![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Is it time again for weird conspiracy theories and political smear campaigns?? Even the President of the Polish Episcopal Conference bishop Józef Michalik told the conspiracy weirdos to present proof or shut up [1]. Besides saying the Russians bombed the plane, Macierewicz also wants to prove that Donald Tusk, Radoslaw Sikorski, Bogdan Klich, Jerzy Miller and Tomasz Arabski “intentionally and deliberately committed a number of offences to the detriment of the Republic of Poland and its constitutional organs”, which he believes led to the tragedy on 10 April 2010; furthermore he claims that the Russian "жизненные рефлекси" (vital reflexes) actually means "signs of life" thus proving people survived the crash [2]; his expert admits that he only analysed the pictures taken just after the air crash and thus came to his conclusion this was a bomb [3], the "scientists" will meet actually for the first time in October 2012, my favorite weirdo sentence from Macierewicz is: "And if we scrutinise the report and focus only on the suggested irregularities in the 26 Air Forces Regiment, the blame sits firmly with the Donald Tusk cabinet." [4]. This all is nothing but some political blame game - wikipedia is not involved in Polish political debates - especially ones that are based on flimsy evidence, hearsay, conspiracy theories, and just plain lying (see bishop Józef Michalik for that quote)... More proof that this is junk, fringe: [5], or this gem "the members of the committee were more or less in the middle of their work." followed by "also presented the main conclusions reached during the work." [6] - so in the middle of the work the conclusions are already established??? Serious work there in the Polish parliament... especially as the experts want to be anonymous... and that the "The decision concerning the landing was political and came from Moscow, which should be clearly said. " [7] or this political crap: the military prosecutors wanted to talk to Binienda, who refused and instead invited them to interview him at a session of the committee in parliament, which the prosecutors declined to visit (as it would be a political spectacle). [8] and have a look at this gem: "Antoni Macierewicz also stressed that while investigating the Smolensk air crash, the Polish officials "were acting according to Putin's decree."... because this is all part of the Russian war against Poland! [9]. Therefore a) POV tag removed b) section deleted. c) Discussion hereby ended. noclador ( talk) 04:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Following are some of Binienda's "fringe" credentials. Machine language translation:
"Collaborates with NASA conducting leading research grants funded by NASA [11]. Led by the Gas Turbine Testing Facility, built in 2005-2006 [21], has been conducting research on the components of turbines and engines for the United States Air Force, NASA and private industry [22] (companies General Electric, Honeywell and Williams International [10]). In 2008, it installed the so-called lab. has gas, entirely funded by the NASA Glenn Research Center, used by the team Wieslaw Biniendy testing of composite materials subjected to collisions with objects moving at high speed [23]. Participated in the study disaster space shuttle "Columbia" [24] [25], but it is not listed among those participating in the study in the official report drawn up after the disaster. [26] NASA collaborated with the turbofan engine design called the GEnx, which is used in Boeing 787 Dreamliner [11], and is co-author of a new composite material with a special woven carbon fiber used to build the GEnx engine [27]."
So, pun intended: "'Houston, we have a problem" … because, neither is this guy "fringe", nor are the others, and neither are their findings. You can't marginalize "facts" (read: numbers that at least are adding up) just because they didn't originate from the sources liked by SOME editors. Mind you, all of this was reported by the reputable media outlets in Poland, United States, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, and elsewhere. The aforementioned findings were also subject of an intense peer-review, and prevailed. Similarly, one would hope that the European Parliament, or the Polish Parliament, or the Polish Parliamentary Group, are as notable as are the other sources cited in this article. The Wiki readers are NOT STUPID, and I find the motives guiding some of the editors here puzzling - to say the least. As far as the length of the said section of the article is concerned, my personal feeling is that compared to the lengthy diatribes about a lot of nothing, the Voyt13's contribution constitutes only a small portion of an overall article length, and should stay as is. The sources are prominent enough, the findings are documented, and are properly annotated. -- Doomed Soldiers ( talk) 13:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Voyt13 please - take it a notch down! 1) Waclaw Berczynski is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the article, so it was hard for me to spot his name when reading the section. 2) Why is the source for all your claims the right-wing niezalezna.pl site? It is known for its right-wing/extreme right-wing/radically rightist views and its close ties to the
Law and Justice Party... and its editor in chief wants to prove his view that President Lech Kaczynski was murdered (
his viewpoint
brought to you via socketeer Robert Warrens homepage!) Is that all you can provide as a sources?? Aren't there some other Polish papers that also say that the plane was brought down by explosives?? and if possible provide some sources in English! but not freepl.info as it only translates material from niezalezna.pl! Also provide a some sources for the claim "lies of Ewa Kopacz about the fake-autopsies", because all mentions of that I can find are: niezalezna.pl, freepl.info, Robert Warrens homepage and topix.com, which copies from freepl.info... As you do not provide coherent arguments for including the section in the article I urge you to find some sources that do make the argument for you, because they are such mainstream respected news publications that nobody will ever challenge the section again! So, do yourself a favor and find such sources! Because otherwise there is still no foundation to include this
WP:FRINGE theory in the article.
