Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:: Deeday, I'm afraid you don't quite understand what a “conspiracy theory” is. The "conspiracy theory” is a BELIEF that somebody is responsible for a circumstance or event. In case of the Parliamentary Commission and Smolensk Conference their findings/conclusions are NOT based on ANY beliefs but exlusively on evidences and analysis of various international scientists/engineers that used the most technically advanced tools. Jürgen Roth's book is neither based on a belief but on BDN (the German Federal Intelligence Service) files and reports. Just in case you didn't know, in June 2015 German Prosecutors launches their own investigation into the Smolensk crash. Therefore no, Parliamentary Commission doesn’t produce any "conspiracy theories", and it should't be named as such only because for some strange reason you insist on it. ] (]) 08:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
:: Deeday, I'm afraid you don't quite understand what a “conspiracy theory” is. The "conspiracy theory” is a BELIEF that somebody is responsible for a circumstance or event. In case of the Parliamentary Commission and Smolensk Conference their findings/conclusions are NOT based on ANY beliefs but exlusively on evidences and analysis of various international scientists/engineers that used the most technically advanced tools. Jürgen Roth's book is neither based on a belief but on BDN (the German Federal Intelligence Service) files and reports. Just in case you didn't know, in June 2015 German Prosecutors launches their own investigation into the Smolensk crash. Therefore no, Parliamentary Commission doesn’t produce any "conspiracy theories", and it should't be named as such only because for some strange reason you insist on it. ] (]) 08:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
:: Deeday, one more thing, in contrary what you said above ("Tupolev exploded without leaving any trace of explosives") actually traces of explosives where . It's hard to believe that you didn't know that. ] (]) 09:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
:: Deeday, one more thing, on the contrary what you have said in your comment ("Tupolev exploded without leaving any trace of explosives") actually traces of explosives where . It's hard to believe that you didn't know that. ] (]) 09:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Deeday, here is another one for you. This one is from ] or Bundesnachrichtendienst . ] writes about it in his - March 2014. It is on that date that the German intelligence operative sent his report to the headquarters in Pullach. The report drew on interviews conducted with a senior member of the Polish Government, and a leading officer of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). The document asserts "A possible explanation for the cause of the 04-10-2010 crash of the TU-154 in Smolensk is a highly-probable assassination operation with the use explosives carried out by the Department of the FSB, operating under cover in the Ukrainian Poltava, under the command of General Yuri ‘D.’ from Moscow“. Are you going to insist that this intelligence had been fabricated by the German BND? Is this a "conspiracy theory" also and should be censored out or ridiculed? The only reason Im continuing with my presentations of FACTS is that I'm trying to convince myself that you are editing in good faith. As of now I have serous doubts about that. Sorry ] (]) 23:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
:::: GizzyCatBella – you’re right, and I thank you for the feedback, but you should not let DeeDay-UK to chase you down the rabbit hole. The point of dispute is that the Misplaced Pages editors must be impartial and must not engage in propaganda or censorship using as criteria their own believes and experiences. Doing so is a direct violation of Misplaced Pages rules, as I outlined earlier above. It is not up to the editors to decide which points of view may be included and which may not – they all have to be included w/o pejorative prejudging or labeling them. In my opinion, for advocating such violations of Misplaced Pages rules and principles of objectivity and impartiality, both DeeDay-UK and Trash should be banned from editing the Smolensk crash article. If I start this kind of practices, I should be banned for it too, just as anyone else. If such simple principles as no censorship, and neutrality, cannot be enforced within Misplaced Pages due process, then that indicates a breakdown in the Misplaced Pages editorial functionality, and the matter should be taken to the public. ] (]) 19:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
:::: GizzyCatBella – you’re right, and I thank you for the feedback, but you should not let DeeDay-UK to chase you down the rabbit hole. The point of dispute is that the Misplaced Pages editors must be impartial and must not engage in propaganda or censorship using as criteria their own believes and experiences. Doing so is a direct violation of Misplaced Pages rules, as I outlined earlier above. It is not up to the editors to decide which points of view may be included and which may not – they all have to be included w/o pejorative prejudging or labeling them. In my opinion, for advocating such violations of Misplaced Pages rules and principles of objectivity and impartiality, both DeeDay-UK and Trash should be banned from editing the Smolensk crash article. If I start this kind of practices, I should be banned for it too, just as anyone else. If such simple principles as no censorship, and neutrality, cannot be enforced within Misplaced Pages due process, then that indicates a breakdown in the Misplaced Pages editorial functionality, and the matter should be taken to the public. ] (]) 19:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Due to what appears to be an edit war, I've locked the article (no doubt at the WP:WRONGVERSION™). The locked version is not necessarily one that I endorse or disapprove of. It is simply the version of the article at the time I decided to intervene.
