Talk:1961 Ndola Transair Sweden DC-6 crash

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

The loss of Ndola DC-6 with Dag Hammarskjöld (Sept. 18, 1961) is back in the news, with the release of the report from an investigation into the death of the U.N. General Assembly president July 6, 2015. Coordinates of the crash site are listed at 13°N. More likely 13°S.

—Prospero Septem (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Yes, you're clearly right about that. Thanks for pointing out the error. Deor (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Map

This article and the one on Hammerskjold himself include a map which shows the routes of his plane and a decoy plane. However, except for the map's caption this decoy is not mentioned anywhere in either article. 24.61.4.237 (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The conspiracy theorists make a number of mistakes.

1) Having filed a false flight plan at Leopoldville, the flight crew of the DC-6 refused to give more than cursory information to the ATC at Ndola as the flight was secret and for security reasons normal flight information was withheld. The ground staff at Ndola hence had no idea that the delay in landing was because the aircraft had crashed, as they were unaware of the aircraft's possible diversions, other routes, etc., when it failed to turn up.

2) The NSA had no listening station on Cyprus. The only such thing on the island was the British MI6 one at RAF Akrotiri. Any fighter aircraft in Zambia is miles out of VHF radio range of Cyprus - the distance is over 3,000 miles. Hence they couldn't have heard a pilot radioing that he had attacked the DC-6. In addition, for such an illegal and illicit act only an amateur would state such a thing on the radio knowing he might be overheard.

3) The DC-6 impacted in the dark a 4,000 ft wooded hill that was not marked on the flight chart the crew were using for their approach. The area surrounding Ndola Airport was mostly scrubland without any lights, hence in the dark there are few visual clues as to height.

4) The DC-6 was lower than cleared-to when it made its turn having overshot the airfield. It subsequently hit the hill while in the circuit.

5) The flight crew were tired having been on duty since the previous morning.

6) MI5 are the British internal security service and they have no remit for operations outside the UK.

Probable cause - A tired crew who had never visited Ndola overshot the unfamiliar airfield in the dark and then descended below their cleared altitude into an unlit wooded hill that was not marked on their approach map.

BTW, the scene of the accident, Southern Rhodesia, was at the time a British colony. Of course the investigating officials would be British. There were no other qualified people within several thousand miles.

A couple of contemporary Flight articles: [1] and [2] and later 1962 ones: [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.101 (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Title

Would a better title for this article not be "Death of Dag Hammarskjöld"? That is basically why this is notable after all. It would also be an easy way of avoid the current, slightly convoluted, title.—Brigade Piron (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. --Varavour (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Title follows wikiproject's guidelines. And is about the accident and its investigation. Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1961 Ndola United Nations DC-6 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514193909/http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/5069 to http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/5069

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Comprehensive article

I was working on and off in an article like this couple years agosnd quitted as couldn't access many sources. Happy to see someone succeeded, this article is quite good. Only improvement I can think is adding images specific to the accident, maybe from the official repirts? Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1961 Ndola United Nations DC-6 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A%2F5069
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716182945/http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1998/98820_0x1539810364.htm to http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1998/98820_0x1539810364.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201152937/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1087787.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1087787.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204041244/http://home.intekom.com/southafricanhistoryonline/pages/chronology/thisday/1961-09-18.htm to http://home.intekom.com/southafricanhistoryonline/pages/chronology/thisday/1961-09-18.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

"In April 2014, The Guardian published evidence implicating Jan van Risseghem, a military pilot who served with the RAF during World War II, later with the Belgian Air Force and became famous as the pilot of Moise Tshombe in Katanga."

That sentence makes no sense to me (it isn't even a sentence). Renerpho (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"RAF veteran ‘admitted 1961 killing"

This new Guardian story RAF veteran ‘admitted 1961 killing of UN secretary general’ may be of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved per unanimous consensus. No such user (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

---

1961 Ndola United Nations DC-6 crash → United Nations Flight 001 – The flight number is 001. baaa-acro says it here: [5] Username006 (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, the present name is much clearer. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: But why do you want to keep such a long name when the flight number is known? And it is standard proceedure to rename a page if the flight number is known. Username006 (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• As I said, it's much clearer. Not that long of a name, and just naming a page after an unknown flight number gives little information. The present name adds the year, an important detail for those who know the history. Maybe just replace 'DC-6' with 'Flight 001'? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: The naming convention is not like that and also, there are pages such as the 1973 Aeroflot Tu-154 crash which has been moved to Aeroflot Flight 141, despite the older name being clearer. Same for 2008 Colombia Kalitta Air Boeing 747 crash, which was renamed to Centurion Air Cargo Flight 164. Here, you can remove 2 words from the title and ofcourse, add redirects. Unless there was a common name to it, or there were 2 or more aircraft involved in the accident, it could possibly have a seperate title. This page does not follow either of these terms. Thus, it should be renamed. One thing, I would like to mention is that while I'm searching for it is that I don't type in the whole title and rather just type in '1961 Ndola United Nations' and look at the results. Better off to rename it as the flight number is known. Username006 (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It just seems truncated. This is a pretty important air crash topic, and 'United Nations Flight 001' misses a lot and doesn't really describe the notability. How about '1961 United Nations Flight 001 crash', that pins down most of it. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Username006, which naming convention exactly? Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, the fact that it is still controversial today, supports keeping the most common event name. Farawayman (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Please sign your comment by posting four tildes. I'm also requesting for a move here: [6] Username006 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay I guess Username006 (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess that's an attempt to sign the comment above? I'm confused. Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Please don't ask silly questions like that and make it look controversial by removing my signature on it. The naming convention is to usually name the title with the flight number unless it has a common name or 2 or more aircraft are involved. In this case, neither of the conditions are met so it is better to name it so. Username006 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove your signature. Here is what I did and it is all I did. Can you see that now? I can't sign for you. But you can sign the contribution and remove the unsigned template, as you have now done. It would have been better to do it using three tildes rather than the usual four to avoid adding a confusing timestamp.

