Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 007/Archive 3

"Illegal" ICBM
I changed the text stating the USSR was about to test an "illegal (according to SALT II)" ICBM and just called it a test of a mobile ICBM. The current footnote isn't a citation of any reliable source; it's just a footnote with three claims of ways the missile allegedly violated SALT II. It probably did, looking at the SS-25 article, but it needs a reliable source to claim it's "illegal" and not just a list of three WP:OR observations. By the way, violating a treaty doesn't mean the word "illegal" is correct; it means it's a treaty violation. In some countries, treaties become the law of the land, and in other countries they don't, so "illegal" isn't a correct description. Tempshill (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be best to say "test of a mobile ICBM which was in violation of SALT llBert Schlossberg (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the alleged treaty violation relevant to the shootdown? I don't see it as relevant.  Tempshill (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be relevant. The test of the SS-25 could well have caused the heightened jitteriness on the part of the Soviets allowing for a shootdown even though there was insufficent identification of the intruderBert Schlossberg (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Cannons vs. machine guns/"contact" over Kamchatka?
Good point about cannons, Socrates2008. What is the difference between cannons and machine guns?

I have not read anywhere that there was contact of Soviet intercepters over Kamchatka. Where does that info come from? And, of course, this deals wiht the question of cannon/machine gun use as well. I think that the very first that there was any kind of interceptor contact with KAL 007 was when KAL 007 had already passed out of Kamchatka territorial waters, was over the international waters of the Sea of Okhutsk, and Maj. Osipovich, from Sokol Air Base on Sakhalin pulled in behind it, and at 18:11 - Air Controller Titovnin: "Can you see the target, 805 (call sign for Osipovich)?" I see both visually and on the screen". Titovnin: "Roger, report lock-on". Perhaps, people have jumped to the concluseion that there was contact by intercepters from Kamchatka with KAL 007 because fighters, indeed, were scrambled from K.- but no contact, and they returned to base(ICAO '93, Transcript of Communications, pg. 62)Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See autocannon for the difference between a cannon and a machine gun. I feel there are still too many gaps in this story.  Cheers   Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   05:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Color Coded?
I notice that the title of this article is colored light green? Does that mean anything? Are articles color coded? If so, is there a color chart I can be referred to?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Major Renovation Proposal
I was involved in this article earlier this year, and intended to gvie it a major facelift to make it more of an encyclopedia entry rather than something more fitting of a televised documentary. Unfortunately I've been rather busy, but now I'm free I have several proposals:


 * Create an overall "Incident" section, which includes subsections on the deviation prior to the attack, the stalk and the attack itself
 * Create an overall "Aftermath" section, detailing the search, any confirmed harrassment by the USSR
 * Create an overall "Investigation" section, this will probably require the least amount of all
 * Create an overall "Reactions" section
 * remove the transcripts and the timeline (which is effectively a continuation of the transcript). Although an overall timeline can be useful, listing large amounts of conversation just clutters the article
 * remove direct quotes unless relevant, an encyclopedia is not meant to be a primary source, and should summarise quotes, not simple repeat them unless they have strong historical significance
 * remove a large amount of trivial information (for example, the location of remains can be written as "Human remains were found as far as Japan" rather than listing every single item found and its former owner

It is important for all editors to bear in mind that encyclopedia articles, although informative, do not contain every single piece of information avaliable on the subject. Many other air crash articles have appropriate models which can be used as a guide for this one.

I must make it clear that I and other editors and readers strongly applaud the work of Bert Schlossberg and others for the depth of information they have added. It is now simply a case of collecting what is in the article in order to make it more concise and thus more accessible to our readers. Guycalledryan (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree and support your proposal - the article definitely needs restructuring and your suggestions look reasonable and pragmatic.  Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   09:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree for the most part. The article certainly needs to be cut down a lot in size.  Hainan Island incident might be a good reference for a summary of a complicated international incident.    Anyway, I must say that for me the timeline was riveting in this KAL007 article, although it certainly looks like clutter visually.  Finally I would call the section "After the crash" or something other than "Aftermath" which to me means "Resulting events over the subsequent decade or so".  Tempshill (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. I have already said I found the structure unsettling. And as for cutting down, what about getting rid of that Jesse Helms bit? It's inconclusive apart from establishing that JH is a complete nutcase.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is also copied almost verbatim from the New American Article in the External links section.Dave (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos anyone?
I put up these photos but they were taken down by bot. These are amazing real time photos of the Naval confrontation between the Soviet and U.S. vessels in the KAL 007 operation. They have been recently released by the Navy Dept. and I have permission to use from the Naval photographer. Can someone put these up properly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Photos up
I have posted photos of Yuri Andropov and Dmitri Ustinov in appropriate place. These fotos where file photos used in articles of these two men and have been up for a long time. So I know that these are acceptable according to Wiki rules. I say this because these fotos were already up in KAL 007 article and then deleted. I don't know why.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Beginning work
See Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 007/GA1 for my ammendments and followthrough of Dave's GA! ReviewBert Schlossberg (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)