@GizzyCatBella:, @Trasz:, I'd prefer that you discuss the issue please as an alternative to administrative action being taken. Also pinging @Thebiomat:, who has edited the article today and may wish to contribute to the discussion. Any other editor in good standing is also welcome to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussing it might be somewhat complicated due to the nature of this thing. The Macierewicz's commision is basically promoting a fringe theory for political reasons, and fringe theories - by definition - have fanatic proponents, as is in this case. Especially given that one of people involved here - Thebiomat - might actually be Chris Cieszewski, the Macierewicz's team member who mistook trash bags for trees. Trasz (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Trasz, the Parliamentary Commission you are calling "Macierewicz's" does not promote "fringe theories". The Russian investigation is flawed as we all know it (British expert opinion for example). Given that conflict the independent Polish commission have been formed using various sources and evidence to tease out official Russian story. Among these people are, scientists, engineers, pilots, flight controllers, physicians, mathematicians etc. You can not call them fanatics only because you think so. Please be unbised here and if in fact user Thebiomat is Chris Cieszewski that does not make him unwelcome here. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
That is true, but if the assertion is correct, it would be useful for it to be confirmed by the editor in question. In the interests of transparency, of course. That said, I'm a little bit concerned that we also need to keep WP:OUTING in mind. There is no obligation on Thebiomat to either confirm or deny the assertion; should he/she wish to remain silent on the issue the we must respect that. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm calling the commision Macierewicz's, because it was formed by Macierewicz, and that's how it's commonly called in Poland ("Komisja Macierewicza"). The russian investigation was indeed somewhat flawed, but the polish one was independent, and come to very similar conclusions. Macierewicz, meanwhile, was formed by opposition (PiS) to gain political capital, and the idea of assasination was assumed upfront. That's why it's conclusions were ridiculed by aviation experts, and that's why it's crucial to note that its members have no experience in actual air crash investigations, or that eg Binienda's simulations are suspected to be ripped from his student's thesis.Trasz (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who Thebiomat is. What matters is what is the truth and what are the facts in question. I will go over some points that Trash is not only misrepresenting facts on the subject page of Misplaced Pages, but which also demonstrate that Trash is acting in bad faith when insisting on undoing the legitimate corrections.
First, the matter of the Parliamentary Committee, which Trash insists on misrepresenting as an organization of PiS (Law and Justice). This organization not only has been formed by the Polish Parliament, which makes it constitutionally parliamentary rather than a single party organization, but in addition, this committee has in fact members from different parties, such as: Tomaszewski Jan /PO/ (Citizens Platform); Popiołek Krzysztof /ZP/; and Poznański Marek /niez./ (independent). Full membership is available on the Polish Parliament website here: http://www.smolenskzespol.sejm.gov.pl/zespolsmolensk.nsf/SkladZespolu.xsp, where you may see that majority is from PiS, but the affiliations of individual members are not important, since the statue of this committee is defined as a non-political organization, which you can read on the Polish Parliament website here: http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/opinie7.nsf/nazwa/zesp_tu154/$file/zesp_tu154.pdf.
