Talk:Itavia Flight 870

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also[edit]

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)[reply]


I would like to add that there is a good Italian Movie about this subject. It is called Il Muro di Gomma. It is the history of 10 years after the disaster and it is inspired by the memories of the journalist that was writing about it in Il Corriere della Sera


Article name[edit]

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 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" [1], although its possible that the choice of title was influenced by this wikipedia article. Self-Described Seabhcán 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

added some info and removed some[edit]

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)[reply]

Conspiracy theories and "connecting the dots"[edit]

"Connecting the dots" is not permitted under Wikipedia rules; it constitutes original research. As such, the conspiracy theory section violates Wikipedia policy. See [2] Morton devonshire 01:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Flight Transcript[edit]

This part of the flight transcript is a reference to the fact that the navigational beacons in Italy were turned off that evening. I recall hearing at the time that turning off the beacons was standard procedure when military jets were dogfighting over Italy. The idea was to remove from the Libyan jets the opportunity to navigate by civilian beacons. Does anyone remember where this news report could be found online these days?

"F/O Yes...neither Ponza is working ? We've found a graveyard this evening; coming from Firenze we didn't find one beacon working properly.
Rome ACC In fact, everything is a bit out, Ponza too. What's your heading now?"

Reputable websites[edit]

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. -- 08:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

NTSB involvement?[edit]

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 ( 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))[reply]

The footage is from BBC special report "Murder in the sky" (1982) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan secret service archives – 2011[edit]

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 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A debunk of one part of the conspiracy theory.[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 11:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't forget to sign your posts. Yes, I watched that episode as well. In particular, the official (was it Rosario Priore himself?) said that the explosive was T4, more commonly known as RDX, which is an extremely stable solid explosive(it doesn't blow up when on fire or if shot at), so I find it hard to imagine it leaking from torpedoes. On the other hand,IT IS generally used in castable mixtures, which are probably more "leakable". It should also be noted that this explosive has been used in Moscow Metro bombings, 1993 Bombay and 2006 Mumbai bombings, so it is not unlikely to be an ingredient in the unproven bomb, which lends more credence to the bomb theory.

P.S. Rosario Priore also said that one of the radar operators found hanged should not have died from it, because of the insufficient height (his feet and part of the leg were touching the ground.) Another thing I noted was the so-called radio exercise at the time of shootdown, during which time nothing was recorded. NATO spokesman present has declined to answer a simple question of how often this exercise is done. Then, phone conversations mention the aircraft carrier, which was proven by the method of elimination to be French. Lastly, the program even mentioned a fringe theory which believes that the plane was brought down by the MiG "quasi- collision". In the light of Tripoli documents, this is likely to be false, but nonetheless, it is worthy of inclusion.

My 2 cents for this article. Boron eye (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible UFO involvement in Theories section[edit]

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. (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey[reply]

Disputed cause[edit]

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 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)[reply]

