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 articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
The loss of Ndola DC-6 with Dag Hammarskjöld (Sept. 18, 1961) is back in the news,
with the release of the report from an investigation into the death of the U.N.
General Assembly president July 6, 2015. Coordinates of the crash site are listed at
13°N. More likely 13°S.
This article and the one on Hammerskjold himself include a map which shows the routes of his plane and a decoy plane. However, except for the map's caption this decoy is not mentioned anywhere in either article.
24.61.4.237 (
talk)
11:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The conspiracy theorists make a number of mistakes.
1) Having filed a false flight plan at Leopoldville, the flight crew of the DC-6 refused to give more than cursory information to the ATC at Ndola as the flight was secret and for security reasons normal flight information was withheld. The ground staff at Ndola hence had no idea that the delay in landing was because the aircraft had crashed, as they were unaware of the aircraft's possible diversions, other routes, etc., when it failed to turn up.
2) The NSA had no listening station on Cyprus. The only such thing on the island was the British
MI6 one at
RAF Akrotiri. Any fighter aircraft in Zambia is miles out of VHF radio range of Cyprus - the distance is over 3,000 miles. Hence they couldn't have heard a pilot radioing that he had attacked the DC-6. In addition, for such an illegal and illicit act only an amateur would state such a thing on the radio knowing he might be overheard.
3) The DC-6 impacted in the dark a 4,000 ft wooded hill that was not marked on the flight chart the crew were using for their approach. The area surrounding Ndola Airport was mostly scrubland without any lights, hence in the dark there are few visual clues as to height.
4) The DC-6 was lower than cleared-to when it made its turn having overshot the airfield. It subsequently hit the hill while in the circuit.
5) The flight crew were tired having been on duty since the previous morning.
6)
MI5 are the British internal security service and they have no remit for operations outside the UK.
Probable cause - A tired crew who had never visited Ndola overshot the unfamiliar airfield in the dark and then descended below their cleared altitude into an unlit wooded hill that was not marked on their approach map.
BTW, the scene of the accident,
Southern Rhodesia, was at the time a British colony. Of course the investigating officials would be British. There were no other qualified people within several thousand miles.
Would a better title for this article not be "Death of Dag Hammarskjöld"? That is basically why this is notable after all. It would also be an easy way of avoid the current, slightly convoluted, title.—Brigade Piron (
talk)
18:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
1961 Ndola United Nations DC-6 crash. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I was working on and off in an article like this couple years agosnd quitted as couldn't access many sources. Happy to see someone succeeded, this article is quite good. Only improvement I can think is adding images specific to the accident, maybe from the official repirts? Regards,
DPdH (
talk)
03:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on
1961 Ndola United Nations DC-6 crash. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
"In April 2014, The Guardian published evidence implicating Jan van Risseghem, a military pilot who served with the RAF during World War II, later with the Belgian Air Force and became famous as the pilot of Moise Tshombe in Katanga."
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.
As I said, it's much clearer. Not that long of a name, and just naming a page after an unknown flight number gives little information. The present name adds the year, an important detail for those who know the history. Maybe just replace 'DC-6' with 'Flight 001'?
Randy Kryn (
talk)
16:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Randy Kryn: The naming convention is not like that and also, there are pages such as the
1973 Aeroflot Tu-154 crash which has been moved to
Aeroflot Flight 141, despite the older name being clearer. Same for
2008 Colombia Kalitta Air Boeing 747 crash, which was renamed to
Centurion Air Cargo Flight 164. Here, you can remove 2 words from the title and ofcourse, add redirects. Unless there was a common name to it, or there were 2 or more aircraft involved in the accident, it could possibly have a seperate title. This page does not follow either of these terms. Thus, it should be renamed. One thing, I would like to mention is that while I'm searching for it is that I don't type in the whole title and rather just type in '1961 Ndola United Nations' and look at the results. Better off to rename it as the flight number is known.
Username006 (
talk)
16:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)reply
It just seems truncated. This is a pretty important air crash topic, and 'United Nations Flight 001' misses a lot and doesn't really describe the notability. How about '1961 United Nations Flight 001 crash', that pins down most of it.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
20:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Andrewa: Please don't ask silly questions like that and make it look controversial by removing my signature on it. The naming convention is to usually name the title with the flight number unless it has a common name or 2 or more aircraft are involved. In this case, neither of the conditions are met so it is better to name it so.
Username006 (
talk)
15:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I did not remove your signature.
Here is what I did and it is all I did. Can you see that now? I can't sign for you. But you can sign the contribution and remove the unsigned template,
as you have now done. It would have been better to do it using three tildes rather than the usual four to avoid adding a confusing timestamp.
But I did ask a question. You spoke of a naming convention, but did not say which one. Possibly you are not aware that there are explicit naming conventions?
There is a lot going on here and you are encouraged to
be bold. See also
my essay for my views on that. But you also need to listen to old hands, particularly to admins such as the one who has been trying to help you on your talk page. And I am also just trying to help.
Andrewa (
talk)
17:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Andrewa: The talk page says it is in scope of Wikiproject aviation and thus, we apply the policies over there. Why do you think it is written naming conventions on the title? Your rules don't override the Wikiproject rules.
Username006 (
talk)
04:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Agree that my rules don't override the Wikiproject rules. And nor do theirs override the article naming policy. That is the whole point. If these Wikiproject rules were to become a
naming convention as you seem to believe they already are, then they would be part of the policy. But they have no such status. I'm sorry that the Wikiproject has not made this clear, but this is their fault and nobody else's.
The page I created at
User:Andrewa/Wikipedia article naming conventions also demonstrates that written naming conventions on the title is equally as meaningless as the URL. Any user can create a page that has written naming conventions on the title as I did for the demonstration of such things (and for no other reason).
Andrewa (
talk)
14:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As above. This may be a shorter name, but to my mind it instantly fails on "recognisability" under
WP:CRITERIA. The notable event here is the crash, and the current title reflects this in a precise and clear way. —Brigade Piron (
talk)
12:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose. No justification in terms of article naming policy. See above for much discussion of exactly what is part of that policy and what is not.
Andrewa (
talk)
14:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)reply
You still don't seem to get it. Firstly the page you have been citing is not a naming convention. It is misleadingly labelled, and there is not a lot I can do about that. (Which is a big topic in itself.) So it's not a matter of finding another naming convention, because the one you are citing is not a naming convention. Secondly,
Wikipedia naming conventions do not cover every article title, as you would know if you had followed that link which I have given several times now. The
article title policy does cover every title, and the naming conventions which it lists cover particular areas in which exceptions have been made to the general principles which are on the policy page. And there does not seem to be one that covers this article, as is also the case for the vast majority of article titles. Assuming this is the case we just go by the policy.
Andrewa (
talk)
01:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)reply
It has many shortcuts, and is linked to in many places. Including of course the very post to which you are replying. Would it be too much to ask you to actually read a post before replying to it?
You asked me above Please don't ask silly questions like that and make it look controversial by removing my signature on it when I had not removed your signature. I don't call your questions silly. They are good questions. It is your repeating ones that have already been answered that is rather silly, as is making blatantly false statements that all just reflect your not reading other posts at all carefully... if at all.
Oppose - Mostly for the reasons given above on recognizability. Most discussions of the event always use the words "Ndola" and "crash", so it is helpful to include that in the title. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
02:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the Infobox, it is written that the "crash site" is "15 km west of Ndola Airport".
But in 2021, that Airport (Ndola Airport) moved addresses and it is now a "next-door neighbour" to that Memorial Site (no-longer 15 km away), as indicated in the
Ndola Airport article.
Almost every piece of information in the body of text under "Incident" is already contained in the lead, with the exceptions of mentioning that Tshombe's troops were Katangese, that the other side was made up of UN forces, and that before Hammarskjöld was on his way to negotiations to end the fighting, he had learned that there was fighting.
All three of which can be inferred from the knowledge that Tshombe was the president of Katanga, the UN was sending a representative, and the fact that Hammarskjöld was on his way to negotiate a ceasefire (which would, of course, be difficult if he was unaware of the combat).
I'm not suggesting that the section be deleted, just that it be restructured so as to not restate the lead and include more new information about the incident itself. It may be better to actually tighten up the lead instead, but since I'm unsure about best practices here I figured I'd ask.
Grassbear (
talk)
03:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Should I change the title?
According to Website called baaa-acro ,The Flight Number is UNO001 and I think the title should rename into Transair Sweden Flight 001
Arm Thai (
talk)
05:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply