oblique responses to the event, nothing like that is mentioned or implied by the sources. A day later the Polish government also reopened investigation into the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash; are we then to interpret this as an anti-Russian move in response to the shootdown? Where does it end? Qzd (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That's very obviously WP:COATRACK. Sources are needed to establish any relation with the events in this article. LjL (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

How you establish stock market fall? It is thousand just by time related event occurring after something happens. The same like this:

• Poland: On 24 November, Prime Minister Beata Szydło decided to remove EU flag from all future government meetings. Antoni Macierewicz canceled arm contracts on US Patriot and EU Caracal.

So we see here symbolic and material response. Talk is cheep. (You may not able to see it and be blind on question qui bono on the 154.) 99.90.196.227 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Merge

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 other article does not have enough content to warrant a page of its own. It can easily merge/redirect here.Lihaas (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge, I agree (and added tags to that effect). LjL (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The rescue mission article - all part of the same series of events, merge it in. Legacypac (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Merge: Seems content at Special forces operation to rescue Russian pilot (November 2015) can live at 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown until a fork is necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Merge. Tend to agree. The rescue operation meaningless without this context. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Brandmeister^talk 18:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Merge, as there's no point to it otherwise. --Katangais (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Merge. We have a totally unneeded new article for what can be summarized in a couple paragraphs on the parent page. epic genius (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't know, I think it deserves a separate article in its current state (it's been expanded a little since the discussion was started). It has a nice infobox and a fair (but not overwhelming) amount of detail. It can be summarized briefly in this article, with a wikilink to the longer article. Esn (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Merge - No reason to be separate, it is just a part of a single incident. Also, both articles are short, so there is no size issue. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Merge for reasons stated above. Mztourist (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2015 (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.

Background - Turkey's support for the Syrian Turkmen

What's the justifcation for removing all this? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK, if you ask me. I personally won't restore it. LjL (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The edit summaries given by the anon ip editor(s) were these:

• Irrelevant. The passage removed involves political issues that are not relevant to the shootdown. (ISIL financing accusations, oil exports) Russia did not violate airspace because of Turkey's actions.
• Irrelevant. Inserting ideas about Turkey's support for the Syrian Turkmen implies that Russia was justified in entering Turkey. What the Turkish media was saying is irrelevant.
• (Irrelevant. ISIL funding, Turkmen not a part of this incident. These ideas are being used to subtly imply justification for Russia's actions. You're playing politics...

These claims did not appear justified to me. The material all looks to me like fair, if detailed, background. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Digging past may rise perhaps inconvenient question how the so called Turkoman get first in Anatolia and more recently in West Armenia. The mountain area where the SU24 was shot down is big red stain on Armenian Genocide map. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how far back we really need to go. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

All that is needed is brief material that explains the immediate background of this incident. If there is a bigger back-story there should be a link to it, not a repeat. The para about ISIL funding is definitely not pertinent - no doubt that appears in an appropriate article about ISIL if it is in itself significant. Some short explanation of who the group were that were involved on the ground with the two airmen and the rescue mission is needed - but, again, with links to the detail. Davidships (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The Turkey buying oil and funding ISIL was particularly egregious: a paragraph entire sourced to Russia Today implying that Turkey shot down the plane because it wanted to help ISIL being presented as unchallenged fact, when it should've been in the reaction/aftermath sections.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

RT is already not accredited RS status on Wikipedia - it is a gov't controlled news org, not an independent/objective news agency. 68.19.3.111 (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian denial

Should we include the Russian denial of this claim: 'The Turkish government also said that it did not know the nationality of the aircraft at the time of the incident.' From the BBC there is this: 'Mr Putin has also firmly rejected any suggestion Turkey did not recognise the plane as Russian. He said it was easily identifiable and its co-ordinates had been passed on to Turkey's ally, the US.' If we include this we probably need a line explaining the agreement between Russia and the US about sharing co-ordinates in Syrian airspace. Hollth (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The lede already contains President Putin claimed that they have given the downed plane's flight plan to US officials before it took off; this was denied by the US officials William M. Connolley (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes put this sourced sentence The Turkish government also said that it did not know the nationality of the aircraft. We know it can be a mitigating factor in one person case. Perhaps nobody used it to whole own family. But for gov of big nation to play Insanity defense is kind of bad PR. Question is IF BBC tel truth? But in either case somebody inteligence is here insulted. If NATO 'ally' didn't know what they shutting they may shutting as well passenger airplanes (but not by mistake anyway). Again put but just what Turkey goebbeles. If you want here add Putin remark - why only him? - is he the last sane man on Earth? 70.198.32.55 (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that Turkey claimed they didn't know who the airplane belonged to. They never said they didn't know what type of aircraft it was. Military bombers aren't used as passenger jets. Also a passenger jet without a working transponder is generally considered a major problem, as the still missing MH 370 showed. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah so it is there, I completely missed it. I'm going to group those two sentences together since it makes sense for the claim/counterclaim to be grouped. Hollth (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Rename\Rephrase Article?

