Talk:Itavia Flight 870

message: Is there a good reason for links to some of those other flights? How do they relate? We've got a suicide, a couple actual shoot downs, an exploding gas tank, and a CFIT. -HiFiGuy 22:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: It's bizarre to title the article Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870 when the incident is known in Italy as "Ustica" or "The Ustica Disaster" or the "Ustica Affair" or "Ustica Tragedy" etc. No one calls it "Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870". See the corresponding it.wiki article for example which is titled "Strage di Ustica".
:In English it is common to refer to such incidents by the flight code. For example, Flight 800, Flight 77, etc. In the UK, the Guardian Newspaper recently ran a story called "The mystery of flight 870" , although its possible that the choice of title was influenced by this wikipedia article. Self-Described Seabhcán 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: I'm the original creator of this article, I would like to apoligise for the lack of sources and the confusion - I created this under a different account when I was still a new wikipedian. I removed some unecessary unformation and added some. Its not really much but it is much clearer now that before. --James Bond 06:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  added some info and removed some 

message: "Connecting the dots" is not permitted under Wikipedia rules; it constitutes original research.  As such, the conspiracy theory section violates Wikipedia policy.  See   Morton devonshire 01:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is not Original Research. It is taken directly form the sources and references listed. This includes the synthesis. Please see the sources and references before jumping to conclusions. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The synthesis you point to is contained in a self-published website, which is not a reputable source under Wikipedia rules.  See WP:RS.  Morton devonshire 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The same information is contained in "Natos Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, by Daniele Ganser" Self-Described Seabhcán 18:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the publication for that?  Needs to be an objective media source with editorial oversight to qualify under Wikipedia sourcing rules.  Morton devonshire 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nato's Secret Armies" is an acedemic work published by Routledge (formally "Franc Cass Publishers"). The author is Dr Daniele Ganser of the ETH Zurich. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm not qualified to judge the reliability of that source.  I'm not familiar with the publication or the publisher.  Morton devonshire 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as the wikipedia article on Routledge starts: "[It] is one of the most important European imprints for social sciences." I think it passes WP:RS. Dr. Ganser hasn't published anything else in English, however, his institution is extremely prestigious, having produced 20 Nobel Prize winners, including Einstein. Self-Described Seabhcán 23:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I looked at the book's foreward again: the contents are actually an edited version of Dr. Ganser's PhD thesis. ETH Zurich awarded  him a doctorate for this work, thus lending their considerable reputation to his conclusions. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theories and "connecting the dots"

message: The site that "confutes" (I think "refutes" would do just as nicely) the bomb theory/evidence is a self-published page on Geocities. My Italian is practically non-existant, but from what little I know it doesn't seem in that academic a tone - with plenty of rethorical questions, it reads like the average JFK conspiracy website. Perhaps a native Italian speaker, unbiased in the incident, can comment? Even so, if the page is self-published, according to the discussion above it shouldn't be included. --70.108.140.252 08:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I speak Italian and I am unbiased on the incident but I am not sure which website you are talking about? Andreapisauro (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Reputable websites

message: According to the film "Il Muro di Gomma", at around 60:30 into the movie, there is a 2 minutes scene, where the reporter (at the BBC in London) is sitting through a dubbed version of a televised report from the NTSB regarding the matter of the DC-9's flight path, and the existence of another aircraft (a fighter jet) within the airspace. I'm just wondering if there is anyone who might be able to find any possible source of the original televised report. (*)
(*) I myself am actually skeptical as to whether this is a genuine occurrence, as certain events in the film seem to be fabricated (i.e. the journalist is actually only a character to the whole movie; he doesn't exist in real life). So I'm not sure if this video was just prepared for use in this movie.
Furthermore, it seems that in a speech read by Jim Hall, he had made reference (only one line) to the NTSB receiving the CVR from the stricken DC-9 by Italian investigators (http://www.ntsb.gov/Speeches/former/hall/jh960424.htm). However, I have not read/seen/heard anywhere of any involvement of the NTSB into the Ustica disaster, including the acquisition of the CVR. Would it be possible to get some sort of source to corroborate this?(Eug.galeotti (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The footage is from BBC special report "Murder in the sky" (1982)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.21.194.198 (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NTSB involvement? 