noclador (
talk)
08:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Some sort of a final-ish report. [29]. Apparently, the new version is that the plane didn't hit the tree. Just blew up (but who broke the tree, then?... whatever...) Also, there are some charges, typical for extreme-right politians, against Donald Tusk, who is declared a traitor and conspirator against his country's president, interests and Honor. 37.144.138.38 ( talk) 18:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I asked very specific questions regarding a multitude of issues with this article, and yet aside from "because I can" you have not addressed my concerns. Specifically, why is Diana West from the "Washington Examiner" banned from Wikipedia? She has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Post, The New Criterion, The Public Interest, and Women's Quarterly, The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Times, and had frequently appeared as a CNN contributor. West also frequently appeared on the Lou Dobbs shows. Clearly Miss West represents the mainstream media. Similarly, why isn't Voyt13 allowed to quote the Cleveland Plain Dealer, or the University of Akron Press? Is it Wiki's official policy, which you in this case represent, to ban these mainstream media outlets? This is very troubling, and I hope you'll feel obligated to respond to my questions, or should the press ask you these questions directly? Respectfully yours, -- Vladnot ( talk) 20:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
An expert of the Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe, prof. Kazimierz Nowaczyk, says that the hypothesis of the explosions on the plane, which crashed on 10 April 2010 near Smolensk, has more and more confirmations. According to Nowaczyk - who took part in a meeting of the group - the distribution of the pieces of the wreckage, characteristic arrangement of the sides of the hull after the crash and a series of major accidents that have occurred at a height of over 30 meters, more and more justifies the hypothesis of explosions.
He added that the list of breakdowns that had been read from the Polish black box, contradicts the conclusions of the report of the committee, headed by the then Interior Minister Jerzy Miller.
- We were able to read from the ATM black box a list of 11 breakdowns, which occurred at a height of over 30 meters. These included damage of the engine, power generator, ILS system, flaps on the wing. (...) Hypothesis about the explosions, which destroyed plane in the air, is more likely to report, the probability of it increases - Nowaczyk said.
The expert said that the moments of events TAWS 38 (data of the obstacle warning system) and FMS (Flight Management System - eds.), when it came to these failures, they were hidden in the trajectory set out in the annex to the report of Miller's committee. In his view, the times of the events were deliberately manipulated or hidden so that the final cause of the crash was consistent with the MAK report.
- All event times are shifted so that the plane was as low as possible, at the place where the birch grows. These damages were recorded by an ATM box still during the flight, contrary to Miller's committee thesis that the plane was operational to the end. It was not, no collision with the birch would lead to such breakdowns - Nowaczyk said.
- The plane simply did not crash with the birch, the nature of damage of the left wing and the height saved at that point proves that the plane was flying above - he added.
In his opinion, the Tu-154M crash was due to: detached fragment of the left wing, a series of critical breakdowns, explosion and collapse of the fuselage and hit to the ground. [38] Voyt13 ( talk) 19:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
As I did not have the wiki markups when I wrote the first proposal (thanks to the WMF's decision to create a new edit window...) the refs have not been properly referenced. I changed that now and request the proper refs to be inserted into the article. I also request that the title of the section should be shortened. The whole section to insert follows below (note: not a single word of text was changed - only the refs!) noclador ( talk) 09:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
On 8 July 2010 MPs and senators of the Law and Justice parliamentary group formed a group to investigate the causes of the crash. The chairman of the group is Antoni Macierewicz. The group based their findings on three Polish scientists living outside of Poland: Wiesław Binienda from the University of Akron, Kazimierz Nowaczyk from the University of Maryland and Gregory Szuladziński from Australia.