If Trash wanted to include a statement that majority of the Parliamentary Committee members belong to the Law and Justice party, that would be colloquially OK (i.e., it would be just a loaded statement, but not a disinformation), but saying that this is a Law and Justice committee is simply inaccurate distortion of the facts, from both organizational and from statutory points of view. Then the Smolensk Conference organization, which is completely apolitical and it has never been either involved in or connected with any political organization or activities. Any allegations of that type are simply slanderers disinformation. The Smolensk Conference doesn't even collaborate with Min. Macierewicz; although, several members of the Conference serve also as experts for the Parliamentary Committee as they do for some other institutions and for their universities or affiliations. The Smolensk Conference was initiated by three professors: Piotr Witakowski, Jacek Ronda, and Grzegorz Jemielita, writing an open letter to the President of the Polish Academy of Sciences on June 10, 2011, which is accessible here: http://konferencjasmolenska.pl/dokumenty/l1.pdf. Subsequently more professors have joined and more letters were written to other leaders of the Polish science, such as the deans and directors of technical faculties at Polish Universities (see the letter to deans and directors here: http://konferencjasmolenska.pl/dokumenty/l6.pdf). A press release was eventually issued, which you can read here: http://konferencjasmolenska.pl/dokumenty/l8.pdf, which was describing the growing consolidation of independent university professors' organization that was going to do the investigations on their own relying on the science and expertise of the members (unlike the Parliamentary Committee, which didn't consist of experts and relied on hiring experts).
The Smolensk Conference is a grass root organization that has nothing to do with any political organisations or any politicians. It has been largely kept secret by the official media, which is consistent with the actions of Trash wanting to simply delete the information about the Smolensk Conference, which in fact, produced more publications and findings than all other governmental organizations added up together. I don't have the time to continue this documentation right now, but I will continue it later. The problem on the table is twofold, we may dispute the facts and I'm glad to provide the evidence that my information is accurate. However, more importantly, I see a pattern in Trash's modus operandi, which potentially shows a bad fate and likely intentional disinformation, and that troubles me greatly, because the matter of the Smolensk tragedy of Apr. 10, 2010, has from the outset been subjected to massive propaganda and disinformation actions supported by the mainstream media and trolls supporting the very establishment that got to power in Poland as a result of the very airplane destruction and all the previous elite killed.
Hence, this could be just a part of the Active Measures so prominent in the communist and post-communist countries. If not, that is if Trash is just ignorant of the facts and can stand corrected given proper evidence, I'll gladly apologize. In closing, please do not take my word for anything I'm saying here but just check the provided documents and ask for whatever you may need more to see that all the information I provide is 100% accurate and unbiased. Thebiomat (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It does matter who Thebiomat is - if he's indeed Chris Cieszewski, then he's even mentioned in the sources, as one of the "experts" brought in by Macierewicz, only to make an ass of himself by mistaking trash bags for trees (he's a dendrologist).Trasz (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It was never apolitical - it's all the same people, Solidarni 2010, WPolityce, and Niezalezna.pl. It was heavily marketed in right-wing media, while the rest generally made fun of it. Trasz (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Jan Tomaszewski was in PiS until about a year ago. At the time when Macierewicz's Commission was formed, ZP didn't exist - all it's current members were members of PiS. Krzysztof Popiołek (PO) was indeed the single person not from PiS. Trasz (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
And finally, the comment that you've removed, Chris/Thebiomat. Please don't do that again:
I'm calling the commision Macierewicz's, because it was formed by Macierewicz, and that's how it's commonly called in Poland ("Komisja Macierewicza"). The russian investigation was indeed somewhat flawed, but the polish one was independent, and come to very similar conclusions. Macierewicz, meanwhile, was formed by opposition (PiS) to gain political capital, and the idea of assasination was assumed upfront. That's why it's conclusions were ridiculed by aviation experts, and that's why it's crucial to note that its members have no experience in actual air crash investigations, or that eg Binienda's simulations are suspected to be ripped from his student's thesis.Trasz (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Trasz, I'm sorry, but I don't see anything constructive in your comments other than personal attacks and rants. Thebiomat has provided some credible information linked to the sources. Also, the Parliamentary commission has its proper official name, (here is the link). Its not called "Macierewicz commission" as you want to called it. If Krzysztof Popiołek and Jan Tomaszewski is from PO and the other is independent, then the parlamentary commission is indeed not only PiS. Why conservative Polish media (you call right wing) is less credible than left sided Gazeta Wyborcza? This page is not intended to ridicule or critisize one side or another but to present known and well sourced facts. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I've just spent about 15 minutes restitching back together after an edit that wiped out links to 10 previous archive pages and appeared to have removed a helpful discussion link. There is a large amount of accusations of bad faith flowing back and forth here, and I'm also conscious this is a fraught political issue. I will remind you all that you are required to WP:Assume Good Faith and follow our discussion rules. Otherwise I will personally make sure that this article is either locked for a good deal of time to come, or reverted to a state that does not discuss the current issues. Follow our rules, people!! Buckshot06(talk)01:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The Macierewicz commission's findings (or whatever it's called) do sound like the work of some lunatic charlatan, possibly with an added political motive. Even Frank Taylor, the "well known British expert" invoked by user GizzyCatBella, describes the overall explanation contained in the MAK report as 'plausible'. Taylor only criticises some aspects of the investigation in which the Russians did not display much professionalism, like moving the wreckage around or neglecting 'the crashworthiness and survival aspects of the accident' – which is like saying "they would have crashed anyway, by attempting such a suicidal approach, buy maybe, with a different or more modern aircraft type, some of the occupants could have survived." --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I would be very, very careful calling commission findings "fringe" or "work of the lunatics". Since Russian investigation is flawed and official Polish investigation was based ONLY on Russian findings (with all the evidence, including the wreckage of the aircraft, still in Russian hands) work of "the lunatics" may be the only way to find out what really happened there. Also, Frank Taylor calls for further investigation, correct? So? Is he "a lunatic"? That's my point. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Polish investigation was not based on Russian findings at all. Our prosecutors had full access to the wreckage and flight recorders. And no, Frank Taylor isn't lunatic, because he didn't support Macierewicz's Comission in any way. As for "fringe" - that's what people in the field say about it, pretty equivocally. Again - that's why it's important to mention that Macierewicz's "experts" had no experience with air crash investigations. Trasz (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Negative user Trasz. Polish investigation was based almost exclusively on Russian (MAK) report and its findings. Original evidence material, including the wreckage of the airplane and even black boxes are is still in Russian hands. Poles worked on copies supplied by the Russians. The wreckage was cut into pieces, moved around and finally dropped near the Smolensk airport. Poles did not have unrestricted access to it. The coffins of the victims has been sealed by the Russians and never allowed to open once arrived in Poland. No autopsies, no DNA identification has been condacted in Poland before burials. I can go on and on.. GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is just not true; for some reason you're repeating Macierewicz's delusions. Polish investigation was not based on MAK at all. Miller's team had access to the evidence; they were able to analyze the wreckage, assisted in making copies of two of the black boxes, and physically got the third one. It's all explained on http://www.faktysmolensk.gov.pl/. Trasz (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Im not repeating anybody, Im just presenting simple true facts. Where is the wreckage of the airplane today? Where are the black boxes? Where are the autopsies done by the Polish side? Where is K3-63 flight recorder? Where is video recording from the control tower? Where is ballistic and pyrotechnical expertise? I can ask here many more questions...no wondering one in two Poles thinks Smolensk crash unsolved. I think this is first time in aviation history that committee presented a report and came to final conclusions without even examining the wreckage of the aircraft and without carrying out autopsies. Again, the wreckage is still in Russia! LOL! GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I won't comment on calling anyone's work "lunatic charlatan". I'm here to reason about what facts and evidence should be included in the considered article, and what unsubstantiated speculations should not. I have given sources and documents to back up the facts that I want to put forward. If these documents are insufficient please let me know and I will provide more. However, please respond professionally. I don't care about the politics left or right, but I do care about the facts, and don't like propaganda and disinformation or confusing facts with rumors.
Trasz, sorry for removing your comment -- I didn't intend it, and I'm not sure how did it happen; I don't do this kind of things knowingly, so if it happens ever again, you'll know that it will be an error.
