Talk:Caspian Airlines Flight 7908

Registration

From the article: "(registration/tail number EP-CP?)" (without sorce) --ospalh (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to remove the "?" bit. Too slow.--ospalh (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Caspian has/had 5 TU-154s, EP-CPG, N, O, S and T Mjroots (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be EP-CPG, per ref found at Aviation Herald. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

just a side-note, aircraft was originally delivered to Bakhtar Afghan Airlines, source Planespotters.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.76.74 (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That link doesn't work. Can't incorporate the info unless it can be verified. Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

full link here [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.76.74 (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Trade embargo

Is this section relevant, or is it pushing a POV? The accident could have happened whatever aircraft was being flown at the time, be it Tupolev, Yakovlev, Boeing or Airbus. The cause of the accident is not known, and presumably under investigation by the relevant authorities. Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's not fair to the Russians. What about the recent French/Brazil and Sudanese crashes? They were western built right? I don't see a pattern here so I think it should be removed unless there is documented casualty problem with these planes. M99 87.59.78.16 (talk)

Adding paragraph about 'Cause' taken from 2003 Iran Ilyushin Il-76 crash (so it was also a concern then). And adding the reaons why Iranians buy all these Russian planes in the first place. This is an unexpected consequence of the Embargo by western contries. If no embargo, the spare-parts for Boings and others would be coming in, or Iran would have used some of their considerable oil-proceeds in recent years to buy brand new airplanes. This is a side-effect of the Embargo that hurts Iranian people today, AND ONE THAT THE WORLDS MOST OBJECTIVE AND TRUSTED NEWS SERVICE, the BBC found reasons to mention, but interesting enough not any of the main American newspapers.Michelle Bentley (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are only assuming different planes would have been bought if no embargo existed. Iran regulations currently let unsafe aircraft fly, we have no evidence to suggest they would do otherwise if there was not an embargo. We can hope they would but to report that they would is not journalistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.0.44 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The implication that Russian planes in general are not safe, where Wikiepedia states the the Tu-154 has an average safety record for its length of service, and few accidents appear to have been due to technical failure. So this article is heavily basised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.5.103 (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Except I don't see any of what you say in the article...? Neither as an implication nor (as one would expect, since "implications" are a vague thing) as a statement. --LjL (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I also fail to see why the embargo is mentioned. It seems to slight both western countries for enforcing the embargo and Russia for implying they build poor quality aircraft. Sabar^Cont 13:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you write to the BBC, or at least the author of that specific references, to ask them that? --LjL (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Trench measurements

From the "Disappearance" section: "The plane was completely destroyed after it had smashed into an agricultural field - causing deep trenches up to 10 metres (11 yd)." Are these trenches just vaguely "deep" and 10 meters in length, or is it saying "some of the trenches are 10 meters deep"? I can't find another article with precise info on this, but if anyone else out there does, I think it would help to illustrate the forces and physics involved in this particular crash. NeutronTaste (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Check out the BBC link (currently ref #2), there's a video of the hole that was left. Mjroots (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The article doesnt say whether its 10m deep or long or wide... can anyone suggest? Jddriessen (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Channel 4 (UK) News said crater was 10m deep. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that is probably what is meant and is a result of hasty reporting early on, but I say wait until the crash has been more closely investigated. Craters are obviously explosions related, while the term trenches seems to imply the plane skidded or scraped the Earth. The article states that there are still fires in a large area around the crash, so perhaps the site has not even been fully examined. NeutronTaste (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems this issue has been resolved. I've seen reports of "gouges up to ten feet deep", and it appears someone has already added this into the article. Should we mention that this is indicative of skidding as the plane hit the ground, rather than, say, an extremely vertical course? I can't imagine that too many planes hit the ground straight-down, nose-first, but still. It couldn't hurt to give an idea of the angle at which the craft hit. Perhaps this will have to wait until the official statements, though. NeutronTaste (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fire