According to these three scientists the direct cause of the crash was not a collision with an obstacle, but two explosions in the last phase of the flight: first on the left, by which the plane lost part of the left wing, then another inside the hull. These theories have been used by Antoni Macierewicz to declare that the crash in Smolensk was actually part of Russia's war against Poland
[1]
[2]
[3], while
Jarosław Kaczyński claimed it to be an assassination
[1] and part of a coup
[1]. Macierewicz also declared that Prime Minister
Donald Tusk, Foreign Minister
Radosław Sikorski, Defense Minister
Bogdan Klich and Interior Minister
Jerzy Miller are involved in the Russian cover-upCite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). and "were acting according to Putin's decree."
[2].
The three scientists, the investigation and the claims made by Antoni Macierewicz have come under intense criticism in Poland. The President of the Polish Episcopal Conference bishop Józef Michalik said referring to Antoni Macierewicz: "a man of conscience should consider every word and care not to violate the truth." [4]. Polish foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski called called Macierewicz a "hysteric and bungler" [5]. The main stream Polish news media also criticized the investigation sharply: none of the experts involved has any experience with plane crashes and Polityka magazine went as far as saying that the three experts "violate basic standards of science" [6]. The investigation is seen as a political smear campaign to discredit Prime Minister Donald Tusk [7] [7]. Newsweek Poland stated that "the theory of the assassination, is calculated for.. political benefits." [8].
For the record, if anyone thinks that Buckshot06 should not have locked the page per WP:INVOLVED, I would have done locked the page myself in this situation had I not been asleep. This third investigation is now showing itself to be in FRINGE territory. The statement that the aircraft would not have been so comprehensively destroyed is contradicted by the crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 981, which was also a crash into woodland. That aircraft was reduced to smaller pieces than the Tu-154 involved in this accident. Mjroots ( talk) 05:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest to replace the section Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe with the following text:
And then we reference it with Newsweek Poland, the Polish Foreign ministry, the interview of bishop Józef Michalik and the Polityka article. noclador ( talk) 03:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this version better? If need be I can find more Polish sources noclador ( talk) 12:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
In accordance with WP:ARBEE and WP:IAR I am hereby adding this text to the page. Any complaints can be directed here or to my talkpage. Voyt13, please take a look at WP:ARBEE; welcome further discussion on my talkpage, but not here; I do not believe I am alone is being very tired of incessant pushing of a WP:FRINGE theory not supported by effective reliable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Can some grownup with real journalistic training please get involved in this silliness? If there ever was a reason for anyone to doubt why information served by Wikipedia is explicitly banned from use in schools, they should read through this nonsense. What has the user Voyt13 brought to the table that hasn’t been reported in the media? Shame on you Wikipedia for not policing yourself against the idiocy that has gone on with this article since day one. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.231.254.26 (
talk)
17:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Vladnot, (1) I have scored the above section because I believe the person was probably a banned sockpuppet, and was using WP:POV language to disrupt the consensus that mainstream editors have reached, (2) my method was based on my experience of wiki over seven years, and being an admin for four years, (3), as I have repeatedly asked to read WP:FRINGE, is the rule in this case. Honest reporting is not proportional, it is covered by WP:UNDUE, which I have been quoting every time I've responded to editors in these cases. Start quoting that language to me in this discussion and I will immediately start respecting your contributions a bit more. In short, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. In addition, WP:POV, which will mean I will have to ask User:Noclador to redraft his proposal a third time, because it is too pejorative.