A theoretical question I have to the Misplaced Pages administration is if it is possible that a Misplaced Pages article can be shut down or blocked by one party not giving up arguing? Thebiomat (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Thebiomat: - the article can only be locked by an administrator or beaurocrat, and any changes to the lock can only be done by those people. Other editors may request changes at WP:RFPP, including unlocking or extension of the lock. Let's be clear - the version of the article I endorse is one that follows all policies and guidelines, but most especially WP:NPOV. If the article currently does not represent NPOV, it is only a temporary measure. I locked the article to stop the edit war. Wherever possible, I prefer parties to discuss issues rather that hitting them with the banhammer. That is the position we are now in. Discussion is taking place and outside assistance has been called for. Mjroots (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Mjroots - thank you for the explanation. I wanted to know if the rules may allow something like a Filibuster in senate or Denial-of-service attack on the web, whereby one party can prevent an action of another party through mare persistence, or if the resolution depended on merit of arguments. From what you wrote I conclude that the merit is important. Thebiomat (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
We could put all the stuff from the Macierewicz commission in a section headed 'Conspiracy theories'; they are essentially that, and as such they usually have a place, in a Misplaced Pages article, as long as they are not given undue weight. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Deeday-UK and Trash - this discussion started about proper naming of the 'Parliamentary Committee' and unbiasedness and accuracy of the reported facts. It is not supposed to be about personal interpretation or sentiments or putting a spin on things. The 'Parliamentary Committee' is an official organ of the Polish government and it needs to be reported by its proper official name, which is available on the government web site. The 'Smolensk Conference' is an organization in its own right with its own statue and membership, and it also needs to be reported using its official name and statue.
All informal interpretations used by individual special interest groups with their own political agendas should be -- and here I agree with you -- listed under the heading of 'Conspiracy Theories' as you proposing, but that really is not the topic of this discussion. Finally, the 'Smolensk Conference' is a significant body of international scientists organized to investigate different aspects of the Smolensk catastrophe, and it needs to be explained regardless who you think created it and who you think is involved with it. Again, you can add in a section of 'Conspiracy Theories' your take on who stands behind the 'Smolensk Conference', and others can include refutation of that, but whatever you think exists behind the scenes doesn't give you the right of censorship regarding reported facts and sources, nor should you be twisting the names of the official organizations to reflect your own biases and sentiments.
The most ironic part of this dispute is that misnaming the 'Parliamentary Committee' and the 'Smolensk Conference' with Macierewicz's name would really make Macierewicz himself extremely happy and it would likely promote his political goals, while only within the rather minuscule microclimate of only a part of the 'English-speaking fraction of the Polish society' it would achieve the intended by Trash pejorative effect (i.e., this is assuming that Trash doesn't actually want to promote Macierewicz). However, we're not here to please Macierewicz, or to promote his political goals, nor are we here to feed any passions or prejudice of different fractions of the Polish society, but we're here to promote objective information to serve the English-speaking population of the entire world. That is a privilege that should not be taken lightly. Thebiomat (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Question are there any sources discussing any of this that are independent of Poland and Russia? I really think we need to move away from sources in the area as each side will have its own biases and agenda to push. Other countries are more likely to take an objective view. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. There are some sources, and I can prepare a comprehensive list of them, but I'm sure that they will be also questioned by both parties, and this is why I was suggesting staying away from any interpretation and sticking with the facts, such as what is the statue of given organization according to this organization, as opposed to how others can see it depending on which site they want to be on. One comprehensive source is the recent book by German journalist Jürgen Roth. I have not read the book, and I believe it's still available only in German; although, I'm hearing now and then that it is supposed to be translated to English soon.
