Open main menu

Talk:1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash

Active discussions

Weird construction of the number of fatalitiesEdit

Article says, "While 11 was the official count of those who perished, the exact number of passengers was not known. In addition, there were six crew members on the flight"

If there were ~11 passengers and 6 crew then ~17 died. If there were 6 crew and 11 confirmed deaths then the disputed passenger count would be ~5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.223.87 (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 16:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

  • Lead isn't an adequate summary of the whole article, I'd look to tip your hat at every major section.
  • "led to the death" resulted in the death. And I would suggest you state it resulted in the death of X people, including General ....
  • "general Władysław Sikorski and several other passengers. General Władysław Sikorski " firstly, be consistent with the capitalisation of General/general when you use it here, secondly, no need to repeat his rank/first name in the lead.
  • "the Prime Minister of the Polish government in exile" is there a link for Prime Minister? also "government-in-exile" should be hyphenated.
  • "While this catastrophe"... that's too much of a point of view. Neutralise the language.
  • From the lead "The 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash led" it would be better to not force yourself to repeat the article title, instead write nice prose and say that on 4 July 1943, a Polish Army B-24 Liberator crashed upon takeoff from Gilbratar....
  • Non-English language references need to state (in Polish) or whatever language they're in.
  • Ref 1 seems to be missing a )
  • I'm a little confused why there's a forked article to "Sikorski's death conspiracies" (which isn't a great title unless you know exactly who this particular Sikorski is)... I'd consider merging that article into this one.
  • For a non-expert, it's confusing why it's called a B-24 crash in the article heading and template, but throughout the aircraft is referred to as a Liberator.
  • "other passengers perished" -> "were killed".
  • "Fatalities included: passengers:" strange formatting. Perhaps "Fatalities amongst the passengers included:"
  • "Victor Cazalet" the only fatality not referenced.
  • "Apart from the pilot Eduard Prchal (the only survivor of the crash) all the other five crew members died" not great, perhaps "Of the passengers and six crew, only the pilot Eudaurd Prchal survived"
  • " and might have " -> may.
  • "which is still being investigated by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance.[15][16][17] The investigation is ongoing As of 2012.[18]" merge these, and don't capitalise As mid-sentence.
  • Be selective with the images, that gallery isn't particularly useful. If you merged the conspiracy article to this one, you could place these appropriately.
  • There seems to be more info about the flight itself at Military history of Gibraltar during World War II than in this article.

I'm quite concerned over the spread of the information which should all be in this article but seems to be across (at least) three articles. There's some work to be done here so I'm going to fail it for the moment, but I'm happy to discuss the way forward, and am content to work with the nominator to work out the best solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Most issues addressed, with the exception of lead, merger, and gallery. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

MergeEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. There seems to be a slight preference for merging, but not enough to make a decisive call in that direction - especially with the discussion having been stale for nearly three months. A fresh discussion might produce a more decisive result. ... The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I propose that various articles or sections of articles are merged into this as there appears to be some unnecessary forking and duplication going on. Specifically, information from:

should be merged here. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree it clearly needs to be pulled together, the Military history of Gibraltar during World War II could be reduced to a much smaller summary, perhaps also consider changing the name to use the more common Liberator rather than the American B-24 designation. MilborneOne (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
It should be listed a B-24 Liberator, just google the string and you'll see that's how it's referenced. Ajh1492 (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I originally intended for the two articles to be separate, as this one is about the crash, the other one about various conspiracy theories surrounding Sikorski's death. This is how it is dealt with on pl wiki, where there are two separate articles (pl:Kontrowersje wokół okoliczności śmierci generała Władysława Sikorskiego and pl:Katastrofa lotnicza 4 lipca 1943 w Gibraltarze. That said, merging the two is not an impossible proposal. Let's see what others think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whatever you decide based on predicted size of the conspiracy sec, please take the current "Background" sec with you. For now, it's totally irrelevant to the crash itself. I guess nobody planned or declared the flight as one related to the animosity between leaders. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree seems logical to have them in a single article, and odd for them to be separate -PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Definitely, same topic, same scope, why not. //Halibutt 07:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Because they are not the same topic, nor the same scope? Try to suggest merging Assassination of John F. Kennedy with John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and see how well that goes. Sigh. Comment to closing editor: please note that nobody bothered to address this key objections so far. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
      • JFK's article is ten times larger, and as such, creating a fork (which itself is five times larger than your fork) is appropriate in that case. Here, two barely 20K articles can easily be merged into something most probably around 30K. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Take a look at Sikorski's death controversy: "Alternative explanations and conspiracy theories" belong to a sub-section or perhaps to a sub-article linked from the main article. But the rest of info there is perfectly ok for merging, no need to have it in two places. //Halibutt 13:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Disagree One article is about the facts of the case, the other is about the conspiracy theories surrounding the event. There is a proper subsection with a reference to the article. The conspiracy theories themselves are notable. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    • No-one's saying the conspiracy theories aren't notable, it's just that they can be added quite easily into a single article. Why do we need a separate forked article about this? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Because they are separate notable topics, both which pass WP:V and WP:N separately. If you want to see one of them gone, please start an AfD and get a consensus in an AfD for deletion (merge). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Um, this discussion is a merge discussion? Are you asking for something else? I don't want deletion, I want merge, as do many of those above.... I think you're missing the point entirely. I'm now just waiting for a non-involved admin to close the discussion I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, we can close it, as there is clearly no consensus - I count three merge and two oppose votes. (Also, there's the issue of merging a GA and non-GA article, which could lead to the loss of a GA). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
            • I believe it's a tie, Ukrained2012 comment is against the merger and expressed an opinion similar to mine - keep the facts here in the crash article and leave the theories in it's own article with a reference to each other. I also agree with Piotrus' argument of merging a non-GA article into a GA-ready article. Ajh1492 (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not about counting votes (although four people are in favour of a merge, vs two against) it's about assessing consensus and paying heed to guidelines such as avoiding unnecessary forks. As for merging non-GA material, that's utterly irrelevant. Seems that the split was designed to create more GAs! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I think some of the grammar in the conspiracy article is rather clumsy, but being just being a higher quality article should not be considered some absolute protection against merge if merge is shown to be the right action according to policy and consensus. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Personally I find it Hard to believe it passed GA when concerns had already been raised over its suitability as a standalone article. It needs reassessment. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The aircraft was an RAF one so it did not have the 'B-24' designation - 1943 Gibraltar Liberator crash might be more appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1943 Gibraltar B-24 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1943 Gibraltar B-24 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Claims of SabotageEdit

This section appears dubious:

In December 2017 the book "To Live Well is to Hide Well"[32] explains the crash as completely 'deliberate sabotage' with proof and not as found by the IPN. Under orders with the OW JZ, Polish Military man Bronislaw Urbanski, a member of the OW ZJ 'Lizard Union' before it merged with the NSZ. Later Bronislaw became the ‘King Assassin’ for the Polish Government in Exile with orders located in England using various pseudonyms. He also was under the directions of Zbigniew Szubanski in Unit 993/W of the A.K. The book is based on Bronislaw's true life story and his detailed confessions. The book describes in detail why, who and exactly how this was done in Gibraltar without any detection to this very day. The method used to down the plane so quickly and leave no evidence has been verified by Garth Barnard Investigator and Producer of 'Sikorski's Last Flight' with WW2 Air Crash Investigators in 2017.

It is based on one source and there is no indication how reliable it is. 194.157.77.194 (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The book is a self-published work, mostly available in an electronic version. The information here has been added by an account that verges on the single purpose - User:Youngbruno - adding family information on the Urbanskis, and Bronisław Urbański in particular. A fairly long and detailed examination of the sources and aims of this editor was here, before it was deleted from the user's talk page. This book has had no scholarly reviews that I can find, nor any mention in reputable third party sources and fails WP:RS. The same material has been copied and pasted on several good articles without proper attribution or sourcing, and is especially dubious as it presents what is clearly disputable material as absolute fact. I will take this out of these articles, pending further discussion as per WP:BRD. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
RAF Gibraltar is a British military base where access was severely restricted at the time to authorised personnel only, the only people with access to Sikorski's aircraft would have been a few RAF personnel at RAF Gibraltar and the aircraft's occupants themselves. Franco's pro-Nazi Spain was only a few thousand yards away and the British weren't stupid enough to allow 'any Tom, Dick, or Harry' to wander around an RAF Station during time of war. Such people were likely to be shot-on-sight.