As mentioned in the Shootdown? section the title is nonsense - a slang US specific term. Since the incident happened in Syria a general (international) term should be used. News articles from around the world use a range of terms in their headlines - ambush, shoots down, downing, shot down, but almost never shootdown. The article I read that actually used shootdown in its title used the terms shot down and downing in the actual article but not shootdown. I'd strongly recommend a change but don't want to unilaterally do it myself. As an aside Sukhoi is redundant - that's what the Su- stands for. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. English Wiki. WP:COMMON applies. In the English-speakin world, everyone knows what this means. 68.19.3.111 (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, "English" isn't the same as "American" though. LjL (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm British, and I completely familiar with the term. So are the Canadians and my American friends here in the States. 98.67.188.180 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You may be British, but your IP address suggest you're writing from South Carolina. Are you sure it's not possible that you may have gotten accustomed to American terminology more than the average Briton? LjL (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

As a visiting professor. And, no. 98.67.188.180 (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You done gotten well Yankified, dude. A whole darn bunch. And then some. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Tend to agree with LjL. I'd suggest that this usage is almost as unpalatable to British English ears as Shoot 'em up. And there was no US involvement here at all? But tend to agree with OP that Sukhoi is redundant and that general readers would be better served by "Su-24 military jet" or something similar. (Front page has "Russian Su-24 warplane"). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

See also what I said in the other section, though (if only one thing were being discussed in one place...). "Shootdown" may be a little American, but "downing" might not be a good candidate, either. LjL (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"shooting down" would sound more encyclopedic to my (British) ears. Siuenti (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we just say "incident" and forget about this diatribe? LjL (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A better article title - to be more encyclopedic - once things stabilize a bit more - would be one that had the date, had Russian-Turkish, incident, and some term for the destruction of the aircraft that everyone can live with. Note that "shootdown" is not slang - check a dictionary. 98.67.188.180 (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I might be prepared to accept that "shootdown" isn't slang in the US. For English speakers (as opposed to Americans) it's jarringly dissonant. Downing is technically informal but I'm not aware of a formal equivalent. It may not be common in the US but clearly it is used - I stumbled over a report on the downing of an Iranian passenger jet by a US warship titled 'Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988'. Incident for the title of this article suits me, but the shootdown references in the actual article will still cause dissonance for readers. 人族 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian and Turkish maps

I've just restored the Russian map of the incident that had previously been removed, leaving only the Turkish version. To me, it seems very obvious that both versions must be presented, and that any claim that one of them is "fake" is complete original research on our part. It seems a very obvious example of staying WP:NPOV. LjL (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Rectify: the map had not been removed, but merely moved. @William M. Connolley: sorry, the diff made it look like it had been removed since they were not merely on top of one another in the source. I think "clearly faked" is still too subjective a reason to make any chance, but the fact Turkey released their first is more convincing. LjL (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

OK :-). Personally, I think its clearly faked, but until some RS says that (it can't possibly be long, its obvious) wiki can't say it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW according to the BBC, the Turks and the Russians don't even agree on the crash site; see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34925229 William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah well, you should add that to the page.

btw- we have a WP made map now.Lihaas (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Considering how crucial even the minutest details are, I think it is better to use the maps that the countries published, rather than one that a Wikipedia user created based on his understanding of those maps. Let me have your opinion on that, Lihaas, since you are the one who removed it. We can keep the user made map, but I think displaying the countries' official declarations is crucially important.--Orwellianist (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Its made from those maps, but go ahead if you want.Lihaas (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The maps released by the countries portray their claims more accurately by definition. They also have additional details. It is more important to have them for that reason. You can add the user map as well if you think it will benefit the article.--Orwellianist (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Oki, I just moved WP to the lead and tweaked wording.Lihaas (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The usermade map @Furfur:@Донор: [16] seems off to me. One says site is "Turkish claimed" and the other is stated as fact. Looking at the maps from Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, the "Area where Su-24M crashed" does not seem to line up...actually seems it should be much closer to the "Turkish claimed crash site". I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss it, but the user made map seems slanted, and no original Turkish map is provided for comparison/verification. Also, the Impact and Crash sites from [17] are orientated North-South, while the user made map shows them East-West and much farther apart. Velojareal (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Velojareal: The original map which I uploaded said "Russian claimed ..." and "Turkish claimed ...". Донор has changed the latter to "Areas where Su-24M crashes". To my knowledge the precise crash site is still not clear, or is it? --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 02:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Belgian Physicists Calculate that Everyone Is Lying About the Downed Russian Jet