message: http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=132253
According to Italian media reports, confidential documents found in the archives of the Libyan secret service after the fall of Tripoli, which are now in the hands of Human Rights Watch, prove what led to the downing of an Itavia Dc-9 over the Mediterranean island of Ustica on 27 June 1980.
Eighty-one people on board the flight, which had been en route from Bologna to Palermo, died.
As has long been suspected, the cache of papers confirms that a missile had hit the plane after it was mistaken for a plane carrying then Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
According to the papers, two French jets first attacked the airplane and then engaged in a duel with a solitary Mig fighter aircraft, carrying the Jamahiriya insignia and thought to be accompanying Col Gaddafi, until they forced it to crash into the mountainous region of La Sila in southern Italy.
Colonel Gaddafi, informed in time of the attack, escaped to Malta where he landed in his Tupolev, according to the documents. It would seem, from the secret service papers found, that Gaddafi was informed by the Italian secret service (SISMI) that he was about to be attacked, and had sought refuge in Malta.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.25.37 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the same source and have added the information into the article. I believe we should look for fresh Italian sources and prepare to rewrite the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libyan secret service archives – 2011 

message: Tonight's episode of "As it Happened" was about this event. On it he made the following point, which I relay without comment. One of the pieces of evidence supporting the alleged shootdown is that traces (minute traces, he said) of a military explosive was found on one of the seats. He then went to an interview with an Italian official (I can no longer remember who), who said that the retrieval of the wreckage was done by the navy (didn't say whose navy); and for one reason or another much of the wreckage was stored in the "room that houses shells and torpedoes" (which I'm guesssing would be a "magazine"). So a "normal" amount of "leakage" of explosives from these shells/torpedoes would be enough to explain the traces found.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old wombat (talk • contribs) 11:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A debunk of one part of the conspiracy theory. 

message: The end of the statement "Speculation at the time and in the years since has been fueled in part by media reports, military officials statements, and ATC recordings, including radar images and trails of debris; particularly, trails of objects moving at high speeds." suggests a possible ufo connection imv. Also this statement doesn't ring true imv "The media also reported that radar monitoring records released in 1997 by NATO showed that at least seven fighter aircraft were in the vicinity when the jet plunged into the sea off the island of Ustica. According to these sources, the radar shows that one or two Libyan MiG-23 had tried to evade detection by flying close to the airliner. Three Italian Air Force F-104S, one U.S. Navy A-7 Corsair II and a French fighter pursued the Libyan MiG-23 and a battle ensued." It sounds just as likely that at least 7 ufos were in the vacinity rather than it being comfirmed or assumed 100% that they were fighter aircraft. The dialogue from air-traffic control also supports this idea imv. 176.24.226.120 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible UFO involvement in Theories section 

message: If anyone happened to watch the Mayday/Air Crash Investigation episode about the disaster it is fairly clear that the last team of crash investigators assembled to examine the accident, who demanded the salvage of much more of the aircraft from the sea floor and were the only team able to report in detail on all of the available structure, were quite adamant in ruling out a missile strike. This is perhaps more of a question than anything but whose word do we take when defining the accident as an 'airliner shootdown'? The court which ruled last year apparently found the Defence and Transport ministry liable for the accident and suggested a missile as the most probable cause, but the last actual accident 'report' released did not, and indeed suggested that this was not the likely cause. Indeed, in his own analysis (available at http://www.airmanshiponline.com/spring2000/spring2000/05-isasdc9.htm) Frank Taylor states that his own contributions, ruling out a missile, were 'toned down' in the final document released, which in any case was not published conforming to the ICAO format for an official accident report. Even so, should we not pay some heed to the opinion of the last experts to actually examine the wreckage as an investigation team and, in the continued absence of a subsequent (or indeed any) accident investigation report stating a missile as a definitive cause and offering evidence for it, list the cause as 'disputed'? BroSwerve (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed cause 

message: In my humble opinion, the article there show bias towards Mr. Taylor opinion: there're enough evidences regarding major experts accident reports - I'm talking of the three commissions - that the plane didn't fall due to a structural failure, and that its integrity was therefore hampered by exogenous intervention. Beside this, I think there's no clear evidence to accepting the bomb hypotesis, nor the missile one. Actually, it should be noted that, in Italy, the investigations claimed, at first, that the plane was brought down by a "bomb in the rear toilet": it was shortly after considered to be a try to cover up a possible near-collision event or missile shot down. Fully reporting what resemble to be Taylor's personal opinions regarding italian authorities should be considered both unpolite and fruitless: he's not the only expert making similar statements, but others aren't given the same attention. I strongly suggest major editing on this topic, in order to delete it or merging in other experts' opinions. 
Lord Ics (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dramatization section 

message: I wont hack this article up, but it is one long conglomeration of bad sources and exemplifies tin foil conspiracy theories.
I don't know the name for the "everyone died suspiciously" fallacy but I am going to name it "Howard Carter Mummy's Curse fallacy." Adn it is present here.
Running google translate, some of the sources in this article postulate possible UFO involvement. That tells you about the credibility of the cites.108.18.75.161 (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of the sources are not wikipeida acceptable sources 