Now, in accordance with WP:IAR, I am going to have to ask you to NOT repeat your same question again. DO NOT ask me again what policy I am basing this on. This discussion has gone on for far too long - years. I will not allow this stupid silliness over a fringe theory to continue. If you repeat the same question in its essentials again, I will have to score out your text, as well. SAY SOMETHING NEW !!! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Activity of President Lech Kaczynski at the EU forum on the Polish energy security (eg. the Nord Stream case) provoked fury of the ruling group in Poland, and has been the subject of numerous games and media attacks. In this context, the words of Vladimir Putin said during a press conference in Smolensk on April 7, 2010 (3 days before the crash) sounded quite unusually. The Russian prime minister assured that "the signing of the necessary documentation will be in the short term," and said that during his talks with Tusk agreed on a long-term supply of Russian gas to Poland. [70]
The Gas Contract signed. After lengthy negotiations, Polish and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Waldemar Pawlak and Igor Sechin signed the intergovernmental agreement in Warsaw to increase gas supplies to Poland. [71]
Poland pays the highest price in the EU for the gas from Russia [72]
Shouldn't that be noted in the article as it is widely commented in the Polish media in connection with the crash in Smolensk? Voyt13 ( talk) 13:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm working through Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. Would some admin like to fix the ugly red error messages at the bottom of this article by commenting out the 15 unused references? -- John of Reading ( talk) 14:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
On 8 July 2010 MPs and senators of
Law and Justice parliamentary group formed a group to investigate the causes of the crash of Tu-154M, 10 April 2010, chaired by
Antoni Macierewicz
[1]. The group invited many experts, including: Wiesław Binienda from the
University of Akron, Kazimierz Nowaczyk from the
University of Maryland and Gregory Szuladziński from Australia
[2]. According to these three scientists the direct cause of the crash was not a collision with an obstacle, but two explosions in the last phase of the flight: first on the left, by which the plane lost part of the left wing, then another inside the hull
[2]. They pointed to a lot of contradictions, errors and manipulations in the official reports
[2]Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[3]
[4]. Szuladzinski’s report stated that: any landing (or fall) in a wooded area, no matter how adverse, and at what angle, could not in any way result in such fragmentation, which has been documented
[5]. Nowaczyk analyzed data from FMS and
TAWS system and came to the conclusions that the plane flew over the tree and was torn at a height over 30m above the ground
[4]
[6]
[7]. Another expert, Wacław Berczyński, constructor of
Boeing pointed to the pulled out rivets of the sheating and claimed that it could be caused only by an internal explosion
[8].
On 22 and 23 October 2012, was held a conference with the participation of over 100 professors from Polish and foreign technical universities [9]. The composition of the organizing committee of the conference were Professors Peter Witakowski (Chairman), Andrew Wisniewski (Vice-Chairman), Paul Staszewski, Jerzy Urbanowicz, Chris Cieszewski and Dr. Wojciech Bilinski. Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the conference was prof. Tadeusz Kaczorek, vice chairman prof. Jacek Ronda, members of the presidium: Kazimierz Flaga, Robert Gałązka, Lucjan Piela and Peter Witakowski, professors and members of honor : Janusz Turowski and John Weglarz [10] [11]. The participants have confirmed the hypothesis of explosions [12]. One of them, prof. J. Obrebski presented an analysis of part of the wreck, which according to him could be a place to put an explosive charge. The fragment was torn in a way that is evidenced for the internal explosion [13].
On 30 October 2012 “Rzeczpospolita” magazine reported that Polish prosecutors and experts that have examined the wreckage have detected vestiges of explosives (TNT and Nitroglycerin) inside of the aircraft, on up to 30 seats , on the wing and on the plating [14] [15] . Later, the magazine withdrew from the statement [16] [17] . However, the author of the text maintained the thesis and claimed it was confirmed by four independent sources [18].
Some niche media in Poland like "Newsweek" and "Polityka" [19] tried to discredit the work of the group and Antoni Macierewicz himself, saying that the hypothesis of an assassination is calculated for political benefits. They even threaten that Macierewicz could provoke a war with Russia [20] [21]. The attacks on Macierewicz are seen as being inspired politically [22] . The reasons for that could come from the large contribution of Macierewicz in politics, especially from 1992, in revealing of former communist collaborators and the presentation of the report on liquidation of Military Information Services in 2006 [23]. A lot of politicians point to the great analogy of the Smolensk tragedy and Katyn massacre [24].
International media are almost completely silent on the work of the parliamentary group. Max Kolonko, a U.S. correspondent for Polish TV, said that the U.S. and international agencies informed about the progress of the investigation from ITAR-TASS because it was led by the Russians. As a result, most Americans have no idea that eg. black boxes and the wreck of the plane, which are Polish property, did not return to Poland - two and a half years after the tragedy, and two years after the completion of the investigation [25].
