Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents

message: Should this include the 2002 "narrow miss" of an Arkia plane taking off in Kenya? That incident resulted in missile defense install on israeli civilian planes.. Skullers 02:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempted shootdown?

message: not sure if it counts as an airliner. Any thoughts? Egg Centric (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the aircraft shot down was a Ilyushin Il-14, which is in the category :Category:Soviet airliners 1950-1959 (a subcategory of :Category:Soviet and Russian airliners), so I'd be inclined to say yes; on the other hand, this article begins 'in the history of commercial aviation...', and that wasn't a commercial flight carrying paying passengers, but a government aircraft carrying members of the general staff. You could argue it either way I suppose; I think I'll take a compromise view and add a link to it in the 'see also' section. Robofish (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does [[Operation Tarnegol]] count? 

message: I have removed a reference to an alleged shootdown of an ethiopian airplane by israel in the Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 entry. I have also removed it in the main article for that incident. It was added to the main article in February 2009 without a source and without explanation in the edit summary. No source has been provided and I cannot find any reference online to the alleged incident that does not apparently stem from the (incorrect) wikipedia entry. - Redshield3 (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 - Reference to Ethiopian shootdown removed 

message: I removed this section from the list as it doesn't belong to it. A military helicopter is clearly not an airliner. Phoenix ICR (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1994 US Friendly Fire Shooting Over Iraq 

message: I am wondering whether this event should not be included into the list.  If this aircraft was not really an airliner it was still a civil aircraft. --Lebob (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira]] 

message: I changed the text to an neutral, confirmed stance. I'm HIGHLY requesting an page lockdown.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.175.73.50 (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  17/7/2014 plane down 

message: Reference 34  "Donetsk People’s Republic militia downs another Ukraine’s An-26 plane — eyewitnesses" has the wrong year. Change 2001 to 2014. "20:01" is the time of day on the referenced page.
65.216.171.130 (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014 

message: Why isn't Pan Am Flight 708 listed? It was suspected shot down over East Germany in 1966 as it approached Berlin Tegel Airport. 75.44.28.121 (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pan Am Flight 708 

message: In the section on MH17 (2014):
:The crash of Flight 17 coincided with alleged claims by Russian separatists from Donetsk region in Eastern Ukraine of having shot down a military An-26.
has been truncated after "of having shot down." This leaves an incomplete, unsourced statement which makes no sense. The words "[of having shot down] a military AN-26." and the footnote need to be restored.
2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:74F (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for pointing that out! —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014 

message: Can someone please add Malev flight 240 to this list. The Hungarian-registered Tu-154 was downed on Sep 30th 1975 while in a holding pattern waiting to land at Beirut; all 50 passengers and 10 crew died. There was no distress call sent out by the crew and the weather was good at the time. Both Israel and Syria have been suggested as possible suspects and The plane was supposed to have been carrying a PLO delegation (but the delegation did not board due to last minute schedule changes). The radar signature picked up at Akrotiri (Cyprus) appeared to match that of an F-4 Phantom (which was only used by the Israeli air-force at that time) and there are allegations that the missiles were AA side-winders (again these were only available to Israel) which struck the starboard fuselage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzden (talk • contribs) 05:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1975 Malev flight 240 

message: Any thoughts on including TWA 800 as a possible ?  212.121.210.45 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  TWA 800 