There are many English websites such as, and a few other (I need to look for them), and there is the English website of the Smolensk Conference at that has not been updated for more than a year, but that has basically all the same information into English as the Polish website of the Smolensk Conference has at. Then there is the University of Akron website of prof. Binienda at and many other sites relating to conferences and research studies. In other countries as well as in Poland the problem is the same, and it is that different fractions try to put different spins on what is what, and this is why it is the most reasonable to avoid any interpretations and to stick with giving only facts. In particular the media in Poland tend to give unreliable information on both sites putting their spins on "behind the scenes" interpretations.Thebiomat (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to Jürgen Roth book. Still in German but transcripts can be translated into English using Google Translate. Below is the summary of the book in English: "Putin's war in Ukraine holds the world in suspense . But even five years ago, harbingers of Russian aggression politics showed : On April 10, 2010, crashed in the Russian city of Smolensk from a military plane , 96 people died . Aboard the Polish elite , including President Lech Kaczynski and high Nato generals . Was it a tragic accident - or an attempt , as it not only claim BND sources ? Jürgen Roth shows for the first time the true background of the crash of the Polish presidential plane and is at the same time the highly topical question of what the catastrophe of Smolensk , the downing of Flight MH17 and Ukraine conflict have to do with each other . ( 2015-10-09 )" GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Mjroots - Please consider that an important question is if it is appropriate to use any other sources than the Polish government for defining what a Polish government organization, or unit, should be called. The same goes for academic organizations. Surely, we could not start calling the FBI a 'Hoover's bunch' just because some people, or newspapers, would like to use this kind of phrase to depict FBI. The same goes for calling, for example, NSF a 'Córdova's committee' or calling TeX a 'Donald Knuth's language'. It doesn't matter what others think about it, what matter is the respect to any self-declaration even in such eccentric cases when someone chooses to call himself, for example, Malcolm X, let alone when a congress or a senate of a country announces a name for its committee, or a number of respectable University professors establish an organization. Thebiomat (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Mjroots asks for sources that are independent of Poland and Russia and this is what Thebiomat comes up with:
konferencjasmolenska.pl – Can't get more Polish than this: official website of the 'Smolensk Conference'.
smolenskcrash.com – It states openly that its purpose is to support the Smolensk Conference ("This site is for conference database management that the conference organizers are allowed to use" – FAQ section).
smolenskcrashnews.com – Dubious and completely anonymous website decorated with exploding Tupolevs caught in cross hairs. If a conspiracy theorist tried to knock up a website, that's how it would look like.
On the other hand, here's just a quick selection of international media covering the subject:
BBC – try googling smolensk crash site:bbc.co.uk: no mention of any Smolensk Conferences and explicit mention of conspiracy theories. Also here.
Financial Times – Polish commission probing 2010 air crash descends into farce
New York Times – column about the 'Smolensk religion' ("wild theories abounded: The Russians had produced the fog; a “vacuum bomb” had been set off") .
Of course they could all be part of the 'conspiracy of silence' that Binienda cries out about, together with the Russian agents that planted no fewer than three bombs on the Tupolev that went off right when the aircraft flew over a birch tree that had been broken in half by the Russians a few days before. And you want to put all this stuff on a par with the official reports of both the Russian and Polish authorities, which essentially come to the same conclusion, despite the two countries being politically at odds? --Deeday-UK (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Deeday, you are cherry picking editorials like this one written in 2013 by Polish pro-government journalist Artur Domosławski of Gazeta Wyborcza but you are missing the point here. The point is that despite anything those pro-government Poles say, Independent Parliamentary Commission is still called Independent Parliamentary Commission and NOT ”Macierewicz commission” or “Conspiracy theory commission” or whatever. If you want to look at some other international media coverage, below are some links to look at. The articles in these links are not written by pro-government Polish journalist and later reprinted by the NYT etc., but are more independent and unbiased ones.
Jerusalem Post of Israel "...The Russian investigation has been faulted for several strange measures in securing the crash scene, moving around debris and handling the wreckage. A Polish independent parliamentary commission was established..”
The Scotsman UK “..yesterday, a Polish parliamentary committee published a report..”
The Daily US “..findings of an independent Polish parliamentary committee investigating the crash.."
The Cleveland US “..Polish researchers who also are working with the Polish parliament inquiry..”
Here is the link to the conference organized by the European Parliament in Brussels and recorded by the European Parliament services where the commission is CLEARLY named by its proper name. If this is not unbiased international enough, then what is? :) GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Deeday-UK -- Thank you for the additional links. The more we have the better. It would be best if you could find links to web sites with collections of many articles and data, instead of a single article, but individual isolated newspaper articles are also valuable. They all should be made available to the public with no taking sides when presenting them by the editors consistently with NPOV.
Mjroots asked about foreign sources independent of Poland and Russia, which I interpreted as English language based sources independent of the Polish and Russian governments. The sources I found are such very sources, and they need to be included consistently with NPOV without any endorsement or criticism. I hope to find more of such links and I hope you too will find more sources, and I thank you for that in advance. I really appreciate that you turned from solely destructive criticism and just insulting, to lesser criticism combined with contributing some new information.