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
Voyt13 ( talk) 21:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem with full protection is that it is giving in to the small handful of editors who have persistently disregarded advice about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. This has been going on for months, and it is disappointing that the message has still not been heard loud and clear.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
topic ban sounds like the best resolution to this impasse. noclador ( talk) 17:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Is it time again for weird conspiracy theories and political smear campaigns?? Even the President of the Polish Episcopal Conference bishop Józef Michalik told the conspiracy weirdos to present proof or shut up [1]. Besides saying the Russians bombed the plane, Macierewicz also wants to prove that Donald Tusk, Radoslaw Sikorski, Bogdan Klich, Jerzy Miller and Tomasz Arabski “intentionally and deliberately committed a number of offences to the detriment of the Republic of Poland and its constitutional organs”, which he believes led to the tragedy on 10 April 2010; furthermore he claims that the Russian "жизненные рефлекси" (vital reflexes) actually means "signs of life" thus proving people survived the crash [2]; his expert admits that he only analysed the pictures taken just after the air crash and thus came to his conclusion this was a bomb [3], the "scientists" will meet actually for the first time in October 2012, my favorite weirdo sentence from Macierewicz is: "And if we scrutinise the report and focus only on the suggested irregularities in the 26 Air Forces Regiment, the blame sits firmly with the Donald Tusk cabinet." [4]. This all is nothing but some political blame game - wikipedia is not involved in Polish political debates - especially ones that are based on flimsy evidence, hearsay, conspiracy theories, and just plain lying (see bishop Józef Michalik for that quote)... More proof that this is junk, fringe: [5], or this gem "the members of the committee were more or less in the middle of their work." followed by "also presented the main conclusions reached during the work." [6] - so in the middle of the work the conclusions are already established??? Serious work there in the Polish parliament... especially as the experts want to be anonymous... and that the "The decision concerning the landing was political and came from Moscow, which should be clearly said. " [7] or this political crap: the military prosecutors wanted to talk to Binienda, who refused and instead invited them to interview him at a session of the committee in parliament, which the prosecutors declined to visit (as it would be a political spectacle). [8] and have a look at this gem: "Antoni Macierewicz also stressed that while investigating the Smolensk air crash, the Polish officials "were acting according to Putin's decree."... because this is all part of the Russian war against Poland! [9]. Therefore a) POV tag removed b) section deleted. c) Discussion hereby ended. noclador ( talk) 04:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Following are some of Binienda's "fringe" credentials. Machine language translation:
"Collaborates with NASA conducting leading research grants funded by NASA [11]. Led by the Gas Turbine Testing Facility, built in 2005-2006 [21], has been conducting research on the components of turbines and engines for the United States Air Force, NASA and private industry [22] (companies General Electric, Honeywell and Williams International [10]). In 2008, it installed the so-called lab. has gas, entirely funded by the NASA Glenn Research Center, used by the team Wieslaw Biniendy testing of composite materials subjected to collisions with objects moving at high speed [23]. Participated in the study disaster space shuttle "Columbia" [24] [25], but it is not listed among those participating in the study in the official report drawn up after the disaster. [26] NASA collaborated with the turbofan engine design called the GEnx, which is used in Boeing 787 Dreamliner [11], and is co-author of a new composite material with a special woven carbon fiber used to build the GEnx engine [27]."
So, pun intended: "'Houston, we have a problem" … because, neither is this guy "fringe", nor are the others, and neither are their findings. You can't marginalize "facts" (read: numbers that at least are adding up) just because they didn't originate from the sources liked by SOME editors. Mind you, all of this was reported by the reputable media outlets in Poland, United States, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, and elsewhere. The aforementioned findings were also subject of an intense peer-review, and prevailed. Similarly, one would hope that the European Parliament, or the Polish Parliament, or the Polish Parliamentary Group, are as notable as are the other sources cited in this article. The Wiki readers are NOT STUPID, and I find the motives guiding some of the editors here puzzling - to say the least. As far as the length of the said section of the article is concerned, my personal feeling is that compared to the lengthy diatribes about a lot of nothing, the Voyt13's contribution constitutes only a small portion of an overall article length, and should stay as is. The sources are prominent enough, the findings are documented, and are properly annotated. -- Doomed Soldiers ( talk) 13:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Voyt13 please - take it a notch down! 1) Waclaw Berczynski is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the article, so it was hard for me to spot his name when reading the section. 2) Why is the source for all your claims the right-wing niezalezna.pl site? It is known for its right-wing/extreme right-wing/radically rightist views and its close ties to the
Law and Justice Party... and its editor in chief wants to prove his view that President Lech Kaczynski was murdered (
his viewpoint
brought to you via socketeer Robert Warrens homepage!) Is that all you can provide as a sources?? Aren't there some other Polish papers that also say that the plane was brought down by explosives?? and if possible provide some sources in English! but not freepl.info as it only translates material from niezalezna.pl! Also provide a some sources for the claim "lies of Ewa Kopacz about the fake-autopsies", because all mentions of that I can find are: niezalezna.pl, freepl.info, Robert Warrens homepage and topix.com, which copies from freepl.info... As you do not provide coherent arguments for including the section in the article I urge you to find some sources that do make the argument for you, because they are such mainstream respected news publications that nobody will ever challenge the section again! So, do yourself a favor and find such sources! Because otherwise there is still no foundation to include this
WP:FRINGE theory in the article.
