Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:48, 2 July 2014

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Aviation: Accidents Project‑class

This page 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 Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This page is supported by the Aviation accident project.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Does anyone think this is a WP:RS?

I am talking about this page. It is being used as a source for 2014 Saltillo BAe 125 crash....William 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The "About" seems to indicate that it is self-published. - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The content is a bit iffy, the accident article uses an image and a video from other accidents and the site creater didnt appear to notice that the video was not a jet! would not recommend using as a source for anything. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Another issue- This website says one of the people on the aircraft was a DJ. But here it says he's an attorney. Which is he? Note- I edited out the words 'well known' out of the article because of NPOV and the fact only a headline was saying he was well known, not the article itself. I'm going to remove the self published source that's being used as a reference....William 19:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

AFD discussions

There are four at present concerning plane crash articles.

• WP:Articles for deletion/2014 Saltillo BAe 125 crash
• WP:Articles for deletion/ALIANSA Colombia DC-3
• WP:Articles for deletion/Eastern Airlines Flight 935
• WP:Articles for deletion/2014 Jämijärvi Comp Air 8 crash

Please come on over and join in the debate over whether these articles should be kept or deleted....William 11:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370's status in Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014

The following discussion 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.

Hello there. I want to help settle the case of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370's status on this template - Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014. WilliamJE says that MH370 has crashed and all of its occupants are dead, putting MH370's article name in small caps. However, Sim(ã)o(n) and I disagree because there has been no article highlighting confirmed wreckage of Flight MH370, nor were any flight recorders found. Of course, the passengers could be declared dead in absentia after a long time, but as of now, there has been no article that has confirmed the fate of MH370 and/or its occupants. Therefore no one knows for sure as to what happened to MH370; just because the passengers and crew were presumed dead, it does not mean that they really are. I would suggest keeping the Algeria Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash as the deadliest aviation incident of 2014. Thanks for reading this message. TehPlaneFreak! talk 05:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

They never found Flight 19? Maybe they're collecting social security these days. How about Flying Tiger Line Flight 739 or 1951 Canadian Pacific Air Lines Douglas DC-4 disappearance ? Those planes could still be up or the crew on some island in the Pacific. Oh and Flying Tiger is over 50 casualties. The tags should be getting removed by you. No wreckage of an aircrash doesn't mean it didn't happen. Other flights with no wreckage 1951 Atlantic C-124 disappearance, 1979 Boeing 707-323C disappearance, 1950 Douglas C-54D disappearance, BSAA Star Tiger disappearance. There is a whole list of them

Templates are supposed to be for links to articles on common subjects. Maybe the best thing to do is remove all the italics and bold markings in these....William 20:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Unless the flight was abducted by aliens, there is no way that it can still be airborne now. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that all on board are now deceased. Should this be proven not to be the case, then the template can be altered. Until a deadlier accident occurs in 2014, MH370 should remain marked as the deadliest. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It is eminently reasonable to assume that the crew and pax are all dead. - Ahunt (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Guys, I'm amazed at how many of you would dare to put your hands in the fire to claim the plane has crashed. I'm not saying it did or it didn't; I'm saying that what I believe any reasonable person should say at this point is that no-one can prove whether it has crashed or not. I've just been going through that list of planes that have disappeared; and guess what? On most of those, few people disappeared. The most recent (excluding this one) where more than, for example, 20 people disappeared was in 1974—check for yourself—which means that, since 40 years have passed, those onboard could be presumed "dead in absentia", as TehPlaneFreak said. This means that, apparently, few or none of those disappearances would have had the problem we're having now about this template, since none of the most recent ones would have had the potential to be the deadliest ones of their years, and the ones that would can now be legitimately presumed to be very likely to be dead. So I guess the examples you've given basically mean nothing. And, unlike some of you seem to be inferring, "not airborne" does not necessarily mean "crashed"; there's another state, called "landed", which is where MH370 could be. No wreckage of an air crash doesn't mean it happened, that's true, but I'm not saying it didn't happen; I'm just saying it may have not happened, which is different. Please stop using straw-man arguments and claiming we said something we didn't say. Finally, it is not reasonable to assume that everyone onboard is dead; only two and a half months have passed, and no bodies have been found. It is instead reasonable to assume that the plane may or may not have crashed. It may have landed on an island without anyone knowing it. It may have crashed in the ocean but with many survivors who may have swum to an island, and now no-one knows they're there. You have no evidence to prove that any of those scenarios didn't happen, nor to prove that it crashed, so you are the ones being unreasonable when claiming at all cost that it has crashed and everyone is dead. So I believe I have just debunked all of the arguments you've used. I'm anxious to read what else you've got. Since there is no evidence about how many people are dead, or about whether the plane has crashed or not, we should stay neutral (I call for keeping a neutral viewpoint and avoiding crystal ball) and do something that will display only the evidence we have so far, and not jump to conclusions about anything, since those may be found not to be true; I propose that the Algeria crash be kept as the deadliest in this template and that a note be added to this one saying something like "(missing—may be the deadliest)" or similar. We're discussing here exactly how to do it. Please consider that we have nothing to lose if we keep a neutral viewpoint, since we have no evidence to prove either side is right. Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * _{See my} efforts! 14:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You're conveniently forgetting this statement from Malaysian Airlines '"Malaysia Airlines deeply regrets that we have to assume beyond a reasonable doubt that MH370 has been lost and that none of those on board survived. As you will hear in the next hour from Malaysia's Prime Minister, we must now accept all evidence suggests the plane went down in the Southern Indian Ocean." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)

