Talk:Artyom Borovik

A question

What was the reason for deleting/reverting my perfectly sourced text? Please explain.Biophys (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's yourself who has some explaining to do. You have hidden information in the references, you have totally misconstrued proper aviation terminologies (and hence their meaning) (my name is Russavia for a reason Biophys), and your introduced sources on not needing de-icing fluids is not absolutely correct, as the requirements for such things is not only defined by the "apparent weather". You have provided 2 vehemently anti-Putin sources (in an attempt to WP:SOAPBOX against Putin....surprise, surprise), yet I have provided Interstate Aviation Committee, MAA, Aviation-Safety.net, and can provide a heap more sources from aviation professionals, not from journalists who couldn't tell a wing from flaps, flaps from ailerons, etc. But of course, for this information to be displayed as prominently as your fringe paranoid theories, is impossible, because you seem to insist on hiding it. I am here to help build an encyclopaedia in a NPOV way, you however, as evident by your edits to this article are here to WP:SOAPBOX and present only fringe, tin foil hat theories in your drive to demonise whoever and whatever. Enough is enough. I will be seeking further comment on this from uninvolved editors....of course, I expect you to call them web brigade members as you do me. Perhaps you need to step back a bit and look at your edits from others points of view. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, tell me, what happens if an aircraft is travelling at 165km/h, has flaps at 11° instead of 20° (20° being necessary to create the necessary amount of lift on the Yak-40 at the correct speed) and the pilots take off too early because they have not taken into account the incorrect flaps settings? I'll tell you what is the most likely result...the aircraft will stall, and due to not having enough speed, lift and altitude, it will crash into the ground. It's all covered in the reports. But you are inconveniently removing that information. We are to present information and let readers decide for themselves. You however, are making that decision for them. That's called soapboxing. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes made to the article in order to include ALL theories. This is the only way to balance out POV. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the text. All your materials have been included in the text: 11° instead of 20°, and so on. In addition, they have been also included in footnotes.Biophys (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not how things are done Biophys, and you know it. What is in the article is YOUR POV, with everyone else thrown in the footnotes; let's face it, a lot of people will only read the text in the article proper and not even look at footnotes; so what people don't see is that he was an unplanned addition to the flight; which somewhat farts on the conspiracy theory that you have presented. What you are doing is a great disservice to this article, especially as only fringe conspiracy theories are allowed to shine thru. I'm not getting into an edit war with you on this, I will ask other members of the web brigade editors for their opinion. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man, but instead of discussing this article subject, you accuse me personally of something that I never did. This is not the way to go. On the other hand, asking 3rd opinions is a good idea.Biophys (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing the article content, and the article content is not acceptable because it is yourself you who poisoning NPOV by presenting prominently only your POV. Unfortunately, we can't discuss the article content without discussing your actions, and your motives behind them. Whilst I know what your motives are, they are bordering on WP:OWN. Information presented into the article does not belong in the footnotes, it belongs in the article proper. That is one of the BIG problems with this article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromise version

OK, I separated facts/official conclusions in allegations to different sections. I also restored deleted references in the end of article. Now everything is included in NPOV fashion.Biophys (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What you have done is to have only conspiracy in the article and everything else thrown into footnotes which no-one reads. It is not NPOV, and surely you have to see that. This is now getting to the stage of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OWN, and I will continue to challenge you on this. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is based on a reliable secondary source (a book), and a couple of newspaper publications. If you want to balance this article, please add more sourced information, instead of removing something that you do not like.Biophys (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "compromise" version, Biophys. You push gossips (ok, conspiracy theories) with making separate sections. This is unacceptable. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is published by two well known experts (both have WP article about them). If their version was disputed, you are welcome to include the corresponding materials.Biophys (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would challenge reliable on the grounds of the fringe conspiracy theories it presents. The newspaper publications were from within 24 hours after the crash, so one expects such things as purple aliens as being responsible to be printed (and they just fell short of blaming aliens). And I have added THREE sources, and the information has been hidden into footnotes. Your NPOV edits need to be reverted. And I am also not sure about your sneaky introduction of potential WP:BLP information either. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide at least one source that specifically disputes this "fringe theory". If you can not, this is not a fring theory.Biophys (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the official investigation for a start. Then there's Aleksandr Garnayev link here. Garnayev being a decorated test pilot in the USSR and then Russia, whose expertise was widely acknowledged within aviation circles. Also this and this. Unfortunately Garnayev was killed when the M-101T he was undertaking test flights on crashed; of course, this was also likely an assassination due to him knowing about Putin eating babies for breakfast. Not everything is a conspiracy Biophys, and Garnayev was successfully able to recreate the conditions which caused the Yak-40 crash at Sheremetyevo -- and the recreation of these conditions was in itself a high-risk venture for Garnayev. Additionally, I could easily introduce into the article a report by Izvestia that said that Borovik was in the cockpit during the fatal moments, and that he was responsible for the crash; but I won't do this, because I don't care for unproven speculation in an encyclopaedia, I prefer proven facts over anything else. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