message: I have doubts whether the 1994 Iranian Air Force C-130 shootdown belongs here. It wasn't a civilian airliner, but owned and operated by the Iranian Air Force. Most people on plane however were civilians (embassy personnel) but is that enough to make it into this list? --Pudeo' 01:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly a military transport would not be considered an airliner just because it was carrying civilians so probably doesnt belong. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. --Pudeo' 12:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   1994 Iranian Air Force C-130 shootdown 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of airliner shootdown incidents. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080224125657/http://www.news24.com:80/News24/Africa/News/0,9294,2-11-1447_2088413,00.html to http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,9294,2-11-1447_2088413,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Not sure why the 2015 Metrojet crash is listed here. Nearly all reputable sources, and even the main Wikipedia article indicate that it was brought down by a bomb placed aboard, not an external shootdown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrojet_Flight_9268
2601:448:4200:BCC:51C0:2792:D6B9:32C1 (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2015 Metrojet Doesn't Seem To Belong 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on List of airliner shootdown incidents. 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/20090127031330/http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/230754.htm to http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/230754.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820003641/http://www.helianthus-productions.com/VRHEU.html to http://www.helianthus-productions.com/VRHEU.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=1271&display_order=3&mini_id=1278
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070127234532/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/09/ap/world/mainD8MHSIGG8.shtml to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/09/ap/world/mainD8MHSIGG8.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0%2C9294%2C2-11-1447_2088413%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.malaysiasun.com/index.php/sid/236720/scat/b8de8e630faf3631
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) 05:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of airliner shootdown incidents. 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  tag to http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/great+escape-191713/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817135427/http://en.rian.ru/world/20070112/58977626.htm to http://en.rian.ru/world/20070112/58977626.htm
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) 10:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Severe wing damage resulted in a fire and complete loss of hydraulic flight control systems.[34] The pilots used differential engine thrust to fly the plane back to Baghdad, and were able to land without any injuries or major aircraft damage"
Does "without major aircraft damage" mean "except for the wing" or "without other major aircraft damage"?  I wonder if this could be phrased better?
Tvjames (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed that part completely, as the plane was not shot down. The Banner talk 23:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 DHL 

message: Now that User:Flyingd is loosing the battle at the Dutch Wikipedia about his additions, he now starts adding the superfluous information here.
As this is a List of airliner shootdown incidents the information given should be about the actual incidents. But Flyingd added some prior incidents to List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#BOAC_Flight_777. In this case the text The same aircraft was attacked twice before on the same route on 15 November 1942 and 19 April 1943 (see the main article about BOAC Flight 777).
As this has nothing to do with the incident, I propose removal. The Banner talk 13:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider this relevant information, besides the fact that the same civilian airliner had been attacked twice before on the same route which is unique in aviation history. Not making any reference to these previous attacks when describing the last fatal attack seems ridiculous. I am also not loosing any battle on the Dutch WP as there are just as many people that agree with me on this issue.  Flyingd (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Agree should not be added, not really relevant to this list. MilborneOne (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

text: A bit of history on this matter: Some years ago I looked on the internet to see what was published about BOAC 777. I was very suprised to see that on the ENWP there was a nice extensive article about this incident but nothing existed on the Dutch Wikipedia, notable as it was about KLM aircraft with KLM crews that had managed to divert to England after the occupation of the Netherlands on May 10th 1940. I decided to initiate a Dutch article BOAC 777 based upon the English article. During extented time I was the only one working on it, translating the English article section by section. However a small group of people (3-4, including The Banner) kept on removing large sections of text without any discussion. Even in this article the mention (let alone a description) of the previous attacks were deleted every time. Parts of my original BOAC 777 article where put behind a non-descript wikilink PH-ALI and other parts were copied to the dutch KLM article (in the history section). In other words the whole Dutch BOAC 777 article was reduced to almost nothing and it remains like this to this day. Flyingd (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but what happens on another article and even another wiki is not relvant to this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Just as the Dutch equivalent, this is a list of shootdown incidents. This is not an overview of prior incidents with the plane. That belongs in the article about the plane itself. The Banner talk 17:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MilborneOne and The Banner. That extra information is not relevant enough to be mentioned on this list. - Robotje (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

text: And I have removed this again as it is outside the scope of this article. The Banner talk 19:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why these near misses on the Ibis are outside the scope of this article. What should be the purpose of the section Near misses otherwise? Otto (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That whole section should be removed as outside the scope of this article. The Banner talk 22:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And is that up to you to decide that at your own? Apparently the section is still there and more users who will have a say about this. --Otto (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it is not up to you to change the scope of the article. The Banner talk 07:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOAC Flight 777 