You also appear to be ignoring the fact that assumptions and facts are completely different things. When you assume something, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's factual. When someone changed the fatalities on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 to the total number of occupants when Malaysia Airlines made that announcement, someone else reverted its status to "Unknown". It's been that way ever since. If you don't agree with me or the "unknown" status of MH370, then you should be changing the survivor number to 0 on the main flight page. TehPlaneFreak! talk 00:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

William, I have come to notice with great sadness that many people like to talk about what they have no idea, and, worst of all, they like to affirm "beyond any reasonable doubt" things for which they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever. It would be the first time in the history of logics where it would be reasonable to affirm you are certain about something with nothing to prove your claim. Oh wait! Logics is an immutable science, isn't it? There's no "history" in logics, is there? Then, I'm sorry, but your claim is just illogical and irracional. There are a few simple rules about such claims. You can't claim to be sure about something unless you have irrefutable proof of it. If you have very compelling but not irrefutable evidence, you can only claim your conclusion is probably, but not certainly, right. If you have nothing, which is the case, you can claim nothing but "I don't know", which is in fact often the wisest thing you could say. What do you have? The plane fell off radar? Oh, and every time a plane falls off radar, it's certain it has crashed, isn't it? Interestingly, though, this crash seems to have happened thousands of kilometres away from where the plane disappeared! Who would guess that? What else do you have? A series of pings received by a satellite? Well, how can you tell they're from that plane? How does that determine where the plane is? What kind of pings are those, anyway? I've never heard of anything like it being used to find presumably crashed planes! What is this, then? What else? Malaysia Airlines told you the plane had crashed? Wow, those guys at Malaysia Airlines must be unfailing gods, am I right? If Malaysia Airlines say the plane has crashed, the plane has crashed! No questioning their word! What did they base upon to say that? Do they have proof? Anything? No? Not a single piece of wreckage? Not a human body? No oil? Not a part of anything in the plane? No? Nothing? Wow! Surely Malaysia Airlines's statement seems compelling now, doesn't it? Come on, man! You've got nothing! Once again, I've debunked your arguments and used simple logics to demonstrate how you can't tell for sure what happened to the plane. If you can show me proof of the crash, I'll accept your theory. Otherwise, that's just another theory, and we still should remain neutral to any possibility. Again, why don't you consider Misplaced Pages's WP:NPOV policy? Let's be rational and not affirm what we don't know anything about, shall we? -- Sim(ã)o(n) * _{See my} efforts! 20:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