If Mjroots would like to have sources independent from any Polish or Russian influence whatsoever, it will actually invalidate your links and will really limit the availability to the earlier mentioned German book and just isolated articles about different journalists takeing on different aspects of the matter at different times. Then, providing such information in the forms of individual articles, including those, for example, by James Buchanan, and others, who state outright that the president of Poland was murdered in a staged airplane crash, will be very challenging to make NPOV, especially if some of the editors do not give up their derogatory tendencies of referring to others using such foul language as "ass", "crying" and "charlatan".
Finally, I would like to bring back the attention to the source of this discussion, which seems to be getting diluted time after time. The issue on hand was that someone deleted from the page the information about the Smolensk Conference, which originally was not put there by me but by someone else. This information was there long before for a very long time in the past, and only just recently someone took the liberty to censorship it out. I noticed that, and thinking that it was taken out by a mistake, I put the information back in. Then Trash took it out again. Still not sure what was going on I put it back in, and corrected the name of the 'Parliamentary Committee'. Then I couldn't even quite figure out what was going on when the page got blocked, and we started having this discussion, where both Trash and Deeday-UK went on insulting others, and redirecting the discussion in different directions irrelevant to the original topic. I think I'm correct when I state that: we are not here to solve the Smolensk mystery or to take a stand on what people should believe in; we are here to make whatever information we can find available to the public in one place easy to find and linked to other information and sources according to NPOV rules.
GizzyCatBella -- I have just read your comments after I finished writing my reply above, and I'm very impressed by both the relevance and quality of both the links and the comments. Thank you very much; that's a true team-player spirit. Some of the links you provide are even better than I thought was possible to find. BTW, I didn't notice before that any of the links from DeeDay-UK had anything to do with "Gazeta Wyborcza", and quite frankly probably DeeDay-UK didn't know it either (I hope;), so thank you for noticing it. Indeed, showing links to Gazeta Wyborcza is not a good idea, because this newspaper is the most infamous for biased propaganda and disinformation. They even have lost in court with the presidential candidate Grzegorz Braun and had to apologize to him during the last elections (see here). If you google "Gazeta Wyborcza klamie", which means "Gazeta Wyborcza is telling lies" you'll get over 8,500 hits, but if you do the same for other Polish newspapers you will get one to two orders of magnitude less: "Niezalezna 239", "wPolityce 32", "wSieci 7", "Polityka 359", etc. In accordance with NPOV it is OK to say "Gazata Wyborcza" said ... something, but it's not prudent to say that something is one way or another based on what Gazeta Wyborcza said.Thebiomat (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella, it doesn't matter how the Independent Parliamentary Commission chooses to call itself: if what they produce is the stuff of conspiracy theories, then it should go under a section so headed, possibly in a subsection headed Polish Independent Parliamentary Commission investigation. In summary, the commission claims that multiple bombs planted on the Tupolev exploded (without leaving any trace of explosives) exactly at the point where any aircraft attempting such a hair-rising approach would have met its fate, right above the tree that those pesky Russians must have chopped down in advance to stage a ground collision. All of the above has obviously been covered up by a Russo-Polish secret plot, since the authorities of both countries keep repeating that the crash was 'only' an accident. If this stuff is not a conspiracy theory, what is it?
Thebiomat, yours "we are here to make whatever information we can find available to the public according to NPOV rules" is significantly out of order. Please familiarise yourself with WP:VER and WP:RS. To be included in Misplaced Pages, a source must be reliable, not just 'found somewhere on the net', which rules out from the start things like smolenskcrashnews.com (and I'll go through the others you mention when I find the time). By the way, I didn't see anyone calling somebody else an 'ass' here, while charlatan is not foul language; it's how within Misplaced Pages are known those who claim to follow the "true scientific discourse" while doing exactly the opposite; and the Whatever-It's-Called-Commission or the Smolensk Conference seem to do precisely that. --Deeday-UK (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
DeeDay-UK -- I'm sorry but I don't know what order you had in mind, but my NVOP understanding is right on the target, and you are acting, and soliciting to act, in contradiction not only to NVOP, but also in contradiction to VER and in contradiction to RS, both of which you cited w/o reading. Here is why:
* By imposing your personal believes to force a censorship deciding what can be made available to readers and what cannot, you are violating the VER principle that: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors".