None of these sources ever mentioned the version by Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky.05:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have protected article for a week to facilitate dialogue on the talk page rather than edit war. IMHO the conspirological version should be mentioned but the official version of the aviation authorities should be given the most weight. Izvestia version could be mentioned as well Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I support to include any reliably sourced information.Biophys (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In terms of aviation accidents, and a lot of things in general, official reports the majority of the time do not refer to conspiracy theories propagated by individuals with an axe to grind. Aviation accidents in particular work from possible theories and work to eliminate possible causes in the search for the actual cause. Garnayev and his fellow test pilot put themselves at the very likely risk of death in order to replicate the cause of the crash; all in the name of safety to the aviation industry and the people who utilise this essential service. The investigation was conducted over a period of many months with many hours of tests required. This is standard in the aviation industry, and if the authorities did not conduct investigations properly they will soon be made to answer for it. On one hand we have an internationally recognised aviation authority which conducted an investigation into the crash, and we have a highly decorated Russian test pilot replicating the conditions which caused the crash. On the other hand we have 2 people with an obvious axe to grind, who are not aviation experts, coming up with a multitude of conspiracy theories on the crash; and media who made all sorts of speculation within hours of the crash (as per the norm). Whilst there are conspiracy theories, they need to dealth with as per WP:UNDUE. Biophys, also, you have not answered many of the most pertinent questions which have been raised above, so in order for this to be discussion to progress, as I have answered your questions at every turn, you have not answered my valid concerns with the article, and I am requesting that this be done. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All sourced information provided by you has been included, both in text and in footnotes. I also separated facts and accusations to separate sections, which is the way to go per WP:NPOV. The "accusation section" was sourced to better secondary sources (a book published by notable experts) than anything else. No one ever disputed this "conspiracy theory" as you call it.Biophys (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered the question Biophys; that being, why did you remove information from the article proper and hide it in footnotes, yet left only speculative nuttery in the article proper? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove any information.Biophys (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You removed the following:

The investigation into the crash by the Interstate Aviation Committee revealed whilst snow was removed from the aircraft exterior, de-icing fluid was not applied. The aircraft was due to depart at 8:00am in the morning of 9 March 2000, however, due to Borovik's planned flight being delayed, Bazhayev offered Borovik a seat on the aircraft and the crew requested permission to start the engines at 8:28am. The crew did not ask for permission to enter the taxiway, which was done at too high a speed for the icy conditions, and the flaps were set to 11°, instead of 20°. The aircraft reached a speed of 165km/h, when the crew began to rotate the aircraft, at which stage it reached a 13° angle of attack, and stalled 8-10 metres off the ground, and reached a height of 63 metres, before crashing.

from the article proper and hid it in the footnotes/references section. Why was this done? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• No, I did not remove this information. Please compare my and your version in this diff: [1]. To the contrary, it was you who repeatedly deleted the entire list of sources (external links), as anyone can see in the end of this diff.Biophys (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Refer to this diff in which this was changed into this. So I will now ask the question for the third time. Why did you place:

The investigation into the crash by the Interstate Aviation Committee revealed whilst snow was removed from the aircraft exterior, de-icing fluid was not applied. The aircraft was due to depart at 8:00am in the morning of 9 March 2000, however, due to Borovik's planned flight being delayed, Bazhayev offered Borovik a seat on the aircraft and the crew requested permission to start the engines at 8:28am. The crew did not ask for permission to enter the taxiway, which was done at too high a speed for the icy conditions, and the flaps were set to 11°, instead of 20°. The aircraft reached a speed of 165km/h, when the crew began to rotate the aircraft, at which stage it reached a 13° angle of attack, and stalled 8-10 metres off the ground, and reached a height of 63 metres, before crashing.

into the footnotes, instead of it being in the article proper? The external links were removed by myself as they are simply news articles written within 24 hours of the crash, which provide nothing to the article that isn't already in the referenced BBC news article - please refer to WP:EL on what should and shouldn't be in that section. Anyway, I would like an answer to the question above. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem?

I separated facts of his death and speculations about his death to separate sections. All information was kept. What's wrong with it? Please explain.Biophys (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is WP:NEU. Speculations only (with consequent speculations on third persons like yeh Puten) do not deserve a separate section. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, "According to publication, Putin lived in Georgia between the ages of three and nine." (!!!) Very informative passage in the AB article. And more... Hence, WP:NEU and WP:NPOV Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, the best way for you to end the conflict is to make self-revert. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I removed this as separate section and placed the remotely relevant segment to a footnote.Biophys (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The crash

The results of official commission were controversial. Please see this: "Эту точку зрения разделяют не все члены комиссии. Один из членов комиссии приложил к окончательному отчёту особое мнение. Государственный центр "Безопасность полётов на воздушном транспорте" (ГЦ БП ВТ) в научно-техническом отчёте по результатам исследования динамики взлёта самолёта Як-40Д RA-88170 отметил, что учитывая сходимость характеристик самолёта Як-40Д RA-88170, полученных в аварийном полёте, с характеристиками самолёта Як-40Д RA-98114, на котором проводились специальные лётные испытания, можно сделать вывод о том, что взлёт самолёта Як-40Д RA-88170 выполнялся при отсутствии льда на поверхности крыла."

Most important, we should not do our own analysis of primary sources, such as original Russian documents by aviation commissions. Please use reliable secondary sources.Biophys (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Stating that the results of the official commission is controversial, in the article, without a source saying so, is original research. Additionally, a reliable secondary source is already being used in the article, that being [2] from the Aviation Safety Network. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 06:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I will bring a secondary source (a book) later. You probably did not see recent documentary about Borovik at Russian TV. Most of the people involved in the case agree that the crash was actually an assassination, but the opinions differed on the matter who was actually targeted (Borovik or Bazhaev) and who was behind the assassination.Biophys (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that investigation results are contraversial just because official investigation contains dissenting opinion from one man who opines that crash was due to engine malfunction is nonsense. All US Supreme Court decision were also contraversial if they have dissenting opinions? Both main opinion and dissenting opinion do not confirm that crash was provoked or organized. You have distorted original source meaning by stating it was contraversial and injected Original research about de-icing. Sorry, but such wording cannot stand by any WP standarts. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)