Word on Pprune is that an uncontained engine failure and fire may have been the cause. Now, if we could find a WP:RS to confirm it we could add it to the article. Mjroots (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Other recent incidents

OK, my removal of this section has been reverted. I'm not getting into an edit war over it. My opinion is that this section is not relevant as there is no proven connection between the accidents mentioned and this one. What is the consensus about this section? Should it stay or go? Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If it goes, there will certainly be trouble. However, if it is to stay here, then that trouble may increase by almost 100%. In all seriousness, I think the section should stay. Plenty of aircraft incident pages have a "similar incidents" section. If the similarities between this and other incidents includes geography, high loss of life, and other criteria, then I don't see an issue. However, do try and put links for each of the similar incidents (I assume there are articles on them), and get more specific data than what's currently there ("and some on the ground.", for example, is a little vague for this sort of thing). NeutronTaste (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, there may be scope for a section with this or a related title, but that needs to wait until the cause is known, which it isn't yet. The section was removed overnight by another editor. As I said, not worth getting into an edit war over. Mjroots (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cause & sanctions

Can we please record only known facts here. The cause is currently unknown. Two of the three black boxes have so far been recovered. Hopefully they will reveal what happened.

There is no evidence that the Sanctions against Iran caused the accident. The aircraft involved was made in Russia, operated by a joint Russian-Iranian company. In fact, all Caspian's aircraft are Russian made, they do not operate any aircraft affected by the sanctions. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for a cause section is pure speculation and findings on cause of the accident should be covered under investigation. Suggest it is removed. MilborneOne (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the cause of this accident was to do with ordnance being carried on board the aircraft detonating. As with the Aria Air accident, nothing at all to do with US sanctions. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy of discussion trade embargo on Michelle Bentley Talk page

Probably better to bring this discussion here...

Michelle,

BBC mentions trade embargoes as a consequence of the poor safety records of the Iranian aviation. This is due to the lack of spare parts for Western-built plane.

However you mis-use this quote for this article as the plane involved in the crash is a Soviet-made plane. This embargo had no impact on the safety of this plane. Unless you consider that Soviet-made planes are less safe than Western-made ones. But unless proved, it cannot be implied in a article.

Julien Julien1A (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have today added a paragraph about 'Cause' taken from 2003 Iran Ilyushin Il-76 crash.(so it was also a concern then.) And added the reasons why Iranians buy all these Russian planes in the first place. This is an unexpected consequence of the Embargo by western contries. If no embargo, the spare-parts for Boings and others would be coming in, or Iran would have used some of their considerable oil-proceeds in recent years to buy brand new airplanes. This is a side-effect of the Embargo that hurts Iranian people today, AND ONE THAT THE WORLDS MOST OBJECTIVE AND TRUSTED NEWS SERVICE, the BBC found reasons to mention, but interesting enough not any of the main American newspapers. So much for their perspective of what freedom for the press means, but we in the free world have a huge responsibility to accurately convey cause and effects of any current policies, and if we know a reason why many aircrafts-accidents happens [in this case in Iran] we ought to tell it.Michelle Bentley (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did you find that this plane was not perfectly maintained? The airline had all the spare parts needed available. If it would have been a Boeing or an Airbus your point would have applied as spare parts are not available. This plane was old, but Caspian could have bought a brand new Tupolev.

BBC wanted to raise the fact that Iranian aviation, which is still widely composed of western-made plane, is in poor state because western-made plane cannot be well maintained. I agree that we can blame US for that, but that would be purely my opinion. As brand new western-made plane and western-made spare parts were not anymore available, Iran had to discuss with soviet suppliers.Unless proven, Soviet-made planes are not less safe than western-made. Iran could have a brand new fleet of Soviet-made plane and have a safe fleet. But Iran have no money for that and have to maintained it's current fleet of western-made plane.