* Next, by cutting off a significant portion of views from inclusion into Misplaced Pages you are violating the RS principle that: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered".
* Further, you don't have the basic understanding of the Misplaced Pages rules by the standards of English comprehension. In the phrase you are quoting, the words "reliable sources" do not indicate what a self-proclaimed "expert" may believe in, but it simply means that the given source should be "published", as opposed to originating from "word-of-mouth rumors". Hence, "... based on reliable, published sources...". It means that if the material in question is published in the sense that it is veritable in terms of its address and availability, then it is reliable.
* smolenskcrashnews.com and the web site of the Polish Congress are published and verifiable as such, and while I have not read them in detail, I see there very serious scientists with many Ph.D.s and publications, and according to Misplaced Pages rules it is not up to you to judge their scientific competence, values or credibilities either on the bases of your experience or on the bases of your believes, which you so persistently are trying to force on others against the Misplaced Pages rules; it is not your place to judge their research, judgement and results, and it is not your place to discredit, or to promote, or to qualify, the contents of their findings.
* If you still don's see something in the text, please use the search function in your FireFox.
* As above, if you don't see the problem, resource to external help. I'm sure that just about anyone can explain to you why using the term charlatan in the given context is a foul language, and I'm sure that you would not be pleased if it were applied to you. Thebiomat (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Deeday, I'm afraid you don't quite understand what a “conspiracy theory” is. The "conspiracy theory” is a BELIEF that somebody is responsible for a circumstance or event. In case of the Parliamentary Commission and Smolensk Conference their findings/conclusions are NOT based on ANY beliefs but exlusively on evidences and analysis of various international scientists/engineers that used the most technically advanced tools. Jürgen Roth's book is neither based on a belief but on BDN (the German Federal Intelligence Service) files and reports. Just in case you didn't know, in June 2015 German Prosecutors launches their own investigation into the Smolensk crash. Therefore no, Parliamentary Commission doesn’t produce any "conspiracy theories", and it should't be named as such only because for some strange reason you insist on it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Deeday, one more thing, on the contrary what you have said in your comment ("Tupolev exploded without leaving any trace of explosives") actually traces of explosives where found. It's hard to believe that you didn't know that. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Deeday, here is another one for you. This one is from German Federal Intelligence Service or Bundesnachrichtendienst source. Jürgen Roth writes about it in his book - March 2014. It is on that date that the German intelligence operative sent his report to the headquarters in Pullach. The report drew on interviews conducted with a senior member of the Polish Government, and a leading officer of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). The document asserts the following: "A possible explanation for the cause of the 04-10-2010 crash of the TU-154 in Smolensk is a highly-probable assassination operation with the use explosives carried out by the Department of the FSB, operating under cover in the Ukrainian Poltava, under the command of General Yuri ‘D.’ from Moscow“. Are you going to insist that this intelligence had been fabricated by the German BND? Is this a "conspiracy theory" also and should be censored out or ridiculed? The only reason Im continuing with my presentations of FACTS is that I'm trying to convince myself that you are editing in good faith. As of now I have serous doubts about that. Sorry GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella – you’re right, and I thank you for the feedback, but you should not let DeeDay-UK to chase you down the rabbit hole. The point of dispute is that the Misplaced Pages editors must be impartial and must not engage in propaganda or censorship using as criteria their own believes and experiences. Doing so is a direct violation of Misplaced Pages rules, as I outlined earlier above. It is not up to the editors to decide which points of view may be included and which may not – they all have to be included w/o pejorative prejudging or labeling them. In my opinion, for advocating such violations of Misplaced Pages rules and principles of objectivity and impartiality, both DeeDay-UK and Trash should be banned from editing the Smolensk crash article. If I start this kind of practices, I should be banned for it too, just as anyone else. If such simple principles as no censorship, and neutrality, cannot be enforced within Misplaced Pages due process, then that indicates a breakdown in the Misplaced Pages editorial functionality, and the matter should be taken to the public. Thebiomat (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2.svg){kind=link}