From The Canadian Press today: Australian "Transport Minister Warren Truss said ... We're still very confident that the resting place of the aircraft is in the southern ocean ... Opposition lawmaker Tony Burke offered his party's condolences to the victims' families. "The hopes of many have been dashed," he told Parliament." So officially it has been acknowledged that the best information is that the aircraft crashed and everyone is dead, even if the final location of the aircraft is not known. If you know more that the lead government for the search does, then please do present your evidence. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your quotation does not say they are assuming everyone is dead. It just says they assume the plane is "resting" in the Southern Indian Ocean. I do not know more than the government. All I'm saying is that the government know nothing! How can they be so confident? Ask those guys how can they tell the plane has crashed there. What do they have to say that? Any aircraft wreckage? Any human body? Any part of the aircraft? Any part of any human body? Any oil? Anything? Well, no! They've got nothing! They have no idea what they're saying! Ask them how can they prove their statement, and they'll tell you nothing because they have nothing! Tell me: do you believe anything any government tells you? Are governments made up of gods who never fail and never lie? Omniscient gods? Well, no! It's not a news article that says some government claimed the plane had crashed that actually constitutes proof the plane did crash! Your article proves nothing! Furthermore: in the very same news article you've pointed, it's written, in the final paragraph: "The families of the victims — many of whom have been highly critical of the Malaysian government and, in the absence of any wreckage, have been unwilling to accept that their loved ones are dead — had been asking for the raw satellite data for many weeks so it could be examined by independent experts. Malaysia initially balked at doing so, but then reconsidered." Wow! So the families are also suspicious about the claims of the Malaysian government! It would be the first time in history you could say a plane has crashed without presenting evidence of it. All plane crashes leave wreckage behind. In this case, though, interestingly, no wreckage has been found of the plane, but the government are saying they're sure the plane crashed! Furthermore: they can even tell you exactly how many people died, even though they have no plane wreckage and no bodies! I have never seen this sort of thing before! Have you? I'm not saying the plane didn't crash, but merely that we can't know whether it did or not—even less can we know about how many people died onboard! Let's just say what we know: that the plane is missing. Let's not speculate and assume our speculations are pure truth everyone must accept, because they aren't! I'm changing that template because you obviously have nothing to use to prove the plane has crashed! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * _{See my} efforts! 17:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Now you have descended into farce. A govt. official says the plane is resting in the Southern Indian Ocean but that means they know nothing. Australia, Malaysia Airlines, and CHina have all said the passengers and crew are dead. However that's not good enough for you. That's pretty sad. You wrote-

It would be the first time in history you could say a plane has crashed without presenting evidence of it