so YES embargoes can be blame for the state of Iranian aviation, YES embargoes can be blame in case of an accident of a Boeing, YES embargoes can be blame in case of an accident of an Airbus and NO embargoes cannot be blame in case of an accident of a Tupolev! Unless you think that Tupolev are less reliable than a Boeing or an Airbus, but that would be your opinion not a proven fact. Julien1A (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien1A (talk • contribs)

I have removed the cause section again it is all speculation as the cause is not known, it could have been a bird strike. Please only add confirmed information related to this accident. If you think Iran has a problem then you are welcome to add something to an Aviation in Iran article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the section, that I want included

It puts the recent event in context with the other aircraft-accidents in Iran. And they have been strikingly many. Due to the laws of probability the number of accidents will rise, when they only have these Russian ones, which has a poorer safety-record. Allthough spare-parts for these should be easier available, there might well be problems for specific (old) models, and it is possible that spareparts primarily goes to the Russian market before they are exported. This is a 1987 model, Russia only started its market-economy in the first part of the 90'ties, and while they in Soviet times as a state-company could supply everyone with every part, it is likely that Russian customers comes before Iranian customers. Please note, that with my recent editions, the paragraph quoted below that I want included, does not say that poor maintenance was the reason (because nobody knows). We are building Wikipedia together. Everyone can contribute if he or she knows something about a subject. However I find my paragraph continually removed, allthough I have used a great deal of time on it, and it is important to have a paragraph that tries to put the event into context.

This was the twelft airplane-accident in Iran this century and all in all, 948 people have lost their lives there since 2 February 2000. Iran's predominantly Russian aircraft fleet is aging and has a poor safety record. Qualified mechanics are rare and spare parts can be hard to find. Since Iran's Islamic revolution of 1979, trade embargoes by Western nations have forced Iran to buy mainly Russian-built planes to supplement an existing fleet of Boeings and other American and European models. Michelle Bentley (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well where are your WP:reliable sources backing up the claims in that paragraph? --LjL (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to politely disagree with you about including this. Until we get more information about the cause of the accident we should not speculate about it or add speculative material. Offliner (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also removed what was currently in the article, because it was WP:SYNTHESIS. The source did not reach the conclusion of the first sentence. I also have doubts about reliability of the source used. Offliner (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you waiting for? From what I,ve heard the black boxes are damaged, which are hardly surprising. If recovered however, they may show some hydraulic failure or some other component failing. All this can be attributed to aging and poor maintenance. But please keep in mind: I do not in my revised paragraph say anything about cause. I just mentioned the poor track record of the Russian planes, and mentions all the other accidents involving Russian planes. Then the reader will start to ask him- or herself: Why do they have all those Russian planes, with their notoious poor safety record? Becasue of the sanctions. That is why it should be included, that is why I have a right to include it, and that is why I am going to include it.[some articles out of the more than 1 million articles here at vWikipedia are ½ a metre long. Why do you jealously guard over the very few lines that you have made, instead of welcoming all kinds of input. Then -- perhaps -- in a months time you can start sifting through the information again]. Please be aware of the 3 revert rule. Michelle Bentley (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that your speculative text is very poorly sourced. We could add some of your points if we had very good sources that other sources do not contradict (which we do not). Also, I disagree with you about Russian planes having "notoriously poor safety record." They do not, and many of the accidents are because the airlines flying them often operate in more difficult conditions and tend to have less money for maintenance. For example, the Tu-154 has an average safety record, and "Few of the Tu-154 accidents appear to have involved technical failure."[2] Offliner (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

- Well you express the opinion that "Tu-154 has an average safety record" but aviation safety expert John Wiley quoted by CNN says that the Tu-154 has "safer than average accident record" - hopefully this opinion can make it way into the article. [3] 95.165.113.213 (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

While I do agree to a certain extent that Russian aircraft are generally less safe than Boeings or Airbuses (especially with Iran's maintenance record), Wikipedia has to be neutral and so this material cannot be published in one of their articles. Moreover, words are spelt wrong (albeit that could be changed by other editors) and terms like "all in all" are not Encyclopedic enough for, well, an encyclopedia. (Again, this could be changed by other editors, but it puts people off keeping it in the article). --Plane Person (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, those are really poor reasons to delete contents. Editors should improve, not delete, if the problem is merely spelling and grammar. Deleting content because of such thing is simply not right. --LjL (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

1) You will include it with reliable sources so back up every sentence, otherwise it'll just keep being removed, and rightly so. 2) Not explicitly making your WP:SYNTH conclusion but letting the reader make them is better than just making them, but still you aren't really fooling anyone, your conclusions are pretty evident from the way you worded things. Anyway, source your claims, and then we'll talk ;-) --LjL (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because of the neutrality issue rather than spelling or grammar. Because it may not be a fault with the aircraft or maintenance (I'm not saying it's not, I'm saying it's not proven) then it is misleading and against the neutrality rule to speculate over the cause of the accident with no proof or sources that it was a problem with the aircraft. --Plane Person (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter at this point. Every statement is sourced, there is no speculation about the cause of the accident (simply statements of fact), and those statements are mostly taken from WP:Reliable sources (the BBC) that talk specifically about this accident, so the connection is made by them, not us. The now well-sourced content needs to stay. --LjL (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, before you start postulating theories check your facts. There is no trade embargo by "Western nations" - the United States has restrictions on exporting aviation components, but not the entire "West".

Secondly, perhaps I am making a wild guess here, but I am assuming you are not an Iranian aircraft accident investigator who can wrap up a case in 24 hours. Your points are speculation - you could attribute a link between the accident and the embargo, but you would be overlooking more obvious and direct reasons - pilot error, use of black market parts, the weather etc. Again, nobody has a complete picture yet of what happened.

Thirdly, let's get some clarity of cause and effect. Did the Iranians buy Russian aircraft because of the embargo? Probably. Did the plane crash because it was unreliable? Probably. Could have the accident have been averted if the Iranians had used reliably serviced French aircraft? in lieu of American aircraft? Probably. Did the plane crash because of the embargo? Certainly not directly, and any linkage to the cause would be only one of many other contending factors.

It would seem tendentious, and original research, to have the paragraph proposed. Let's wait for a few days until some solid facts come.

Planes don't crash because of the Great Satan. Kransky (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the word "Forced" from the paragraph because we cant assume non-Russian planes would have been used/purchased if the embargo did not exist. A cause section should not imply Iran's regulations (which currently allow the flight of poor quality planes) would be different if not for US sanctions as that is speculative.--70.100.0.44 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Map ?

I think the route is now known. So please somebody create a map of it.yousaf465

Here is approximate from google maps. Google maps.yousaf465

trade embargoes by Western nations

Correct me if I am wrong but sanctions associated to aircrafts linked to Islamic revolution are only coming from US, even if Airbus are impacted due to the quantity of US-parts contained.Julien1A (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

According to my info they only affect Military equiqment. I might be wrong so do confirm.yousaf465

requested at Airlines Flight 7908 route

Origin of the plane is irrelevant

Iran's aircraft fleet is aging and has a poor safety record; spare parts are hard to find for western-built aircrafts. Since Iran's Islamic revolution of 1979, trade embargoes by Western nations have left Iran unable to add new planes to its existing fleet of Boeings and other American and European models. Instead Iran ordered mainly Russian-built aircraft to supplement its fleet.[10][2]