message: I have added items about the two near misses on the Ibis in the section with that name. Otto (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have removed this again as it is outside the scope of this article. The Banner talk 19:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why these near misses on the Ibis are outside the scope of this article. What should be the purpose of the section Near misses otherwise? Otto (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That whole section should be removed as outside the scope of this article. The Banner talk 22:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And is that up to you to decide that at your own? Apparently the section is still there and more users who will have a say about this. --Otto (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it is not up to you to change the scope of the article. The Banner talk 07:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near misses on Ibis 

message: 26 or 27 July 1953 "...an American F-86F Sabre pilot shot down a civilian Aeroflot Il-12 airliner killing all twenty-one persons aboard. The Americans and Soviets engaged in a protracted argument over whether the airliner was over North Korea or Chinawhen it was shot down. No one could disguise the fact that the decries came down in China."  Aldrich in turn cites By Any Means Necessary Page 5 by someone named Burrows.
This is also listed on Ilyushin Il-12
Let me see if I take a moment to add it. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: I came across this

message: (This is copied from my Talk page Flyingd (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, stop your editwarring and POV-pushing. There is a clear consensus that your remark is not relevant in this article. The Banner talk 19:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any consensus. I see the same few Dutch people that have stalked me since 2010 (when I started the Dutch BOAC 777 article). The earlier attacks are relevant, if not only for the fact that it was the only airliner in the world that was attacked 3 times. Please let me know if you know of another one. For any reader interested in civil aircraft shootdowns this is an interesting fact which would be hidden if not briefly mentioned in this list. (I will copy this discussion to the Talk page of the mentioned article) Flyingd (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Your reading is still poor.It is relevant for an article over the plane but not here. But you are so pre-occupied with it, that you loose all sense of relevance. The Banner talk 19:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ofcourse, this is a list of airliner shootdowns, let's not mention very briefly and in one short sentence the fact that an airliner was attacked 2 times previously in 7 months before it was shot down (totally unique). You are right, totally irrelevant. How could I have thought it was...Flyingd (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Both times, the plane was not shot down. And shot down planes are the subject of this article. It is not the article List of airliner lucky escape incidents. The Banner talk 20:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then why don't you have a problem with the 1992 YAK40 and the 2003 DHL? Both were NOT shot down. Besides, my addition was just a 'sidenote' to the entry boac777 and not a main entry like YAK40 and DHL. Flyingd (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Because both plane were shot down. The Banner talk 21:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not true, they were both damaged but landed successfully (talking about poor reading..). Just like the Ibis after the first two attacks. Flyingd (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: After the shooting they were forced to land. The only other option was crash and die. The Banner talk 21:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: All the attacks on the Ibis were over the Atlantic. After the first two attacks they were able to reach land and land successfully at the closest airport. In both cases the Ibis was forced to land due to damage. The full extent of the machinegun damage was not known inflight and it was not known how long they could maintain controlled flight (after one attack a broken rudder cable). Whether they were going to ditch in the sea or crash and die was not known untill they landed successfully. Flyingd (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

text:  It is quiet again. Like I suspected it would be when I come up with valid points in this discussion.Flyingd (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Or people are sick of your endless repeating of your POV, knowing that the community consensus is against it. The Banner talk 11:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

text:  P.S. This seems almost a copy of same discussion we had on the Dutch wiki. Also a few attacked planes that managed to land on the Dutch list. But the only the 2 earlier attacks on the Ibis I added caused great dismay with you. Flyingd (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You start repeating yourself. The Banner talk 00:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

text: True, you are pushing the same POV here as on the Dutch WP, with the same rejections from the community. The Banner talk 21:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not from the community but just you and 2-3 more persons, the same ones for years. Anyway lets stick to discussion about the article, pls answer about yak40 and dhl. Flyingd (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can Flyingd explain what arguments he now has that be did not mention last year during the previous conflict about this issue on the same article? - Robotje (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, there you are. Welcome. Now just missing my other Dutch stalkers: Sashaporsche and Wikiklaas. Flyingd (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  revisited: Mentioning two earlier attacks on the same airliner on the same route / BOAC 777 