In an article Belgian Physicists Calculate that Everyone Is Lying About the Downed Russian Jet in vice.com it is some very interesting qualculations done

Then, the physicists take that speed and compare it to the distance the jets traveled in Turkish airspace according to the Turkish map, around 2 kilometers. When flying at a speed of 980 km/h, an object would cover that distance in seven seconds, instead of the 17 seconds according to Turkish reports. To cross that distance in 17 seconds, the plane should have been traveling at a meager 420 km/h. The video shows this simply could not be true, if the crash site is accurate. Physics 1, Turkey 0.

The Turkish airforce says it warned the fighter jets ten times in five minutes. In five minutes, an aeroplane traveling at 980 km/h would cross a distance of about 80 kilometers. From these facts, the professors conclude: “How could the Turkish airforce predict that the Russian jets were about to enter Turkish airspace? Military jets are very agile, and in theory the Russian jets could have turned at the last moment to avoid Turkish airspace. The warnings issued to the Russian pilots were mere speculation at the moment they were made.”

According to those facts, the warnings couldn’t possibly have been issued in the time the jets were in Turkish territory. Unless Turkish air controllers can speak impossibly fast, issuing ten warnings in seven seconds seems kinda improbable. Physics 2, Turkey 0.

. Could this go into the article? Nsaa (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK the scientists published this in their own blog, so there's a WP:RS issue here. Brandmeister^talk 15:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Oh gee, this annoys me. Just because something is published on a specific medium doesn't make it a reliable or an unreliable source. It can be an indication, but a recognized expert in a field doesn't stop being one just because of publishing on a blog. I'm sure if you peruse WP:RS and related guidelines you will find that it says about as much. LjL (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

These people are explicitly physicists, not experts in the area under discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well, maybe it's not worthy of inclusion, I don't have an opinion yet (heck, I haven't read it). I'm just saying that it makes no sense to automatically discount things because they're on a blog, as if that fact in itself created "a WP:RS issue". The issue here is whether 1) they are reputable, quoted physicists, and 2) the opinion of reputable physicists is to be considered reliable in something that is not directly about physics. LjL (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This analysis by the physicists seems to oversimplify the shootdown to a high school level physics problem and makes a lot of baseless assumptions (uniform speed, straight paths of flight, no acceleration, etc.). If the Russian plane angled downwards after getting hit, then the jet engine's thrust should be added to the downwards force of gravity. If Russian planes deliberately went slower or flew in a non-straight pattern in Turkish airspace, then the uniform speeds assumed by the physicists wouldn't apply. If Russian pilot had time to react to the incoming missiles or any maneuverability after the strike the plane might have turned close to 90 degrees as part of an evasive maneuver or to as an attempt to get as far away from the Turkish border as possible/reach Russian military bases on the Mediterranean Sea. There's too many holes in this and without a reliable source to back these claims, they should stay out.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This has been picked up by The Independent in this article Turkey shoots down Russian plane: Physicists say both official accounts are scientifically impossible stating "Dr Tom van Doorsslaere and Dr Giovanni Lapenta from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven say the plane was travelling too fast for Turkey's account and could not do the 90 degree turn Russia claims it did […] Turkey said the plane was in their airspace for 17 seconds but the physicists concluded that when travelling at a speed of 980 km/h (609 m/h) the plane would have crossed over in just seven seconds. From this they said it was extremely unlikely they issued ten warnings in five minutes because the plane travelling at that speed could cross 80km (50m) in 80 seconds.", so we have a solid source per WP:RS even without considering if these two people doing the claims are expert in the area they make a statement about. Nsaa (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not really. We have a dodgy source being reported in a newspaper. That doesn't transform it into a reliable source. As Pk has pointed out above, the physicists have oversimplified it into high school level; they haven't added any information (with the possible exception of pointing out that 10 warnings in 5 minutes is hard to understand, because the jet would have been too distant at the start of the 5 mins; but its unlikely that "5 mins" was meant to be read literally anyway) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is ...simplistic at best. First the start of the video to the crash is 40 seconds, not 30. Second we don't know if the video starts just upon impact, or a few seconds after, or 10-15 seconds. Third, we don't know exactly where the missile hit hit the plane. It could have been fired in Turkey but chased the Su-24 into Syria after some time, so we don't the distance traveled between impact and crash site. Seeing how we neither know the time nor the distance, we can't calculate speed! Observer31 (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole is just idle academic speculation based at best, as Patar knight observes, on unsupported assumptions and at worst just mischevous (eg According to those facts [sic], the warnings couldn’t possibly have been issued in the time the jets were in Turkish territory. Unless Turkish air controllers can speak impossibly fast, issuing ten warnings in seven seconds seems kinda improbable. Physics 2, Turkey 0). So who had claimed that they had? The physicists don't seem to have a clue about such warnings. Of course they were "mere speculation", that's the point. If you are enthusiastic for this sort of stuff, don't forget Physics v Russia. I suspect that the physicists conclusion that everyone is lying may well be right, but their reasoning doesn't stack up. (By the way, it seems as if the writer of the http://motherboard.vice.com/ blog has added material not in the original linked piece on http://kuleuvenblogt.be/ , but it's written - and now requoted - as if it was.) Davidships (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