noclador (
talk)
08:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Some sort of a final-ish report. [29]. Apparently, the new version is that the plane didn't hit the tree. Just blew up (but who broke the tree, then?... whatever...) Also, there are some charges, typical for extreme-right politians, against Donald Tusk, who is declared a traitor and conspirator against his country's president, interests and Honor. 37.144.138.38 ( talk) 18:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I asked very specific questions regarding a multitude of issues with this article, and yet aside from "because I can" you have not addressed my concerns. Specifically, why is Diana West from the "Washington Examiner" banned from Wikipedia? She has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Post, The New Criterion, The Public Interest, and Women's Quarterly, The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Times, and had frequently appeared as a CNN contributor. West also frequently appeared on the Lou Dobbs shows. Clearly Miss West represents the mainstream media. Similarly, why isn't Voyt13 allowed to quote the Cleveland Plain Dealer, or the University of Akron Press? Is it Wiki's official policy, which you in this case represent, to ban these mainstream media outlets? This is very troubling, and I hope you'll feel obligated to respond to my questions, or should the press ask you these questions directly? Respectfully yours, -- Vladnot ( talk) 20:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
An expert of the Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe, prof. Kazimierz Nowaczyk, says that the hypothesis of the explosions on the plane, which crashed on 10 April 2010 near Smolensk, has more and more confirmations. According to Nowaczyk - who took part in a meeting of the group - the distribution of the pieces of the wreckage, characteristic arrangement of the sides of the hull after the crash and a series of major accidents that have occurred at a height of over 30 meters, more and more justifies the hypothesis of explosions.
He added that the list of breakdowns that had been read from the Polish black box, contradicts the conclusions of the report of the committee, headed by the then Interior Minister Jerzy Miller.
- We were able to read from the ATM black box a list of 11 breakdowns, which occurred at a height of over 30 meters. These included damage of the engine, power generator, ILS system, flaps on the wing. (...) Hypothesis about the explosions, which destroyed plane in the air, is more likely to report, the probability of it increases - Nowaczyk said.
The expert said that the moments of events TAWS 38 (data of the obstacle warning system) and FMS (Flight Management System - eds.), when it came to these failures, they were hidden in the trajectory set out in the annex to the report of Miller's committee. In his view, the times of the events were deliberately manipulated or hidden so that the final cause of the crash was consistent with the MAK report.
- All event times are shifted so that the plane was as low as possible, at the place where the birch grows. These damages were recorded by an ATM box still during the flight, contrary to Miller's committee thesis that the plane was operational to the end. It was not, no collision with the birch would lead to such breakdowns - Nowaczyk said.
- The plane simply did not crash with the birch, the nature of damage of the left wing and the height saved at that point proves that the plane was flying above - he added.
In his opinion, the Tu-154M crash was due to: detached fragment of the left wing, a series of critical breakdowns, explosion and collapse of the fuselage and hit to the ground. [38] Voyt13 ( talk) 19:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
As I did not have the wiki markups when I wrote the first proposal (thanks to the WMF's decision to create a new edit window...) the refs have not been properly referenced. I changed that now and request the proper refs to be inserted into the article. I also request that the title of the section should be shortened. The whole section to insert follows below (note: not a single word of text was changed - only the refs!) noclador ( talk) 09:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
On 8 July 2010 MPs and senators of the Law and Justice parliamentary group formed a group to investigate the causes of the crash. The chairman of the group is Antoni Macierewicz. The group based their findings on three Polish scientists living outside of Poland: Wiesław Binienda from the University of Akron, Kazimierz Nowaczyk from the University of Maryland and Gregory Szuladziński from Australia.
