Talk:Kashmir Princess

no survivors
According to Planecrashinfo.com, there were no survivors from this accident.

Please see: http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1955/1955-18.htm


 * This is not about the "Kashmir Princess"!

Who were the three survivors indicated in this article? Vnv lain 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19550411-1 says three survived, so do my other sources. The flight engineer, the navigator, and the first officer survived. _dk 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The flight engineer, Anant Karnik, wrote a book about it. It was published 50 years ago. The co-pilot's name was Dikshit, and the navigator's name was Pathak. Basically they swam to an island and were eventually rescued from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.2.116 (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

KMT involvement ?
there is a couple of paragraphs regarding KMT involvement in the article which to me doesn't make sense. They are also stated without any source. Was thinking of removing them if there is not update to them to include citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher kat (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Gloria Eva Berry . Air Hostess Kashmir Princess
Gloria Eva Berry was the air hostess on board the Kashmir Princess and was the first Anglo-Indian woman to receive an Ashok Chakra. Surviving crew members testified to her courage and bravery during the last minutes of the flight, she should also be remembered & commemorated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.86.191.20 (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Date conflict
The main article says 1955, the infobox says 1956. I assume 1955 is correct? VenomousConcept (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit
With regard to this edit by, it seems to me that there is a significant difference between "A Chinese Foreign Ministry document declassified in 2004 also indicates that the KMT secret service was responsible for the bombing" and "Chinese authorities eventually concluded that the KMT and the CIA were responsible, although the CIA denied involvement." Mere copyedits and lede summaries should not inadvertently introduce unsourced changes in meaning to articles.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find a proper cite for the CIA denying it — I expect that they would, but this is in a period when the CIA was arguably at its most secretive and might not have said anything. However, regarding "Chinese authorities eventually concluded that the KMT were responsible," that's affirmatively and emphatically what the Tsang '94 China Quarterly article says. Tsang also says that there's "no evidence" that the CIA were responsible, so I'm inclined to drop that part and re-introduce the part that describes the Chinese government's point of view, citing Tsang. I'm still more inclined to do _something_ to get rid of that absolute clunker that currently is the final sentence of the lede. Krinn DNZ (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)