Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243: Difference between revisions

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243, along with other pages relating to politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators’ incidents noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kazakhstan (assessed as Low-importance). This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

Section size for Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 (17 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 8,140 8,140 455 455 Accident 19,837 19,837 714 714 Background 2,976 10,927 123 340 Aircraft 2,296 2,296 94 94 Passengers and crew 5,655 5,655 123 123 Aftermath 16,845 16,845 506 506 Compensation 3,417 3,417 257 257 Reactions 21,239 27,589 1,074 1,395 Memorials 6,350 6,350 321 321 Investigation 22,227 28,752 1,053 1,480 Kazakh investigation reports 38 1,766 0 162 Preliminary report 1,728 1,728 162 162 Hypotheses 4,759 4,759 265 265 See also 269 269 0 0 Notes 24 24 0 0 References 28 2,218 0 94 Cited sources 2,190 2,190 94 94 Total 118,018 118,018 5,241 5,241

I propose to align the preamble with the MH17 wiki structure.

Example: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17) was a scheduled passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that was shot down by Russian-backed forces.

Proposal: Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 was a scheduled passenger flight from Baku to Grozny that was shot down by Russian army. 31.134.106.191 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s at odds with the phrase “… widely believed to be a Russian surface-to-air missile…“? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change occurrence type to shootdown as it’s still considered a shootdown even if the plane didn’t immediately crash and was still flying for hours after the shootdown. Prothe1st (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: There still isn’t confirmation from the official investigation that it was a shootdown. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

after checking the flightradar24 news about it (https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/major-incident/azerbaijan-airlines-e190-crashes-near-aktau/), the flight looked like it did a phugoid cycle similar to that of United Airlines Flight 232, is it okay to add it? Stmbus (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Putin admitted Russia shot this plane out of the sky, can we use this to bring the article into conformity with COMMONAME and NPOV and change “accident” to “shootdown?” Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: simply a formality at this point, no one, not even the Russian government, is keeping up the fiction of this not being a shootdown. FossilDS (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going to oppose such a move or wording change based on WP:TITLECHANGES. This was discussed a lot when the accident happened, and the consensus was and remains to keep it as “accident”. Unless and until you can prove that “shootdown” is a WP:COMMONNAME used in sourcing, no. guninvalid (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – There’s no reason now that the article can’t call this a shootdown , so the occurence_type parameter should be changed from “Occurrence” to “Shootdown” for consistency with other articles, but I see no reason to replace all mentions of “accident” with “shootdown”. Again, the use of the word accident is not an WP:NPOV violation and WP:COMMONNAME does not apply since it refers to article titling. We still have plenty of sources, despite Putin’s admission that a shootdown occurred, that refer to what happened as an accident (in addition to crash and shootdown). Some mentions of accident can be replaced for smoother text flowing, but removing all of them would go against what reliable sources use. The Sydney Morning Herald; FlightGlobal; Xinhua News Agency; German Press Agency; The Moscow Times VOI. Even Azerbaijani outlets refer to the shootdown as an accident: Azerbaijani Press Agency; Trend News Agency ([1] [2]). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as opener. Consensus is not permanent, and project-space guidelines do not override core MOS / policy which require us to follow reliable sources. Then and now, the clear majority of sources have preferred crash over accident. While some outlets have used accident, that minority usage doesn’t justify Wikipedia adopting the less neutral wording. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The infobox instructions clearly state just four acceptable occurrence types: “Accident”, “Hijacking” or “Occurrence”. Few notable occurrences are classified as “Incidents”. If you disagree with that, take it up on the infobox talk page. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

project space guidelines do not override core wiki policy Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion better to have on the Template’s talk page. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template documentation cannot override core policy, so not sure what needs to be discussed there. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the template documentation is against core policy… suggest the needed change to the template. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you think project space guidelines override core policy, i don’t know what to tell you Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the examples on the template page literally have the occurrence_type as “Bombing”. With this in mind I think it’s perfectly in line with the template page that the occurrence_type is a “Shootdown”. FossilDS (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a proposal to add bombing and shootdown to the instructions on the template talk page. To be clear, I’m not opposed to adding them, I am opposed to ad hoc changes without updating the template instructions and the obstinate opposition to discussing those updates. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — While I do support the changing of the “occurrence_type” parameter in the infobox to “Shootdown”, the usage of “accident” reflects what is used in reliable sources. And as has been brought up before, the definition an accident in aviation simply means the aircraft was substantially damaged or a person was seriously injured/killed. It does not imply blame or a lack thereof. We could add a note to explain this, but either way, “accident” is a perfectly acceptable term to use. RandomInfinity17 (talk – contributions) 15:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support– Wasn’t there this whole discussion on what the occurrence type should be. It was I think ultimately decide have it be occurrence instead of accident. Now, that the Russian government has admitted they shot down the plane, I think it is time we change the wording to shoot down or crash. Zaptain United (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:Dreameditsbrooklyn can you detail exactly what you are proposing above because it is unclear to me, and it is obvious from people’s answers that they are answering the questions they think you are asking not necessarily the one you are. In my view either term can be validly used. Which is used depends on the specificity of the place it is being put and editorial choice. Maungapohatu (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]