message: Whether to include civilian aircraft apart from airliners is only half the question. Some of 's suggested removals, namely the the 1992 Armenian plane incident and the 2003 Baghdad DHL incident, are instead about whether those incidents were actually shootdowns. If we disagree about this, it is because we disagree on what a shootdown is, and we need to define that term first. Personally, I'm inclined to derive the definition from the word: I'd define a shootdown as an incident where a plane is brought down (i.e. leaves the sky due to a chief factor other than the pilot's control) by being shot. Therefore, I would include an incident as a shootdown if the plane makes an emergency landing or a forced landing due to the damage. However, I know little about this subject, so this definition may be unconventional or there may simply be a better one. I'd like to hear other opinions. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Being badly damaged and safely landing is not being shotdown. MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is impossible to be badly damaged and then make a safe landing. A landing like that is never safe, a landing with a damaged airplane is unsafe per definition. However, in cases like this you can talk about a 'successfull' landing. Flyingd (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

text: In particular, I think there may be an issue with using emergency landing, given an aircraft could conceivably make an emergency (urgently prioritized) landing that was nevertheless not rough, if the aircraft sustained damage during the attack that did not cause significantly effect ship systems, but the pilots decided to land immediately anyway because it is better to be safe than sorry. I imagine it would better to use hard landing instead, but that raises the issue that a pilot who makes a hard landing nevertheless had control of both when and where he landed, which is not really being shot down. Perhaps it would be better to limit to forced landings? I imagine that any emergency landing that occurred due to damage rendering continued safe operation of the aircraft impossible would also constitute a forced landing. That might be all we need. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really relevant to being shotdown, you dont normaly land if you have been shotdown. MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just proposed what I believe may be a viable definition of "shootdown". You cannot refute that proposed definition by claiming it includes things that aren't shootdowns: that's begging the question. If you disagree that shooting an aircraft and forcing it to land prematurely and unsafely is shooting it down, please explain why (perhaps by proposing what you think is a better definition), so that we can work toward a definition we both find acceptable. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because causing an aircraft to land by damaging it is clearly it has not been shot down so not the focus of this article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Also note it is not up to us to make up a definition we need to rely on reliable sources, dictionary.com has "the attack and destruction of an aircraft in flight" seems to fit the bill. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, let's work with this definition for the moment, although it is not a perfect one. The most obvious question is whether "in flight" modifies both the attack and the destruction, or just the attack. In other words, if a plane sustains damage in an attack that causes the pilot to lose control, and the plane is destroyed upon reaching the ground, does this count as a shootdown, or must the plane be destroyed while it is still midair? Another important question is what the difference between a damaged and destroyed airplane is, but I think that one should be easy enough to agree on: namely, that the destroyed aircraft's hull has been so compromised that it cannot be safely flown again. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In flight is not on the ground, destroying an aircraft on the ground from the air is something different. Cant really mix destruction with damage they are different things. Seems a pretty clear definition to me. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: By the former question, I meant whether a plane must be destroyed midair to be "shot down", or if being destroyed upon subsequently crashing and/or landing also counts. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Managing to land is not "Destruction in flight" so doesnt count. MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about crashing? Do you recognize a distinction between it and landing? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly a crash is not a landing. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

text: The proposed "the attack and destruction of an aircraft in flight" seems to me to be a good definition for a shootdown to be used for this article. - Robotje (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Has already been mentioned nothing wrong with starting an article List of airliner attempted shootdowns, which as you say would include the likes of KE902 which should not be included here as it wasnt destroyed just forced to land. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created such an article but that has been rejected. See User_talk:Otto_ter_Haar#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_List_of_attempted_shootdowns_of_civil_aviation_(September_25). Otto (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

text: @Compassionate727 Regarding a separate section at the bottom on attempted shootdowns, that section existed for years with the name Near misses. Otto (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested undeletion of the draft so that I can get a better idea of the reason for the rejection. (Failure to meet WP:NLIST makes little sense as a rejection criteria; my guess is the reviewer meant to refer to WP:LISTN.) In the meantime, do we know why that section was removed? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Outside the scope of this article. The Banner talk 13:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

text: @Compassionate727 The draft has been restored. See User:Otto_ter_Haar/List_of_attempted_shootdowns_of_civil_aviation Otto (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be a good idea when you add a proper definition to the article so the scope is more clear. And where it differs from this article. The Banner talk 07:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kweilin and the DHL incident can be safely move up there. The 1942 KNILM incident is a difficult one, as the plane managed to land, only to be shot to pieces after that. The Banner talk 08:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is a shootdown? 