According to these three scientists the direct cause of the crash was not a collision with an obstacle, but two explosions in the last phase of the flight: first on the left, by which the plane lost part of the left wing, then another inside the hull. These theories have been used by Antoni Macierewicz to declare that the crash in Smolensk was actually part of Russia's war against Poland
[1]
[2]
[3], while
Jarosław Kaczyński claimed it to be an assassination
[1] and part of a coup
[1]. Macierewicz also declared that Prime Minister
Donald Tusk, Foreign Minister
Radosław Sikorski, Defense Minister
Bogdan Klich and Interior Minister
Jerzy Miller are involved in the Russian cover-upCite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). and "were acting according to Putin's decree."
[2].
The three scientists, the investigation and the claims made by Antoni Macierewicz have come under intense criticism in Poland. The President of the Polish Episcopal Conference bishop Józef Michalik said referring to Antoni Macierewicz: "a man of conscience should consider every word and care not to violate the truth." [4]. Polish foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski called called Macierewicz a "hysteric and bungler" [5]. The main stream Polish news media also criticized the investigation sharply: none of the experts involved has any experience with plane crashes and Polityka magazine went as far as saying that the three experts "violate basic standards of science" [6]. The investigation is seen as a political smear campaign to discredit Prime Minister Donald Tusk [7] [7]. Newsweek Poland stated that "the theory of the assassination, is calculated for.. political benefits." [8].
For the record, if anyone thinks that Buckshot06 should not have locked the page per WP:INVOLVED, I would have done locked the page myself in this situation had I not been asleep. This third investigation is now showing itself to be in FRINGE territory. The statement that the aircraft would not have been so comprehensively destroyed is contradicted by the crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 981, which was also a crash into woodland. That aircraft was reduced to smaller pieces than the Tu-154 involved in this accident. Mjroots ( talk) 05:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest to replace the section Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe with the following text:
And then we reference it with Newsweek Poland, the Polish Foreign ministry, the interview of bishop Józef Michalik and the Polityka article. noclador ( talk) 03:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this version better? If need be I can find more Polish sources noclador ( talk) 12:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
In accordance with WP:ARBEE and WP:IAR I am hereby adding this text to the page. Any complaints can be directed here or to my talkpage. Voyt13, please take a look at WP:ARBEE; welcome further discussion on my talkpage, but not here; I do not believe I am alone is being very tired of incessant pushing of a WP:FRINGE theory not supported by effective reliable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Can some grownup with real journalistic training please get involved in this silliness? If there ever was a reason for anyone to doubt why information served by Wikipedia is explicitly banned from use in schools, they should read through this nonsense. What has the user Voyt13 brought to the table that hasn’t been reported in the media? Shame on you Wikipedia for not policing yourself against the idiocy that has gone on with this article since day one. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.231.254.26 (
talk)
17:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Vladnot, (1) I have scored the above section because I believe the person was probably a banned sockpuppet, and was using WP:POV language to disrupt the consensus that mainstream editors have reached, (2) my method was based on my experience of wiki over seven years, and being an admin for four years, (3), as I have repeatedly asked to read WP:FRINGE, is the rule in this case. Honest reporting is not proportional, it is covered by WP:UNDUE, which I have been quoting every time I've responded to editors in these cases. Start quoting that language to me in this discussion and I will immediately start respecting your contributions a bit more. In short, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. In addition, WP:POV, which will mean I will have to ask User:Noclador to redraft his proposal a third time, because it is too pejorative.