William M. Connolley: Ah, I see, "not literally". But that detail about "five minutes" concludes the second sentence of this article? What do you suggest - adding scare quotes? adding a footnote? or removing it altogether?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Davidships: So the Belgians "don't seem to have a clue about such warnings"? Do we have a five minute recording, with ten spoken warnings, perhaps with a time-code, with some kind of verification, in the public domain, as requested by Russia? Apparently not. So maybe we shouldn't be surprised the Belgian academics are a bit "clueless"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not my point, and I am not commenting on the veracity of the Turkish claim, only on the Academics conclusion: How could the Turkish airforce predict that the Russian jets were about to enter Turkish airspace? Military jets are very agile, and in theory the Russian jets could have turned at the last moment to avoid Turkish airspace. The warnings issued to the Russian pilots were mere speculation at the moment they were made. To my mind this too insubstantial and adds nothing useful to the article. Davidships (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Then, yes, a little unsubstantial. Sounds to me just like common sense. Not a great leap forward. But the Turkish claims may look like facts to some. I guess some editors don't see enough balance. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Erdogan : My request from our friends in the United States is to make your assessment about Turkey by basing your information on objective source . [18]

So what was the OBJECTIVE ?

Is the Washington Post WP:RS? WaPo qoute: Most of the fighters who joined us [ISIS] in the beginning of the war came via Turkey, and so did our equipment and supplies.’'[19]

During fast wraping action there is no time to give good answers. The US-EU orders were about fighting goverment in Syria. Turkey did fighting goverment in Syria. There was close to do WW3, but no single perhsing was lunched. Turkey were betrayed by US-EU chickens.

In war is an obvius rule: During the war you unhide your position when you fire back. The time or path of SU24 do do it mather here? What mater Turkey did hit Russia. Turkey unhided they position. As did unhide US-EU chickens to the 'freedom fighters' fighting goverment of Syria.

Sorry, but the relevance of your comment, such as I can understand it, to this discussion thread, or even to the content of the article as a whole, is not entirely clear, to me at least. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

For more understanding look http://www.veteranstoday.com/. I get the quotes there, then i did check it. Quote echo in MSM. If you debate what is WP:RS for what Turkey says ( imo dezinformation) then Turkey PM plea for

use of 'objective sources' seem to be very relevant. 70.198.14.89 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look. But your talk of "WW3", "no single perhsing was lunched" and "US-EU chickens" doesn't really make it sound that appealing, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something but AFAIK, and this seems to be supported by our article, Turkey doesn't claim most (or possibly all) of the warnings were issued while the planes were in Turkish airspace. They claim the warnings were issued when the planes were approaching Turkish airspace. So any source which suggests Turkey claimed they issued 10 warnings while the plane was in Turkish airspace is suspect. As for the possibility the planes had always planned to turn away from Turkish airspace, I'm not sure how this is relevant. Turkey claims the plane was shot down when it entered Turkish airspace. The clear implication of this and their other statements is if the plane had never entered Turkish airspace, they wouldn't have shot it down. If the planes had never entered Turkish airspace, the question of whether thes plane was planning to enter Turkish airspace but was scared away by the warnings, or never planned could perhaps come up if Turkey complained about the incident. But since we ended up with quite a different scenario, that's a moot point. I'm not an expert on such warnings, but I presume it's accepted that someone may give a warning if there is resonable suspicion that a plane may be about to violate your airspace (or otherwise do something unacceptable). May be slightly annoying if you never planed to do whatever the warning is telling you not to do, but that seems about it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we know where the Su-24 was five minutes before it was shot down? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Russians, at the northern edge of Syrian border, then it was shot at 10:24. Brandmeister^talk 22:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the commentary is saying, but I don't see a time stamp for 10.19. The time stamp for 10.16 seems to coincide with when it's path is closest to the southern tip of Hatay Province, the first time around. So presumably, 10.19 would have been somewhere on the south-eastward leg after that, when it was flying away from Turkey?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC) (p.s. just an observation but that flight path looks remarkably different to the one presented in the editor-composed graphic that's first in the article).