But I did ask a question. You spoke of a naming convention, but did not say which one. Possibly you are not aware that there are explicit naming conventions?

There is a lot going on here and you are encouraged to be bold. See also my essay for my views on that. But you also need to listen to old hands, particularly to admins such as the one who has been trying to help you on your talk page. And I am also just trying to help. Andrewa (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

— Relisting. Muhibm0307 (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Fine, this is the naming convention:[7] Username006 (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Accident article naming conventions is not a naming convention. It is part of a Wikiproject. I know that is confusing to newcomers! But any controversial move is discussed here in terms of the article naming policy and its official conventions, which are listed on the sidebar there. The WikiProject page should reflect decisions based on these pages, not the other way around. It can be very helpful guidance as to how the official policy applies, but it in no way overrules or modifies the policy. Andrewa (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: The URL itself says 'naming conventions'. I'm not modifying or overruling the policy, but rather applying it. Username006 (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

But that's just the point... the policy you're applying isn't a policy at all. See User:Andrewa/Wikipedia article naming conventions and note the URL. Andrewa (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: The talk page says it is in scope of Wikiproject aviation and thus, we apply the policies over there. Why do you think it is written naming conventions on the title? Your rules don't override the Wikiproject rules. Username006 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree that my rules don't override the Wikiproject rules. And nor do theirs override the article naming policy. That is the whole point. If these Wikiproject rules were to become a naming convention as you seem to believe they already are, then they would be part of the policy. But they have no such status. I'm sorry that the Wikiproject has not made this clear, but this is their fault and nobody else's.

The page I created at User:Andrewa/Wikipedia article naming conventions also demonstrates that written naming conventions on the title is equally as meaningless as the URL. Any user can create a page that has written naming conventions on the title as I did for the demonstration of such things (and for no other reason). Andrewa (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. As above. This may be a shorter name, but to my mind it instantly fails on "recognisability" under WP:CRITERIA. The notable event here is the crash, and the current title reflects this in a precise and clear way. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. No justification in terms of article naming policy. See above for much discussion of exactly what is part of that policy and what is not. Andrewa (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: The current title also fails on Consistency and conciseness as per WP:CRITERIA. Username006 (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Can you find another naming convention? If so, please let me know. Username006 (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You still don't seem to get it. Firstly the page you have been citing is not a naming convention. It is misleadingly labelled, and there is not a lot I can do about that. (Which is a big topic in itself.) So it's not a matter of finding another naming convention, because the one you are citing is not a naming convention. Secondly, Wikipedia naming conventions do not cover every article title, as you would know if you had followed that link which I have given several times now. The article title policy does cover every title, and the naming conventions which it lists cover particular areas in which exceptions have been made to the general principles which are on the policy page. And there does not seem to be one that covers this article, as is also the case for the vast majority of article titles. Assuming this is the case we just go by the policy. Andrewa (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If it was a misleading convention, then why would they name it so? And which policy exactly? Username006 (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, the policy is Wikipedia:Article titles. Is that exact enough?

It has many shortcuts, and is linked to in many places. Including of course the very post to which you are replying. Would it be too much to ask you to actually read a post before replying to it?

You asked me above Please don't ask silly questions like that and make it look controversial by removing my signature on it when I had not removed your signature. I don't call your questions silly. They are good questions. It is your repeating ones that have already been answered that is rather silly, as is making blatantly false statements that all just reflect your not reading other posts at all carefully... if at all.

As to why the WikiProject have not made the status of their recommendations clear, you'd better ask them. It is a very good question. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mostly for the reasons given above on recognizability. Most discussions of the event always use the words "Ndola" and "crash", so it is helpful to include that in the title. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

4x oppose, 1x agree... why don't we close this? Farawayman (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Closing is not just a matter of counting heads. But you can request closure. Andrewa (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2021 (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.

Proof for Andrewa

Okay, this is for @Andrewa:. This is proof that the naming convention I had stated earlier was correct: [8]. The page clearly states that page in the 'refer also' section. Username006 (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Site

In the Infobox, it is written that the "crash site" is "15 km west of Ndola Airport".

But in 2021, that Airport (Ndola Airport) moved addresses and it is now a "next-door neighbour" to that Memorial Site (no-longer 15 km away), as indicated in the Ndola Airport article.

So, what would you suggest we change those words to? Would it be appropriate to write "just south of Ndola Airport"? GeographicAccountant (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy between lead section and first section

Almost every piece of information in the body of text under "Incident" is already contained in the lead, with the exceptions of mentioning that Tshombe's troops were Katangese, that the other side was made up of UN forces, and that before Hammarskjöld was on his way to negotiations to end the fighting, he had learned that there was fighting.

All three of which can be inferred from the knowledge that Tshombe was the president of Katanga, the UN was sending a representative, and the fact that Hammarskjöld was on his way to negotiate a ceasefire (which would, of course, be difficult if he was unaware of the combat).

I'm not suggesting that the section be deleted, just that it be restructured so as to not restate the lead and include more new information about the incident itself. It may be better to actually tighten up the lead instead, but since I'm unsure about best practices here I figured I'd ask. Grassbear (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)