Adding that '...the British weren't stupid enough to allow 'any Tom, Dick, or Harry' to wander......' that is unless you were one of General Sikorski's 12 x bodyguards and were sent by the British from the Polish Government in Exile situated in London!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.205.223 (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

List of passengersEdit

Re: [1]. Given the controversy and conspiracy theory (or theories, Władysław Sikorski's death controversy), the list of all passengers is informative to our readers. It is also referenced. An essay on style should not overrule prior consensus and result in censoring of referenced and relevant information from the article. In either case, only Lock and Pinder don't have an article; the others have it (on pl wikipedia). But Lock and Pinder are not nobodies; they are discussed in literature on this crash (ex. in a footnote here [2] - sorry, Polish, and snippet view). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with including non notable passengers. Six of the eleven listed passengers don't have articles about them. Don't really see how including an unknown courier helps understanding the articles subject. We have a long standing consensus to include only persons with a WP article in aircraft accident/incident articles. - Samf4u (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
First, only two passengers seem non-notable, I've noted and linked the articles of others on other languages. And given the existence of the cited controversy, this is an atypical case. Lock and Pinder are mentioned in books, etc. and not just one or two. They may not be notable in themselves, but they are names some readers may want to know about. Ex. the snippet I mentioned notes that they have been accused, by author of one of the most prominent conspiracy theories, of being UK secret agents who blew the plane up... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
They don't have articles, a good solid reason they don't can be two things- WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is the crash article. You can put all their names in the conspiracy article to your heart's content as long as it is reliably sourced....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Lists of dead passengers who do not have biographies on Wikipedia don't belong in aircraft crash articles. It adds nothing to understanding the subject for readers and falls afoul of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
So the passengers who are significant are listed, but the others are mentioned only in terms of what they were. Eg writing something like "accompanying the general were two adjutants". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
From what I can see, the other passengers who were listed in the section have articles on Polish Wikipedia. To me, that's a clear indication of notability. I don't see a reason why it should be a problem having their names with short bio snippets listed in the article's appropriate section. - Darwinek (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
And the Consensus has been when a article is required for some aviation accident article., that it be at English wikipedia. Here is an example[3]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
A single diff to an edit is not a proof of consensus. All individuals which have articles on Polish Wikipedia can be presumed to be notable on English and should be treated as such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Not sure you can make that leap, perhaps create English article for them and see if they stand up. That said I am not sure that Jan Gralewski is actually noteworthy enough for an article. Also nothing wrong and perhaps more suitable to list them in Władysław Sikorski's death controversy. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Except that most readers would think to find them here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

Instead of the prevarication, let's just look for a local consensus. Should individuals who don't have articles on en.wiki be listed in the "List of passengers"? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  • No it adds nothing encyclopedic to our readers' understanding of the event. Should they be on other Wikipedia's is completely irrelevant and is by no means a free pass to notability on this Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No notability for inclusion in these accident articles has for a long time based on the subject having an article on Engish Wikipedia, not elsewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No per TRM....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No per my previous comments in the List of passengers section above. - Samf4u (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Every single name has been discussed with regards to some conspiracy theories or such, popular in Polish media (not just some fringe websites, but magazines like Polish Newsweek, or non-SPS books). Readers would expect to find a list of passengers here, not in the controversy article. I can understand BLP/memorial issues for recent crashes, but this is a historical event. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Władysław Sikorski's death controversyEdit

Much of the content overlaps. The controversy belongs in the article about the crash (or vice versa). Sandstein 13:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Agree per the last time I proposed such a merger. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I just want to point out Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternative theories there are separate controversy articles on some aviation accidents....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    I think we have to determine whether, in this case, such a fork is justified, not just whether the existence of conspiracy theory articles per se is justified - per the OP, "much of the content overlaps" (which was my concern some years ago). The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    TRM I understand what you are saying, I just wanted to point out there is a precedent for a aviation accident article content fork. At the moment I neither agree or disagree with the proposed merge. At the moment I just came off publishing my latest ebook and am working on my next which will be out in 3-7 days. So I am kind of distracted....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree The controversy belongs here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In a recent discussion on MoS (see section just above), some content was removed from the Crash... article. This content is preserved in the controversy article. If the merge happens, I fear that the MoS may dictate that some content is effectively deleted from Wikipedia. Further, the conspiracy theory is very much notable, and should be discussed in its own article, whereas the crash article can focus on the Mos-dicated details. Nope to merge.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • OpposeI have to concur with Piotrus here, the merge would inevitably mean cutting of important information about issues that don't have much place here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

LifejacketEdit

"Jerzy Zięborak thinks that Prchal lied on purpose about the Mae West lifejacket." This is the only mention in the article of a lifejacket. What did Prchal say about it, and why does Zieborak think he lied? 71.235.184.247 (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to "1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash" page.