The plane being of Russian origin has got nothing to do with the accident, so why do we keep mentioning it? We don't say "political pressure has caused Air France to use mainly Airbus planes" at Air_France_Flight_447 either, because it's completely irrelevant to the accident. Offliner (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't decide what is relevant; WP:Reliable sources do. The BBC found it fitting to mention all that, and more, in a couple of articles. That's the reason why it is staying there. --LjL (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to this BBC article, it is not making a link between this accident and the Russianness of the plane. It an article about the background information, not about this particular accident. (In the same way, one might except the BBC to have a background article about Air France that says "political pressure has caused Air France to use mainly Airbus planes", we should still not include that in the accident article.) This isn't Air safety of Iran, this article is only about the accident, and we should not add suggestive, speculative material unless there is a confirmed link. Offliner (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am, however, referring to this other BBC article, which talks specifically about the incident this article is about, and specifically states: "Since the Islamic revolution of 1979, trade embargoes by Western nations have forced Iran to buy mainly Russian-built planes to supplement an existing fleet of Boeings and other American and European models". It isn't explicitly making a link, but neither are we. --LjL (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also due to thier strained relations with western world. But I agree with OP that russianness of aircarft hs nothing to do with this incident. Russian also issue airworthiness certificate This is jsut like saying that Western aircarfts are superior to thier western counterparts, although I do admit they are but that is like taking sides .yousaf465

IMHO, the BBC articles are both biased in respect to the sanctions. Iran wasn't "forced" to buy Russian aircraft. They could had developed and built their own with all the money they make selling oil worldwide. They chose not to. There are plenty of non-US aircraft manufacturers to choose from. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Then find another article that says that and disputes the idea that they were "forced". YHO is not enough, the BBC's is. That's how it works, like it or not ;-) --LjL (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know my HO doesn't count in the article, which is why I've not altered the text in that area. As you say, I could find alternative sources but don't see the need. The investigation report will hopefully reveal the cause of the accident in due course. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I could stress again that it doesn't matter whether an aircraft is Russian or comes from an western soruce, what matter is it crashed due to cause. It's this cause which is important not where it was manufactured. I think there are more western aircraft which have crashed this year than those of Russian origin but this is just irrelevant.yousaf465

Uhm, It looks like you won't hear me. Did I say I personally believe it matters? No, I didn't. The BBC seems to think it does, by putting it in a very article dedicated to this incident. You don't get to decide what is relevant and what is not when there's no consensus about it - sources do. --LjL (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I was following the sources. I would say that a western sources would be biased agianst russian aircraft, but you may add it. I will not further interfere with it.yousaf465

I completely agree with you Youcef. All this dicussion is based on a completely biaised BBC article. On top of that this comment is about Iranian aviation and not about this plane. It is also mention in this article that Tupolev planes are often operated by country who neglect maintenance, but the conception of the plane is in line with western standards, but this point is not reported in wikipedia. I don't know exactly what are wikipedia rules but i do not why understand why such a biaised and wrong article rules. It talks about western sanctions, and on aircraft only US sanctions applies. I definitely think that those who insist to have this point want to raise the fact that Russian aircraft are crappy aircrafts. I have been trained in aircraft engineering and i can confirm that we can learn a lot from russian about aviation! Julien1A (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well wiki relies on what they say WP:RS, whether it's as biased as a blog. Well you might heard of a saying that " Americans built a aircarft around a cockpit, while British built a cockpit in a aircraft." Acutally I think Russain aircraft might be ugly, but the are as reliable as any other aircraft, but this article tries to show that how vulnerable are nations which don't buy western aircraft, teaching a them a lesson. So everbody should fearful of Western sanctions, otherwise thier people will die.yousaf465

(outdent)I would suggest that the article concentrate on the facts of the crash of this flight (which remain largely unknown at the moment), and that implications of general sanctions be discussed at a more appropriate venue, where the larger implications may be debated (see numerous sections above). AlexandrDmitri (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That is what would like to see mentions the facts of crash not of santions.yousaf465

I have no objection to discussing internationally-imposed sanctions on WP, quite the opposite. I merely suggest that this article is not the appropriate venue. From what I read, I am not the only editor to feel this way. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to limit it to this article only. I agree with you on that count.yousaf465

I think that whilst we agree on the crux of the matter (that the origin of the plane really is quite irrelevant to the cause of the crash - it's the maintenance issues) we have been talking at cross-purposes (though I don't find the comment "So everbody [sic] should [be] fearful of Western sanctions, otherwise thier [sic] people will die." will help your cause). Actually I am suggesting quite the opposite. I don't think that we should "limit it to this article only"; I suggest that the subject of sanctions has its place elsewhere - perhaps in the Iran article or even better the foreign relations of Iran section. All that said, now that the text about sanctions is placed in a more general "Aircraft" section (rather than Cause), it seems less NPOV to me. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This was what I was trying to say, it's better placed in other articles e.g some you have already mentioned.yousaf465

^ "Iran Plagued By Poor Aircraft Safety". BBC News.