Also note I pointed out a half a dozen instances of no wreckage ever being found. Your statement above shows either a lack of knowledge of aviation history or an intentional disregard of it....William 18:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, WilliamJE. Try to keep your cool and say something more civil to Sim(ã)o(n) rather than "Your statement above shows either a lack of knowledge of aviation history or an intentional disregard of it." See WP:IUC. TehPlaneFreak! talk 00:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, TehPlaneFreak, but nevermind. William may actually think I'm displaying a lack or disregard of knowledge about aviation history. That was not an offensive comment. If only what he is saying by that were true, that would have simply been an observation of a fact. However, it is not true. As such, watch how I can, once again, easily debunk one more of his arguments. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * _{See my} efforts! 17:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe everything the governments of Australia, Malaysia, or China say. To see a list of countries whose governments I don't thoroughly believe, see List of sovereign states. I can believe more easily the investigators—and they've never said they were sure the plane had crashed, have they?—, but even for their affirmations I need proof that they're right. Just use some common sense: if no wreckage has been found, how can they tell the plane has crashed? Don't just blindly trust everything they tell you: question it. How can those guys know how many people have died if they haven't even found the plane? Have you noticed you haven't yet been able to give me a proper answer? Now, you're saying that my statement presents a lack or disregard of knowledge about aviation history, since there have been other occasions where no plane wreckage has been found. Well, that claim of yours in fact shows that either you have failed to understand my point or you are again deliberately using a straw-man argument. There may have been other instances, but my point is precisely that in none of those instances—where planes simply disappeared and were never found—could you claim the respective plane had crashed, because you have no evidence of it. Regardless of how many such cases you point out, if you ever claim those aircraft have crashed, you will be basically jumping to conclusions when you have no evidence to reach them. How can you tell any of those planes have crashed? You can't! If you're thinking rationally, you just can't! And if I'm wrong, prove it! You keep getting straw-man arguments, presenting the same kind of "evidence" over and over again, when I've told you that 1) the other disappearances mean nothing, since not even then can you tell the planes have crashed; 2) governments aren't completely reliable; 3) no-one has any proof the plane has crashed, since nothing that was inside it has ever been found; 4) no-one can tell how many people died from and how many survived this "hypothetical crash"; 5) I've never said the plane was still airborne; 6) logically, it makes no sense to defend a position and forcing others to accept it when you have no evidence to support it; and 7) the best thing to do is obviously follow Misplaced Pages's policy of keeping a neutral viewpoint and avoiding "crystal ball". In the end, it seems to me that you have nothing to prove that the plane has crashed and that everyone has died, so you can't keep your case. Please, let's stop this discussion which is obviously leading nowhere because you lack evidence to prove the plane has crashed. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * _{See my} efforts! 17:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is supposed to report what reliable sources say. If reliable sources treat all those aboard as dead, then for the purposes of the articles we can treat them as so. Should the situation change then so would the article and its inclusion in lists, categories, navboxes as necessary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Mjroots, instead of dropping the stick, they took this disruptive stalemated argument to the template talk page. I'm trying a different approach to resolving the issue, and everyone here is more than welcome to voice their opinion there: Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014#RfC: Moving forward straw poll. Seeing as this is the wikiproject that would be most likely to take care of that template, I probably should have stopped by sooner to notify you all of the RfC. Anyways, you're now notified! Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} 03:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

1958 plane disappearance - found in 2014

I have searched on many of the Misplaced Pages aviation lists & can find no mention of a 1958 aviation disaster.

I am not knowledgeable about creating an article. I would like to suggest that an article be added here ...

Category:Accidents and incidents involving the Consolidated PBY Catalina

https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Consolidated_PBY_Catalina

This is is regards to a plane carrying 11 American servicemen & 4 Taiwanese civilian crew members that disappeared mysteriously in October 1958. In 2014 the plane wreckage was found in the Taiwan Straits.

Here is one of the many news reports regarding its recovery ...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel/travel-news/wreckage-of-us-military-jet-that-mysteriously-disappeared-during-the-cold-war-found-in-taiwan-straits/story-fnjjv9zl-1226943540845

Would anyone be interested in creating this article please ?

Thank you!

(Picnics (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC))

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in

For what is a simple template for navigation is does cause some issues (particularly in the 2014 version). Can I propose that as they provide no help in the primary use to navigate between articles that the marking of the more than 50 victims and the deadliest accident is ; depracted and removed from this series of templates, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that the 50 victims is an arbitrary level, and is a lower hurdle for modern large aircraft than eg pre-war aircraft, and the difference between deadliest and next deadliest is but one fatality ( 0.125% of the possible capacity of a A380) I can see a good reason for removing the emphasis between entries. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. The templates are for navigation. Not about statements on this or that crash....William 21:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose — I find those indications useful sometimes. With just a glance, you can see the deadliest accidents of a certain year, with the top one highlighted. For some time, I even thought something else could be done: highlighting in some other way accidents or incidents where there were no casualties. I've never proposed it, but maybe that could be useful as well... I'm sorry to be swimming against the tide, but I really find those indications useful. About the issues it caused in the 2014 version, they have been corrected, and consensus has been achieved of not listing MH370 as the deadliest, since there hadn't been confirmation of their deaths yet. I have proposed also that the italics be removed from it, since we can't confirm either that 50 people died, but I made it clear from the beginning that I wouldn't go ahead with it if I found too much resistance, which seems to be the case now. Problems, like any others, can be solved with simple discussions, in favour of usefulness. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * _{See my} efforts! 14:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As we only had one objection consensus is that these entries are not needed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Project-Class aviation pages
• Project-Class Aviation accident pages
• Aviation accident task force articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles