Talk:1989 Belgium MiG-23 crash

Skurigin or Skuridin
Some Engish-language sources give pilot's name as Skurigin. But in all Soviet/Russian sources he appears as Skuridin. Creo11 (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Victim
The name of the victim was Wim De Laere. See also http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellegem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.40.213 (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Lose the Rendering
I see there has been a back-and-forth on this, so rather than just pull it again, I'll ask why is this image being retained? Its very nature (of passing itself off as a real photo with its curious foreground clutter) is deceptive. DulcetTone (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should go - despite the caption saying it's a rendering at first glance it appears to be a dramatic photo. Without any evidence the planes were flying as low and close as depicted it is misleading speculation. 87.83.164.34 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In what way is it deceptive or confusing? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Combat
The article describes a series of events where a “routine training flight” suffered an engine problem, the sole crewmember ejected from the aircraft, and the aircraft continued to fly until it ran out of fuel and crashed.

This was clearly an accident.

That the aircraft crossed international boundaries between Cold War adversaries made it a diplomatic incident, for which the article is a member of Category:Diplomatic incidents. But recently an IP editor, using multiple IP addresses, has repeatedly added Category:Combat incidents, which seems manifestly incorrect. The flight was never a combat mission, no enemy was engaged, and no weapons were used. In fact, when the unresponsive aircraft was intercepted to investigate, US and Soviet aircraft flew together with no hostile action taken by either side. One of the sources, cited in the article, notes that the built-in cannon of the MiG-23 was not even armed for this training flight. This was definitely not a “combat incident”.

I'm not interested in an edit war, but if there are no objections, I'm going to remove that inappropriate category (again).

Unician &nabla; 05:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd already been thinking the same. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The silent anonymous editor has again added the same inappropriate category, from yet another IP address, and it has again been removed. Would whoever is making that change please discuss it here, on its merits, rather than edit-warring?  Unician &nabla; 08:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)