Talk:1943 Gibraltar Liberator AL523 crash

Weird construction of the number of fatalities
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)

Merge
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)
 * Sikorski's death controversy
 * Military history of Gibraltar during World War II


 * 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&#124; reply here 12:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. To be clear, I am voting oppose now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:29, 27 October 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&#124; 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&#124; 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&#124; 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dziennik.com/www/dziennik/kult/archiwum/07-12-02/pp-09-13-02.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530101635/http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1%2C114873%2C10235440%2CSledztwo_ws__smierci_gen__Sikorskiego_przeniesione.html to http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1%2C114873%2C10235440%2CSledztwo_ws__smierci_gen__Sikorskiego_przeniesione.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6E00VF0bw?url=http://bip.kprm.gov.pl/portal/kpr/13/283/Komisja_Historyczna_do_spraw_Opracowania_Dokumentacji_na_temat_Smierci_Gen_Wlady.html to http://bip.kprm.gov.pl/portal/kpr/13/283/Komisja_Historyczna_do_spraw_Opracowania_Dokumentacji_na_temat_Smierci_Gen_Wlady.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6E00Vrwcs?url=http://www.focus.pl/historia/artykuly/zobacz/publikacje/komu-zaszkodzi-ekshumacja-generala/do-druku/1/ to http://www.focus.pl/historia/artykuly/zobacz/publikacje/komu-zaszkodzi-ekshumacja-generala/do-druku/1/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Claims of Sabotage
''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)

This book has been revised and has many expert and scholary reviews. Bronislaw Urbanski 02:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngbruno (talk • contribs)
 * There's no evidence of sabotage. An overloaded aircraft at excessive take-off weight tried to take off from a runway of insufficient length, never gained flying speed and duly stalled into the sea. The only evidence of 'jammed elevators' came from the surviving co-pilot, who said he put the nose down to try and gain speed and then couldn't pull back on the stick again. But clearly the elevators were working a few seconds earlier when the captain 'rotated' nose-up to bring the aircraft off the runway, and again when one or both pilots nosed down to increase the airspeed. Oddly, the inquiry seems to have overlooked the fact that there were two pilots. The captain, who did not survive, may well have been maintaining fore-pressure on the stick (in obedience to the general rule, 'Never sacrifice airspeed for altitude in an emergency'), which would explain why the co-pilot couldn't pull back. It may be that the captain realised that, given the lack of flying speed, the only course was to make a controlled ditching, and the co-pilot's back-pressure prevented this and caused the fatal belly-flop, which the co-pilot would unsurprisingly be shy of admitting. See Air France Flight 447 for a well-known recent example of pilot and co-pilot 'jamming the controls' with different inputs in a panic, and then stalling into the sea. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I'm not clear as to why the junior pilot, Flying Officer Prchal, is always listed as the command pilot, considering that the senior pilot, Squadron Leader Stanley Herring, DSO DFM, was in the other seat. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/21606 The article itself suggests that Fg Off Prchal was in fact performing the second pilot's duties, and Sqn Ldr Herring had a lot more multi-engine experience. Perhaps Sqn Ldr Herring allowed Prchal to take the left-hand seat for that flight (Sikorski supposedly wishing to be flown by the Czecn pilot for political reasons) and it proved to be a bad idea. It remains likely that there were no 'jammed controls', as they certainly weren't jammed a few seconds earlier when the aircraft rotated off the runway. It probably stalled due to insufficient flying speed for its weight (and the notoriously bad flight characteristics of the Liberator if its c.g. wasn't just so, the aircraft being controlled mainly with the elevator trim wheel) and Prchal thought the controls were 'jammed' because Herring was pushing forward on the yoke to try and ditch the thing properly while the less experienced Prchal was hopelessly trying to pull back in a panic to gain height, which was never going to happen. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

List of passengers
Re:. 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 - sorry, Polish, and snippet view). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; 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&#124; 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....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&#124; 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&#124; reply here 02:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Question
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&#124; reply here 02:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above makes sense as consensus for this page, but since it's isolated to the Talk page for a single aviation article and was only discussed in the context of this article, people shouldn't make the mistake of interpreting it too strictly and believing it justifies overriding general Wikipedia policies like WP:BIO1E on other aviation-related pages. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Władysław Sikorski's death controversy
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&#124; 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)
 * See WP:VALINFO. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support merge on the grounds of overlap, or even frank duplication. The same event discussing the same idea. For example, 1943 Gibraltar Liberator AL523 crash discusses precisely the sorts of material other commentators here are concerned about loosing. Klbrain (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Obvious WP:CFORK. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Notified Wikiprojects WP:MILHIST and WP:DEATH for more input.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: the two articles cover the same ground. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per opposing arguments. This is important, needs a stand alone article. 85.128.118.98 (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are items of information in one article that are absent from the other or that are differently presented. The information needs to be checked and reconciled. The two articles also need thorough copyediting. Nihil novi (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is enough content here to justify a standalone article. Can we ask that GOCE look at this piece and try and spiff it up a little? --evrik (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Lifejacket
"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)