  • Okay, if it was something other than a shootdown, then why frame the Italian military for something they didn't do? (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not debating personally what the cause was or whether there was or wasn't any cover up. My question is that basically with any accident we would normally trust the conclusions of investigators in the published accident report (or in this case the most recent accident report). However, as in this case no report has ever been released stating a definitive cause, and we have the last set of investigators to examine the aircraft ruling out a missile and a court ruling on accident liability suggesting that it was a missile, should we not state a disputed outcome? Neither thing is a definitive answer to the question (the court is not an accident investigation) but they do suggest conflict. If a final accident report is published containing irrefutable evidence of one thing or the other then surely you can say what the actual cause was. BroSwerve (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed BroSwerve, the third technical report's conclusions were quite succinct. In regards to the continuing court actions in Italy, don't rule out a mob groupthink mentality. I have expanded the section regarding the documentary to clarify the conclusion was of the third technical investigation's, not the tv show's, but I don't know how to use a reference that has already been listed - ie the 'Accident to Itavia DC-9 near Ustica' - can someone help with that reference? Also - while the section text has a hyperlink to the wiki page on this episode of the show, should a formal reference also be included in the references section? 10KittyKat01 (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It occurs to me that considering the incident was of an Italian flight, and the court cases occurred in Italy, and the incident has international repercussions what with various countries being accused by the Italians of having filed the supposed missiles that the conclusions of the third technical commission would be of great interest and relevance to Italian readers. I also note that Wikipedia has an Italian language version, but I cannot see that either the (most importantly and of most relevance) conclusions of the third technical commission, or the criticism of the Italian judiciary for failing to accept their conclusions has been noted on that page. But then, I don't have any Italian linguistic skill. Are there any Italian speakers reading this who could check whether the Italian wiki's page has been updated appropriately with this most relevant information? 10KittyKat01 (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no direct reference to Taylor (or his report), however they talk about the bomb hypothesis (with a link to an article in an italian newspaper which interviewed Taylor) and mostly show skepticism based on the fact that according to (another group of) British specialists no explosive residuals were ever found on the toilet seat nor the sink. Nova77 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a new description that gives both the official and alternative theory (similar to Arrow Air 1285's description). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotr Strzyz (talkcontribs) 20:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatization section[edit]

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)[reply]

Most of the sources are not wikipeida acceptable sources[edit]

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. (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No marks of flying debris or bomb fragments found stuck or scratched in the toilet remains. That is one, probably the main, reason why the bomb-in-the-toilet theory was rejected. Also, the toilet door was curved as if it had been blown in, not out. Plus other things. Taylor can huff and puff all he likes, but there were serious flaws in his findings. It didn't help that the inquiring magistrate found the members of the technical commission were being carefully monitored and wooed by the military high ranks under investigation, upon whcich finding they ( the technical commission) were dismissed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup required.[edit]

This article needs a total rewrite, needs more citations and a general cleanup. MattChatt18 (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 July 2018[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– These two articles started off as Itavia Flight 870 and Itavia respectively. They were moved (rather messily) to the current titles in 2006 (here and here) with reason that "The official name of the company was Aerolinee Itavia, not just Itavia." That is at odds with WP:COMMONAME ("Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used"). The company's official name was in fact Aerolinee Itavia S.p.A., but it was always known simply as Itavia. I cannot recall many sources, if any, that use the full registered name. Indeed, in the corresponding articles on the Italian Wikipedia, the word 'Aerolinee' is either used only to give the full details [3], or is not used at all [4]. Deeday-UK (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Seems a reasonable idea to move them. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible support for both. Reversing undiscussed and contrary to policy move 05:32, 19 January 2006 Smoth 007 (talk | contribs | block) . . (41 bytes) (+41) . . (moved Itavia Flight 870 to Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870: The official name of the company was Aerolinee Itavia, not just Itavia.) and 05:24, 24 October 2009 Trevor MacInnis (talk | contribs | block) . . (30 bytes) (+30) . . (moved Itavia to Aerolinee Itavia: fix cut and paste move, merge edit histories) which is a bit more complex, but still provides no justification for the current title. Andrewa (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Additional title change suggestion[edit]

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)[reply]

Causes section problems[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 13:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories[edit]

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 (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 August 2021[edit]

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)[reply]

– I would like these two pages to be moved. Reason being is that according to the page of the airline itself, when it re-opened in 1962, the name was changed to Aerolinee Itavia. We must use the most recent name for airline pages and we must use the name that was used then for an aviation accident. In this case, the name for both is Aerolinee Itavia. Not saying Itavia is wrong but Aerolinee Itavia is the more recent name. We don't call US Airways Flight 1549 as USAir Flight 1549 because the name used then was US Airways. There was also a person after the move was created saying that we must name to Itavia Airlines Flight 870. That is downright incorrect. Nobody calls it Itavia Airlines Flight 870. Also, ASN and B3A both mention it as Aerolinee Itavia and not Itavia. The mayday season also says it to be Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870. Also, one thing to prove the earlier move was incorrect is because in the Italian page, it did say mention it as Aerolinee Itavia. The logo of the airline itself says its Aerolinee Itavia.Username006 (talk) (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose. one thing to prove the earlier move was incorrect is because in the Italian page, it did say mention it as Aerolinee Itavia Naming conventions are not necessarily the same in different Wikipedia projects, but it's worth mentioning that the article corresponding to Itavia Flight 870 uses "Aerolinee Itavia" once in the infobox, and "Itavia" on its own more than 30 times in the text. The article corresponding to Itavia has "Aerolinee Itavia" three times and just "Itavia" about 25 times. That is not very strange, since aerolinee simply means airlines in Italian, and although it is part of the full legal name of the company, it is clearly not part of the common name in Italian. That is also strongly supported by the sources for the article!
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,, and FLIGHT international all use "Itavia"; has "Aerolinee Itavia" in the lede and "Itavia" in all subsequent mentions. There are two 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)[reply]