Now, in accordance with WP:IAR, I am going to have to ask you to NOT repeat your same question again. DO NOT ask me again what policy I am basing this on. This discussion has gone on for far too long - years. I will not allow this stupid silliness over a fringe theory to continue. If you repeat the same question in its essentials again, I will have to score out your text, as well. SAY SOMETHING NEW !!! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Activity of President Lech Kaczynski at the EU forum on the Polish energy security (eg. the Nord Stream case) provoked fury of the ruling group in Poland, and has been the subject of numerous games and media attacks. In this context, the words of Vladimir Putin said during a press conference in Smolensk on April 7, 2010 (3 days before the crash) sounded quite unusually. The Russian prime minister assured that "the signing of the necessary documentation will be in the short term," and said that during his talks with Tusk agreed on a long-term supply of Russian gas to Poland. [70]
The Gas Contract signed. After lengthy negotiations, Polish and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Waldemar Pawlak and Igor Sechin signed the intergovernmental agreement in Warsaw to increase gas supplies to Poland. [71]
Poland pays the highest price in the EU for the gas from Russia [72]
Shouldn't that be noted in the article as it is widely commented in the Polish media in connection with the crash in Smolensk? Voyt13 ( talk) 13:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm working through Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. Would some admin like to fix the ugly red error messages at the bottom of this article by commenting out the 15 unused references? -- John of Reading ( talk) 14:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
On 8 July 2010 MPs and senators of
Law and Justice parliamentary group formed a group to investigate the causes of the crash of Tu-154M, 10 April 2010, chaired by
Antoni Macierewicz
[1]. The group invited many experts, including: Wiesław Binienda from the
University of Akron, Kazimierz Nowaczyk from the
University of Maryland and Gregory Szuladziński from Australia
[2]. According to these three scientists the direct cause of the crash was not a collision with an obstacle, but two explosions in the last phase of the flight: first on the left, by which the plane lost part of the left wing, then another inside the hull
[2]. They pointed to a lot of contradictions, errors and manipulations in the official reports
[2]Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[3]
[4]. Szuladzinski’s report stated that: any landing (or fall) in a wooded area, no matter how adverse, and at what angle, could not in any way result in such fragmentation, which has been documented
[5]. Nowaczyk analyzed data from FMS and
TAWS system and came to the conclusions that the plane flew over the tree and was torn at a height over 30m above the ground
[4]
[6]
[7]. Another expert, Wacław Berczyński, constructor of
Boeing pointed to the pulled out rivets of the sheating and claimed that it could be caused only by an internal explosion
[8].
On 22 and 23 October 2012, was held a conference with the participation of over 100 professors from Polish and foreign technical universities [9]. The composition of the organizing committee of the conference were Professors Peter Witakowski (Chairman), Andrew Wisniewski (Vice-Chairman), Paul Staszewski, Jerzy Urbanowicz, Chris Cieszewski and Dr. Wojciech Bilinski. Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the conference was prof. Tadeusz Kaczorek, vice chairman prof. Jacek Ronda, members of the presidium: Kazimierz Flaga, Robert Gałązka, Lucjan Piela and Peter Witakowski, professors and members of honor : Janusz Turowski and John Weglarz [10] [11]. The participants have confirmed the hypothesis of explosions [12]. One of them, prof. J. Obrebski presented an analysis of part of the wreck, which according to him could be a place to put an explosive charge. The fragment was torn in a way that is evidenced for the internal explosion [13].
On 30 October 2012 “Rzeczpospolita” magazine reported that Polish prosecutors and experts that have examined the wreckage have detected vestiges of explosives (TNT and Nitroglycerin) inside of the aircraft, on up to 30 seats , on the wing and on the plating [14] [15] . Later, the magazine withdrew from the statement [16] [17] . However, the author of the text maintained the thesis and claimed it was confirmed by four independent sources [18].
Some niche media in Poland like "Newsweek" and "Polityka" [19] tried to discredit the work of the group and Antoni Macierewicz himself, saying that the hypothesis of an assassination is calculated for political benefits. They even threaten that Macierewicz could provoke a war with Russia [20] [21]. The attacks on Macierewicz are seen as being inspired politically [22] . The reasons for that could come from the large contribution of Macierewicz in politics, especially from 1992, in revealing of former communist collaborators and the presentation of the report on liquidation of Military Information Services in 2006 [23]. A lot of politicians point to the great analogy of the Smolensk tragedy and Katyn massacre [24].
International media are almost completely silent on the work of the parliamentary group. Max Kolonko, a U.S. correspondent for Polish TV, said that the U.S. and international agencies informed about the progress of the investigation from ITAR-TASS because it was led by the Russians. As a result, most Americans have no idea that eg. black boxes and the wreck of the plane, which are Polish property, did not return to Poland - two and a half years after the tragedy, and two years after the completion of the investigation [25].
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
Voyt13 ( talk) 21:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem with full protection is that it is giving in to the small handful of editors who have persistently disregarded advice about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. This has been going on for months, and it is disappointing that the message has still not been heard loud and clear.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
topic ban sounds like the best resolution to this impasse. noclador ( talk) 17:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)