Talk:1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search

While the original purpose of this article was important, now that it's been decided (July 2011) that the pilots were innocent and the crash was caused by some fault in the aircraft, does it have any further value? All it's doing is acting as a source for information that we're not very interested in updating and could become seriously misleading.

I'd propose that the article be replaced by a marker to say that there is no longer any reason to consider this a "Deep State" interference with our right to information, and interested readers would now be better checking the article in the other place (to which we could give a link).

In fact, this is a procedure that, in the interests of sharing the best possible information, we might care to adopt whenever controversies of this kind are solved. It's rare for this to happen, but if we do our job better, then more of these cases could be solved and put to bed. Toolbox 19:30, 4 September 2011 (IST)

Who 'decided' it? Robin 20:07, 4 September 2011 (IST)

The pilots were exonerated by a new official inquiry a month or so ago. I accept that, as it stands, the page adds little to the corresponding WP page. However, it WAS a major 'Deep-state' event in that the SIS's were heavily involved in all aspects of the transport of what was almost the entirety of then NI Security establishment in the same aircraft. I have a cousin who lives on the Mull and I am aware of evidence that was submitted to the inquiry which was neither acknowledged nor included in its report. I judge it likely that there is still a lot more to the incident than is being revealed in public and for that reason alone feel that the page should remain on WS, if only to provide a ready slot for any such further revelations. --Peter P 08:24, 5 September 2011 (IST)

I think the only valuable information still remaining in the article, and perhaps not widely displayed elsewhere, is the names of the victims. (Actually, that was a guess - but it turns out I'm right, that's the one piece of information that is missing at the other place!) Everything to do with the accident just looks like a non-current copy of tired MSM information. Better to piggy-back on a version that will be updated regularly and graciously tell the reader that WS is breaking one new piece of information, but nothing else for the moment. Remind the reader that WS may specialise on some topics, but this is not currently one of them. Toolbox 12:49, 5 September 2011 (IST)