Every name may not necessarily be a common name as you may think. The title also needs to be distinguishable between other pages unless it is unavoidable. I bet no one calls Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 so. It's common name was AirAsia Flight 8501. But if it was called AirAsia Flight 8501, the operator would be mixed with the parent company. Itavia sounds rather similar to Alitalia. However, it is clearly avoidable if the name is changed to Aerolinee Itavia. Say Itavia and Alitalia yourself. They sound rather similar. Username006 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – Clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME, as eloquently explained by User:Bonadea above. The risk of confusion between Itavia and Alitalia is a non-issue. See also the discussion a few years ago about the move to the current titles. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:30, 29 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.

Trying to clean the article up[edit]

I've tried to clean the article up by removing unsourced or irrelevant text. Arguments over how a TV series discussed the crash are not relevant to this page, but would be better suited to the Mayday page on Wikipedia. Also I've clarified the section about the "official" investigation, which isn't really official in the sense it was held by an office designed to investigate aviation crashes. I think the article needs further work. John Smith's (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some further revisions to try to make the article flow better. Really what is required is for someone to put in a chronology of the official investigations and explain what happened with each one, even if it only confirms no conclusive views of the crash could be produced. This should be kept separate from the litigation, because investigations are there to establish facts, whereas court cases are there to attribute liability. John Smith's (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can new editors please not make wholesale versions to the article without discussing them first, especially when I've tried to clean this article up. John Smith's (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User talk:Andreapisauro, I have the following observations.

The Smolensk Air disaster happened nearly two decades later. If there was a page about Taylor it would be fine to mention his views on different events there. But we mustn't draw inferences ourselves. Inserting a reference to Taylor's alleged views on Smolensk, even if well intentioned, would clearly be an attempt to paint him as a conspiracy theorist and discredit his views on Itavia Flight 870. Even if it were agreed that he was wrong on Smolensk, that doesn't mean he wasn't right on Itavia.

Regarding Judge Priore, as he authored a later report I agree that it's fine to refer to what he said. However, "stragi80" isn't an official source. Is there a more reliable source that quotes specifically what his problems with the Taylor report were? John Smith's (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the investigator's view on the Air Smolensk disaster is extremely relevant as it is a very similar situation. A plane which went down in somewhat unclear circumstances where Taylor supports a theory about a bomb as the main cause of the disaster. In both cases the events have geopolitical significance and in both cases the official investigation leads towards a different explanation of the events. While it is true that in the second case he did not have an official capacity, it is worth noticing that also in the case of Ustica Taylor went far beyond his role on the committee, giving frequent and highly politically sensitive comments to the press. Precisely the kind of comments he put forward in the case of the Smolensk disaster.
For the views of Priore on the Misiti/Taylor report I would refer to this link which is comprehensive: and link up the the part of Priore's "sentenza-ordinanza" where the judge harshly criticises the report: I take the point that "stragi80" isn't an official source but it's the largest archive on Ustica and the documents uploaded are all official. The Sentenza Ordinanza of Judge Priore is an official document. Andreapisauro (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, stragi80 is referenced in other parts of this article... Andreapisauro (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full Cockpit Voice Recording[edit]

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. (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]