Some clue is alredy here which seem to confirm RU map and false Turkish map. Interestingly it is sourced explanation of high ranking Turkey oficial. They NATO atache. Perhaps cut by intligent reporter and a obfuscating. But anyway something to add to the puzle. Strange is as he count: if the two planes flew together the 17 secunds need to count twice:) And 2 times again to 4. Because (maybe?) as on Rusian map flew first east then returned west. As the -2 post here explain. How far to Turkey border is the RU base? Given the 5 minutes, max sped, and way lenght Turks seem to pretend to warn the RU pilot just around they each start. And all this is around the peculiar time. I got problem to serach how long to fry my big this time turkey. 70.211.65.207 (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Recording of warning to Russian jet

Turkish military releases recording of warning to Russian jet. But does this prove the Russian pilots heard them? What radio frequency of frequencies were they listening to? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I've read somewhere else that the warnings were allegedly broadcast on the "emergency frequency". Whether the Russian aircraft was somehow required to have that tuned in, I have no idea. LjL (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If I'm correct, all military jets are tuned into 243.0 GUARD at all times. They probably did hear it. Twomcvms (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that's a NATO requirement? You'd think there might be mention of something as global as that in a Wikipedia article somewhere, wouldn't you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Here's a claimed published snippet: [20], with plenty of caveats It says it was "recorded on the UHF Emergency frequency 243.000 MHz by a reader who wishes to remain anonymous." Who says the SU-24 pilots had to be tuned to GUARD? Why would they think it was an emergency? I'm guessing the SU-24 only has two radios?

Maybe it's a NATO requirement. I see two Wikipedia articles mentioning it, Aircraft emergency frequency and International distress frequency: the former mentions it in general, but the latter calls it specifically a NATO frequency. Neither seems to claim it's required to tune into it, though. We're doing a bit of original research here, not sure it's warranted... LjL (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's wholly unwarranted. And somehow unavoidable, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Of course, looking at Sukhoi Su-24, it's unclear if it even has a radio, let alone what control the pilot has over it.

BTW, AFAIK, Fox & BBC currently propagate the record which is presented on the following cite which also says:

The following audio was recorded on the international UHF Emergency frequency 243.000 MHz by a reader who wishes to remain anonymous. We have no way to verify whether the audio was really recorded earlier today and we must highlight that similar messages have been radioed to unknown/Russian aircraft in the vicinity of the Turkish airspace in the past as well and recorded/heard by radio-hams and airband listeners located in Turkey and Greece.

HTH Bsivko (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian jets are approaching to the border. So it was their responsibility to hear any distress message. Especially after Turkish goverment warned Russians about Russian planes' actions a few weeks ago many times and Russian goverment apologized. I think there is no way that a jet pilot can't aware about the danger like this. A missile can hit a target with a radar lock and every jet can identify that a radar locked on it. On the other hand, civillian pilots heard the messages;

http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/buitenland/piloot-zag-turkse-f-16s-russisch-toestel-tientallen-keren-gewaarschuwd

So the messages must be sent to all distress frequencies, civil or military. alicamci83 (talk)

Sent /= received. What evidence do we have that the Su-24 was listening, or was supposed to be listening? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Who cares about their awareness about the warning? Turkey declared to all over the world that if any plane passes the border will be shot down immediately. After that Russia was warned and remined about rules of engagement because of their actions on the border. If they don't care Turkey's borders, warnings, international laws, rules of engagement etc continuously who cares about their radios' frequencies. All the world can hear but they can't. What a pity, it is a super power country. Problem must be about the Su-24 positions. If it passed the border, all the responsibility must be on the Russians' shoulders. All other Russian claims are only disinformations. And i don't believe that a plane's position can't be proven. We can see all the commercial planes' positions on the web. alicamci83 (talk)

I would imagine that the international aviation community cares quite a lot about awareness of warnings. If they're not being heard, why bother giving them? Just as an excuse to shoot down another aircraft that spends a few seconds flying through a tiny corridor of airspace? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a gross oversimplification to assume that 1) just because Russia is a superpower, their slightly aged Soviet planes have full-featured modern radio receivers that are NATO-compatible, and 2) because it's easy (not quite always) to find "lost" civilian planes when everyone is cooperating and telling the truth, it must be easy to find stealthy military planes when everyone is probably telling lies. LjL (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Add third party accounts of the radio warning, pilots flying commercial airliners heard the warnings on GUARD channel. “I confirm the authenticity of their recording, I heard these exact same warnings over and over again and the part I recorded on my phone was actually towards the end when I felt the matter was getting serious,” the Lebanese aviator told Al Arabiya News on the condition of anonymity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi-gman (talk • contribs) 15:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't really answer those questions? Does every (military and commercial) aircraft always fly with GUARD selected? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It would appear so (or at least they should), according to these very official pieces of information:

• http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/887/why-is-121-5-called-guard
• http://www.aviationchatter.com/2012/04/just-monitor-guard/ (funny)
• http://toinformistoinfluence.com/2015/11/26/russia-do-you-monitor-the-guard-frequency-and-how/ (but...!)

-LjL (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha, yes maybe "supposed to". But, e.g. from one of the three blogs above: "It is the policy of my airline that we monitor Guard in cruise flight. I typically dial in the frequency on the number two radio as I climb through 10,000 feet and adjust the volume to something low. It’s a Good Samaritan policy that has enabled me to personally report multiple ELT signals and even help a frantic sounding Cessna ..." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian military planes are also supposed to use their transponders at all times when they fly over Baltic sea but they don't. This year there has been at least two close encounters with civil airliners. They also violate airspace of Estonia and Finland on monthly basis. I don't know if it's lack of discipline of individual pilots or a Russian policy that makes them fool around dangerously. ViperFace (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

So, it seems quite likely that they really did hear no warnings. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hard to say. As I live in Finland I have learned to take everything Russian government says with a grain of salt. It's also possible that they were testing how Turkey would react for a very short violation, if it ever occurred. That's what they are doing with Finns. Military experts here describe it as Russia testing our air forces reaction time, altough I don't think every violation is intentional as the international airspace is very narrow between Finland and Estonia. They did this to Sweden some time ago, so it's possible that they were testing how Turkey would react, but the Turkey was not bluffing when they warned Russia few weeks ago. ViperFace (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

How far the jet was when it get the initail waning? By 5 minutes it can perhaps fly over across Turkey (calculate) This is crucial aspect of the article. Given speed of the jet it seem be logical Turks were sided with ISIS long before the jet were at or even near the border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Turks are sided with Syrian Turks, not ISIS/ISIL. There's no ISIL presence at the area where Russia has been bombing. ViperFace (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear that the jet got any warning. It's a bit like WP:I didn't hear that, on a slightly more lethal scale. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

In this press briefing at 2:19, the Russians claim that the Russian military attache recently visited the General Staff of the Turkish Armed forces and asked for the recordings of those tapes. They were allegedly told that the tapes cannot be handed over, and moreover, they have not been handed over to the media either. The Russians claim that this means that the tapes allegedly in possession of the media are fakes. Esn (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That's quite interesting. I wonder if it should be added. I'm unsure, even if the tapes were genuine, how they could ever be independently verified. But we are no nearer establishing whether or not the radio(s) of the Su-24 were tuned to GUARD, are we? I wonder what's happened to the Su-24's flight recorder? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Given I think the plane crashed in Syrian territory, I really doubt anyone but crazy rebels is getting their hands on the flight recorder, aye? LjL (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that its recovery is top of Putin's priority list at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Janes (who should know) http://www.janes.com/article/56295/russian-su-24m-communications-equipment-blamed-for-shootdown "Russian specialists familiar with the R-862 model VHF radio installed on the Su-24M say it requires an optional add-on receiver module in order to receive emergency channel transmissions in the ultra-high frequency (UHF) and very high frequency (VHF) bands." So who's fault if that wasn't fitted? 60.242.97.120 (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if that wasn't fitted on all operational Russian Su-24s. But yet another imponderable. Even if it was fitted, one assumes the pilot and/or weapon systems officer would have to have selected the correct channel and set the appropriate volume. Impossible to prove either way. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the language in the recording? I see English subtitles. What Turk broadcasted, radio or video? 70.198.14.89 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The extracts I have heard were in English, which is what I would have expected. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Hatay province

Is the history of Hatay province appropriate in the background? Unless we have a source saying that the territory's annexation 76 years ago is actually a factor in this incident HaEr48 (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I too have raised this issue and i see no relevance whatsoever between the history of Hatay and the shootdown. It seems like a weak attempt to discredit Turkey's shootdown--probably added by pro-Russian propagandists.--58.106.229.229 (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Note I don add the content. Nevertheless we should discuss it. im neutral.Lihaas (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the content until the issue is resolved here.--58.106.229.229 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Since when is summarizing the historical background of an area that remains contested between Turkey and Syria "pro-Russian propaganda"? No, but seriously, if an area is contested between two states, and then a military incident happens, then the historic background of the area is more than obviously relevant to understands the situation. Though already much has been written on this, we will shortly see more comments on it. Deletion of the section is unacceptable, but of course we can work on the wording. For now, I have to take a little nap, but will come back to it later today. PanchoS (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If it was a Syrian plane that had been shot down it could be relevant, but since it wasn't *and* this contention isn't linked to the incident, I feel it's not relevant. The Turks and Russians are disagreeing where the Su-24 was, not where the *border* was. Observer31 (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Did Russia stray into Hatay because it believes that the area doesn't belong to Turkey? Did Turkey shoot down the plane because it suspected this was the reason that it strayed into Hatay? If so then the removed content would be relevant; however, you will struggle to prove this was the case.--58.106.229.229 (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Inclined to support Pancho here. There is no propaganda to state context so the reader can decide himself.Lihaas (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course you would support him in adding such content; however, you have no qualms in removing my reliably sourced edit as shown here. You support him, yet you can't even answer how it is relevant to the event. Please answer this first rather than using fuzzy claims like "There is no propaganda to state context so the reader can decide himself." For something to have context it must be relevant to the event.--58.106.229.229 (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The relevance is, as he says, "summarizing the historical background of an area that remains contested" (emphasis added). Since the dispute here is over the warning for Turkmens that was issued and, thus, the area it was found the plane wasover (there is also a surced allegation on the page they were bombing the turkmens), the dispute then bears relevance.Lihaas (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting: you emphasised "summarizing the historical background of an area that remains contested"; however--and I'm unfortunately having to repeat myself here--this contested status had nothing to do with why Russia entered and why Turkey responded to the incursion. Can you find me one news source that links the history of Hatay to this event? If you can't then this is just further proof that it is irrelevant and therefore is not part of the context.--58.106.229.229 (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@PanchoS: Because the annexation happened 76 years ago, Syria is not seriously contesting it, Russia does not mention this as a reason for its aircraft being there, and no major news source link this accident to the annexation or territorial dispute? If we're talking about the Golan Heights and Israel/Syria shooting each other's plane, the territorial dispute would be relevant, but in this case I don't think it serves any explanatory purpose. HaEr48 (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The ethnic background is relevant though. We could just wikilink the details elsehere.Lihaas (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to mention it, but unless a source thinks it is too, I can't see how such content can be added. The Hatay border is not a real border in any sense - there is not a well defined geographical barrier along most of the border, and some of its route was decided according to who owned the land and whether they had voted to join Turkey. In more peaceful times in the 1990s I walked up to a section of it near Kessab - the border was marked by a broken down wire fence that was just like any fence you could see in a farmer's field. But cross it at your peril. A couple of weeks earlier an elderly villager had got lost and accidentally crossed over, he was captured and almost beaten to death by Turkish soldiers on the other side. On the Syrian side was the ruins of a modern Armenian chapel that Turkish soldiers had blown up one night a few years earlier after secretly crossing the border. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

There was an article in Slate that made exactly this point, sort of implying that maybe Russia (which has supported Syria's claim over the years) had been deliberately testing that border as a way of backing Syria's claim to the territory, and the Turks knew or suspected this and that's what got them all upset. But I can't seem to find it right now. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Alwiya al-Ashar, or the 10th Brigade

The deputy commander Celik said in the Reuters-video his fighters were from the Alwiya al-Ashar, or the 10th Brigade, of the Syrian Turkmen army. The issue of who executed the pilot is very important, as some of the Turkmen brigades are pro-Western ones, like the 10th Brigade that fights alongside the US-backed Free Syrian Army, and others, especially the one based near Raqqa are linked to the terrorist organization IS or to the Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria. --91.10.4.35 (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Four maps

User:Orwellianist, why on earth would this article need four maps? --John (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

As Turkey and Russia are using different maps to present their different versions of what happened, the different maps are important. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Four of them? --John (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the user-made comparative is rather redundant, as there are already three official maps released by Turkish and Russian side (one Turkish and two Russian). Brandmeister^talk 11:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Brandmeister that the compilation map is not now required and is, in any case, outdated as it includes only the first of the Russian versions. Davidships (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How useful are any of these maps without some time stamps? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about four, but I think a user-made map (not necessarily this user-made map, if it's updated) is nice to have, since the Turkish and Russian maps are very graphically different and can be hard to read. Being an encyclopedia, it's nice if we can present primary sources in an accessible way (hopefully without modifications in substance, of course). (Oh and LOL@Russia) LjL (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. What we need is the combined-map to be updated with the second Russian crash site on it. Also the text needs updating, since the user-made map has Turkish-claim but doesn't qualify the Russian as claim.