message: I remmed this because there has been NO evidence of anything other than a bomb:
The actuality of the bomb theory has never been truly determined, as the mysterious nature of the wreckage tells multiple tales. Parts of the discovered wreckage showed telltale signs of an outside explosion – some outer skin parts were shown to have blast residue on the outside with the metal curved inwards, uncharacteristic of a bomb (which would have curved the metal outwards as the force would have come from inside the plane outwards instead of out to in, like in the case of a missile). Other pieces – especially the area around the rear lavatory, showed many signs of a bomb that exploded inside, such as the deformities of the surrounding support beams situated around the lavatory in question.
None of the assertions in this paragraph are true and/or can be proven by the evidence recovered from the debris.--Petebutt (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Taylor's bomb hypothesis was the only one formed after the recovery of considerably more of the aircraft structure than the earlier investigators had access to, and his conclusion was that a bomb exploded in the rear lavatory. As the aircraft was travelling at speed at the time then the resultant break up of the aircraft could have subjected parts of the structure to external wind forces sufficient to bend some thinner-gauge parts of them inwards in a manner reminiscent of an external explosion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause

message: This article needs a total rewrite, needs more citations and a general cleanup. MattChatt18 (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree about the first point, IMHO it just needs a few adjustments and more citations. Still, you are welcome to rewriting the article from the scratch in your sandbox and offering it for evaluation. Regards, Cavarrone  10:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cleanup required. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6SAEPRdmq?url=http%3A%2F%2Faviation-safety.net%2Fpubs%2Fother%2FTaylor_paper_Ustica_illustrated.pdf to http://aviation-safety.net/pubs/other/Taylor_paper_Ustica_illustrated.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205130800/http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/ustica/index.html to http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/ustica/index.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6SAEPRdmq?url=http%3A%2F%2Faviation-safety.net%2Fpubs%2Fother%2FTaylor_paper_Ustica_illustrated.pdf to http://aviation-safety.net/pubs/other/Taylor_paper_Ustica_illustrated.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zLUiLCx3vY
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502234741/http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=06271980®=I-TIGI&airline=Itavia to http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=06271980®=I-TIGI&airline=Itavia
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://aviation-safety.net/pubs/other/Taylor_paper_Ustica_illustrated.pdf
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) 13:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I agree that the title should be changed from "Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870," but I would add the word "Airlines" to be consistent with other Wikipedia titles and articles about air disasters. The title would then be: "Itavia Airlines Flight 870."  Cameo44 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional title change suggestion 

message: The breakdown of the terrorist bomb theory in the bulletpoints provided seems unsourced and entirely based on someone's personal logic/chain of thought. The grammar and syntax is poor, and deserves a clean-up at minimum. More importantly, it seems to violate neutral point of view entirely, ascribing value judgements about what is and is not "likely" or "unusual", with no sources or evidence. Wikipedia policy on undue weight, verifiability, and original research would suggest that these bulletpoints be removed, unless anyone has any sources they want to add - the only citation is regarding the delay in take-off, and nothing else. The section about the missile strike theory is sourced and references a real media discussion, so I'm not suggesting removing that, just removing the very strange logical analysis of the bomb theory that someone has put in without sources, and in awkward English. The editor who added the section has no page. I will remove the points, if anyone wants to add them back, I suggest a clean-up and additional sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caracta (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes section problems 

message: You, bunch of idiots, how dare to liquidate a military attack as a conspiracy theory, ignoring the declarations and the dodgy deaths around the case (like the declaration of marshal Mario Alberto Dettori or the Ramstein crash in 1988), or also the falsified signature of president Pertini on the document to fire captain Mario Ciancarella (even the court of law, after calligraphic expertise, admitted that the signature had been falsified)? You are incredibly disrespectful towards the victims and their families.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.56.69 (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theories 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a clear consensus that the proposed title is not the subject's common name. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Lennart97 (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A more relevant question is whether it is the WP:COMMONNAME in English, and sources overwhelmingly suggest that it is. Looking at the English-language sources for this article that are available online, almost all of them call it Itavia.The Guardian and the book by Cooper and Grandolini use "Itavia Airlines", a direct translation of "Aerolinee Itavia"; I can't access the Washington Post articles but New York Times, Malta Independent, airdisaster.com, and FLIGHT international all use "Itavia"; historicwings.com has "Aerolinee Itavia" in the lede and "Itavia" in all subsequent mentions. There are two aviation-safety.net links: "A Case History Involving Wreckage Analysis: Lessons from the Ustica investigations" uses "Itavia", the listing "ASN Aircraft accident Douglas DC-9-15 I-TIGI Ustica, Italy" uses "Aerolinee Itavia". --bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 August 2021 

message: The complete audio recording was published at the end of 2023 and is 100% real because the original source is from an official Italian archives page. 186.15.124.52 (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Cockpit Voice Recording