Book and theory
I removed this from Władysław Sikorski for WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:PROMO. There may be something salvageable from it and vmt to Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus for the suggestion that if so it belongs here. The removed material is below. Regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

In August 2020 Canadian Aeronautical expert and mechanic Chris Wroblewski combined with WW2 Air Crash Investigator - Britain's Garth Barnard (who produced 'Sikorski's Last Flight') used scientific aeronautical analysis results produced a series of physical Trials based upon a model of Sikorski's plane (AL523). The Trials proved that the method outlined in the book by author Peter Urbanski 'To Live Well is to Hide Well' was the sole reason for the plane's crash.


 * I left the following message on the author's talk page (they have added this content several times now and been reverted every single time): Per WP:BRD, since your additions have been removed several times, please start a discussion on talk explaining why they are relevant. IMHO they don't belong there, but at 1943 Gibraltar Liberator AL523 crash. But you should at minimum source it to the book, not youtube video, and list the relevant page ranges of the book. However, the book appearas to be self-published (Amazon Kindle self-publishing), so it fails WP:SPS. Please see Talk:1943_Gibraltar_Liberator_AL523_crash and I recommend you reply there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Book that supports my book which remains unchallenged published for 5 years is "To Live Is to Hide Well", 2017 revised 2023.
 * HOWEVER expert WW2 Air Crash Investigator- Garth Barnard and Canadian Chris Wroblewski have produced the "proffessionally published" book called "Sabotage!" published by Grub Street Publications in England release date Nov. 2023. They state in their professional promotional blurb this....
 * Despite AL523 being heavy and possibly overloaded, this was not the contributing cause of the crash. The pilot had competently taken off and cleared the runway. The sole reason for the aircraft’s fall to earth was simply a cotton rag used by Polish saboteur Bronislaw Urbanski to obstruct elevator travel. He and he alone was responsible for one of the most shocking events of WWII."
 * This is what my book states and proves andvis NOT THEORY like you purport. I have provennit. 203.221.20.154 (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what my book states and proves andvis NOT THEORY like you purport. I have provennit. 203.221.20.154 (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2023
Please note FABRICATION and the man DIED before the IPN (Polish) Official investigation 2009. It is wrong and absurd to put someones comments that died before the official investigation that said it was still ongoing. The author who wrote this is trying to change history that it was an accident.

See and please delete reference to him. Do YOUR RESEARCH HE DIED BEFORE THE OFFICIAL COMMENTS OF THE POLISH GOVERNMENT

......However, as Roman Wapiński noted in his biographical entry on Sikorski in the Polish Biographical Dictionary in 1997, no conclusive evidence of any wrongdoing had been found, and Sikorski's official cause of death was listed as an accident.[1]..... Bronislaw Urbanski 01:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Recoil (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi I am the son and author of the man (team) that sabotaged Wladyslaw Sikorskis plane back in 1943.
 * I have written a book and it has not been be faulted in 5 years of print around the world. So it is self published. Its factual.
 * My father wanted the world to know when he died, but to wait 35 years later to stop the embarrassment of or to our family.
 * Now, I am dying of heart failure.
 * My book 'To Live Well is to Hide Well' 2017 but revised 2023 explains it all, please actually read it, it has references, photos and proof of precisely how it was performed, not theory, listing all those involved and even why.
 * FURTHERMORE it NOW has been verified by Experts, like Garth Barnard, Britain's WW2 Air Crash Investigator and Aviation (Canadian) Chris Wroblewski both have just published their book 'Sabotage!' by Grub Street Publications 2023. Their release date is November this year. So, perhaps leave any alterations and changes until the world is presented their book if you do not believe my book.
 * It will be embarrassing for Wikipedia once they publish their book as it clearly states 'ONE' person was responsible for the crash and they have already named him all around the world in their publicity campaign.
 * Remember, their publishing company solves alot of flight and aviation related problems. facts.

The biggest problem Wikipedia faces is = blind faith as Poland will refuse the truth as they do not wish to hear that a Polish Intelligence officer took out their leader. They want to blame the Russians as I would want to. What to you do Wikipedia, tell the truth or lie now and create fake stories to soothe Polish people? I would tell the truth.
 * My suggestion is either add my original comments why it happened, or wait until the book is released shortly and the news.
 * Peter Bronislaw Urbanski 22:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngbruno (talk • contribs)

Change in "Accident"
Zofia's name is written twice. 37.30.12.111 (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thank you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)