Aside: having just quickly checked, it looks like the second Russian crash site doesn't match the Turkish one, though its closer. I find this odd. Its hard (in arrears) to know where the missile impact was, but surely where the burnt-out no-longer-smoking wreckage is can't be hard to determine for sure? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. Meantime, four maps are too many. Shall we go for zero while we are waiting for one good one? John (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I say keep the current ones. LjL (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The user-made map may actually clutter the right side where other illustrations can be placed, such as that of the missile that hit the Su-24. Official maps on the other hand are better than nothing at this stage. Even if they are actually a propaganda BS, at least they vizualize claims of involved sides and show why exactly they are BS. Btw, Turkish map, for instance, was published on their official Air Force Command FB page. Brandmeister^talk 18:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what knowledge a depiction of the missile that made the hit would add to the reader. Sounds like a lot less than an easy-to-read map. LjL (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean four maps depicting the same incident, using different codes and different colours? Why on earth would we want to keep that? --John (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Because they are all different. Which is a large part of the point William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So you are in favour of retaining all four? Really? Have you actually looked at them? --John (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and yes William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem with the Turkish and the two Russian if they each illustrate a different story, and those stories are also clearly described in the text. Routes are almost always better explained better in diagrams (although altitude is missing, so three dimensions are reduced to two here). The editor-created one is a lot clearer and is useful for showing a comparison. But they all lose a great deal of their potential value by not having any time information. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems rather obvious that four is either three too many or four too many. There are issues with WP:ACCESS, WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV with having four. If this article ever passes any sort of peer review, it won't have four maps on it. Why fight to keep them now? --John (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem obvious to me at all. I don't see the relevance of those three guidelines. Or is it four? 21:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Martinevans123 (talk)

WP:NPOV? Seriously? I thought when we had WP:Conflicting sources, we presented them all neutrally, not that we removed them all. Or is this another case of delete-all-graphics-itis? LjL (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think all four maps add value, and would not be in favor of dropping any of them at this time. I think that, given time for the situation to stabilize, in the long term, having a single map as a composite of all three individual maps, with all of the relevant data, may be ultimately desirable, but that may take some time, and in the mean time, I don't mind having all of the current maps in this article. If and when a) the situation has stabilized where the data is likely to be consistent and b) someone has already created an adequate composite map, we could reduce them, but for now I have no qualms about the status quo. --Jayron32 21:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Like everybody else who commented, I see no reason to remove the Turkish or either of the Russian maps. The article describes the Turkish and Russian version of the events, and the maps released by the respective countries illustrate their claims. They are absolutely essential to the article. I fail to see why four maps are too many, but if one is to be removed, I agree with Brandmeister and Davidships that it should be the first one. Actually, even if a user made map is to stay, it would probably be best to remove it for now until we have an updated one, because that map 1) does not conform to NPOV, referring to one crash site as claimed and the other as fact and more importantly 2) possibly outdated, it doesn't include the changes in the second Russian map; and even if we are to include it, it is difficult to determine how to do it. The second Russian map shows Russian movements as straight lines, unlike the first Russian map, and I am not sure if it is because it is meant to be less precise, or if the curvature toward north in the first map was a mistake. In any case, keeping the user made map in the article in its current state possibly does more harm than good.--Orwellianist (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, totally agree, Orwellianist. I think you've summed it up very well. The user-made map would be useful if it was accurate. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Orwellianist. The two sides's maps should stay since they're official releases from both sides, but the current top map is a blatant POV violation since it asserts one side's claims as the true crash site while the other side is described as merely claims, and is outdated. Until it gets updated and changed to use more neutral terms, it should go. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the consensus seems to be for removing the user made map, either for good or at least for its current state, agreed by Brandmeister, Davidships, Martinevans123, Patar knight and me. One suggested removing all maps, and two editors spoke in favor of having a user-made map, but did not address the issues with the current one.

Accordingly I removed the user-made map from the article. If one is to be added back at some point, I guess we should discuss whether to and how to incorporate the two Russian maps into one map, not to mention it should conform to NPOV.--Orwellianist (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Why one map is all black. It is not isil hold area. Do they get it from old CRT radar monitor? Or the graphic artist sunk in doing all the time black baners and flags. with sporadic use of sky blue . Can someone cange color on the black map? I know it is kind of artistic preferences but in any case it sucks.

That's Turkey's officially released maps. We aren't changing it. LjL (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What's missing from the Turkey map is a definition of the co-ordinate points (transponder responses?surveillance radar plots?), which are joined up to produce the rather angular looking flight-path. Are these at regular time intervals, or just taken at random as and when data were available? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)