Is it relevant to have a reference which is more than 6 years old?Julien1A (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it merely reinforces the other (much more recent and directly related to the subject) BBC reference, without saying anything crucial that the other article doesn't... --LjL (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Notable passengers

I feel that the Notable passengers section is straying from our proposed guidelines guidelines: see Aviation accident guidelines: Optionally notable passengers may be recorded but should be limited to individuals with a Wikipedia article. Information including ethnic or religious backgrounds and school affliations should not be included. I'm not sure about the relevance of the 3 members of the Judo team. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think "notable passengers" are limited to people who have page in wiki, you can change the title of this section. Anyway, in my opinion dieing 8 (not 3) member of Iran's national youth judo squad and also counterfeit identity of 3 of them must be in the article. Pooya (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If the Judo team is that notable then it should have its own aticle, the bit about substituted team members has nothing to do with the accident but could go in in a team article. Natela Nikolava hasnt an article either so should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability is about articles, not article contents, and the citied WikiProject Aviation page is not a guideline, but a not yet accepted, proposed guideline. At the top of it, it says "Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'". --LjL (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that the wife of an ambassador is notable enough to be mentioned in this article (but not notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article). I've removed the bit about counterfeit id's of the judo squad members - this has no direct bearing on the accident itself. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Counterfeit identity of some passenger is very important. It is related to this crash because if it have not happened, nobody will knows it. Also not issuing any message by Iranian leader is also important. Plz do not remove anything without any discussion. Pooya (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"[n]obody will knows [sic] it" does not convince me. Discussion has been held, albeit with a limited number of editors. The death of 8 members has been left in, as has the lack of any message by the Iranian Supreme Leader. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For what is worth, I'm not fond of this not-very-related information being in the article. --LjL (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I support AlexandrDmitri's removal of the section about counterfeit identities. It has nothing to do with the crash or the cause thereof. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rumours in Italian online paper Corriere della Sera

I have reverted the addition of what I feel is speculative information from the Italian online Corriere della Sera: [4]

• "Middle Eastern Sources", who remain unnamed, suspect [...]
• The article is written in the subjunctive
• The jet - according to rumours [...]

does not seem a [WP:RS|sufficiently reliable source]] of information to me. Feel free to discuss. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Youtube video of crash authentic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Cp2anHN3U claims to be a video of "Caspian Airlines Tu-154 Crash near the Qazvin" taken from a nearby C-130 during in-air refueling operations. Not sure if it's 7908 as the entire tail section is gone at altitude.Pär Larsson (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Youtube video is labeled wrong probably. See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:2009_Iranian_Air_Force_mid-air_collision and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394612/Caught-camera-The-horrifying-moment-military-jet-fell-sky-exploded-fireball.html? Pär Larsson (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

New Video

Someone add this in the article:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Cp2anHN3U&feature=feedf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.49.116 (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Youtube video is labeled wrong probably. See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:2009_Iranian_Air_Force_mid-air_collision and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394612/Caught-camera-The-horrifying-moment-military-jet-fell-sky-exploded-fireball.html? Pär Larsson (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caspian Airlines Flight 7908. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090719143846/http://sg.news.yahoo.com:80/afp/20090716/twl-iran-air-accident-575b600.html to http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20090716/twl-iran-air-accident-575b600.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caspian Airlines Flight 7908. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090718110037/http://www.irna.ir:80/View/FullStory/?NewsId=590302 to http://www.irna.ir/View/FullStory/?NewsId=590302

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)