message: Could you please stop adding the non-shootdown attacks on the Ibis. How many times do we have to reach consensus that those attacks are irrelevant for this article before you understand that? The Banner talk 18:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And please, do not play the innocent guy surrounded by evil people. There was already at least three times a consensus that your additions were irrelevant. Why do you keep pushing it? The Banner talk 21:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you point me to where consensus was reached?Flyingd (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

text:  BTW I am not adding non-shootdown attacks on the list as you put it. I am just making a one sentence reference in the existing item boac777 (until consensus is reached on a title change as I wrote by the edit). Flyingd (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: They are no current requests to rename this page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because filing a requested move while we are still arguing like this would just cause headaches for other people. I intend to open such a discussion once we reach some kind of tentative consensus. At a minimum, I think there is support for broadening the scope to include all civilian aircraft instead of just airliners. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

text: I know that you have trouble reading and understanding everything what does not suit you, but those shootings you are desperately adding to the BOAC-section are really not relevant. Read this talk page, and see that there ore multiple occasions where there was consensus reached that these shootings were irrelevant. You have already a topic ban on the Dutch Wikipedia for exactly this behaviour. The next time you add, I will file a case on AN/I. Enough is enough. The Banner talk 16:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was hoping the English Wiki is more capable (or less corrupt) then the the Dutch one. Lets see if you get an admin to go along with you here. As I have stated in de NL-wiki before. The more this nonsense is documented the more I like it. Flyingd (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Beware the boomerang. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I had noticed your attempt to put the blame on me. The Banner talk 07:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flyingd? 

message: * Airliner: an aeroplane intended for carrying multiple passengers or cargo in commercial service.
* Shootdown: the external attack and destruction of an aircraft in flight.
:Why is this removed out of the article? The Banner talk 13:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should tell the facts. The talk page is the place to suggest definitions. Otto (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the definitions used to determine the suitable incidents for this page, are not relevant? The Banner talk 15:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a rhetorical question. Definitions to be used for the content of this article can be relevant. The talk page is the proper place to discuss which definitions, if we want to use any, suit the article the best. Otto (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So the whole discussion about some shootings without a shootdown can start again? The Banner talk 19:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know very well from your discussion above in paragraph 31 Solution? has that discussion never been closed. Your hypocritical approach at this talk page is abusive. Otto (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ow, you have to use personal attacks straight away? The Banner talk 21:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a false accusation to distract attention from your harassment. Otto (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL The Banner talk 21:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't regard your abusive behaviour as a "funny game" but as rude and destructive. Otto (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly encourage the use of a more operations-centric definition of airliner, rather than focusing on the original design intent of the aircraft involved; e.g. if it's operated under US FAR Part 121 (or equivalent) as a scheduled commercial flight, that clearly qualifies.  Whether Part 135 (on-demand [charter] commercial operations) qualifies is a gray area, but I would suggest that a transport category airplane (>19 seats or >19,000 lb gross weight) used in such operations should count as an "airliner."  So, the single-engine Cessna in Peru shouldn't be here, by any plausible definition, because it was a light airplane and was either chartered or owned by its occupants' employer (i.e. Part 91 private operation); I don't remember which, but it definitely wasn't a scheduled commercial flight. Jelliott4 (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions used

message: Should Air France Flight 1611 be included on this list? The cause of the crash is still disputed to this day like Itavia Flight 870 but there are allegations of a shootdown and a coverup by the French government. StellarHalo (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air France Flight 1611