This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Atlas Air Flight 3591 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Until more information about the accident is published, the summary will remain as it is. The image caption depite one minor undo, again will remain as it is, as the way it is layered out is the same with most air accident info boxes. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 00:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh my god, look, just because he lives there doesn’t mean that he can’t travel down to Miami on holiday or to go plane spotting, I’ve done t myself countless times. And not only you’ve removed the date as well. Serisouly come on. Not even I’d remove all that if I though the location was ‘flase’. Why don’t you check the planes flight plane 9 days ago? OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 15:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Stop sourcing planespotters and the like per WP:UGC - Bohbye ( talk) 16:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Maps
|
---|
Which Map (Map A or Map B) will work better for this page? (or can anyone make a better map?) Thanks. OkayKenji ( talk) 01:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
BMJ-pdx ( talk) 09:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
One of the occupants was deadheading, which would make him a non-revenue passenger. Should the infobox therefore be changed to say 2 crew and 1 passenger, rather than 3 crew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfire ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 25 Februa:::ry 2019 (UTC)
Jason Rabinowitz (@AirlineFlyer) was at MIA the day of the accident photographing planes, and possibly captured an image of N1217A on the ground, at the airport. It is possibly the last normal photo of plane, and was posted on Twitter. Should this be included on this wiki page? Jmanroc ( talk) 02:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I have already added the photo buddy. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 23:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
What time did the plane take off from MIA? This photo must have been taken just minutes before that. — Jeff G. ツ 14:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Well the photo was taken at 9:40 EST am. So I am not sure, someone made a video of the plane taxing on MIA the sane day as well, it’s incredibly sad. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 12:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Did the permission not go through properly? I recall seeing confirmation of the correct permissions being received, but now the file has been deleted. Waterfire ( talk) 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I am probable ovethinking this or being silly. But after looking at the plane I can't help but notice the bulge on the paintwork by the tail / elevator. Is that normal? I mean I've been on a lot of 757's and a few 787's but where the elevator and tail meets, it doesnt look right in that area of the photo. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Why thanks for the information, kinda scary that the NTSB says there was a 49 degree pitch down from there current findings. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 22:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Can we have this image: File:N1217A seen on Feburary 23rd 2019.png
In the infobox as it was captured on the day of the accident, and then move the other image into the aircraft section. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 23:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the day-of image - what's the policy on this? SportingFlyer T· C 05:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, I don’t think the photos should be swapped. But there are instances such as the Redwings Tu-204 crash In 2012 in which the aircraft was photographed on its accident flight. In this case regarding the 767 I think everything regarding the photos should be kept as they are. The day of the accident photo with the date and time is perfectly normal adding the interesting side as noted by DoRD. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 13:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This plane was brought down by a computer virus that had infected the Primary flight computer via a maintenance upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:C5 ( talk) 03:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
@Andrewgprout, in your last edit you hid (collapsed) this section; and your edit summary said This content is NOT here to add to the value of the encyclopaedia. Thank you for providing the summary. But in it you state an assumption (about a contributor’s intent). That may be what you think; it may be what I think too: but we are required to assume good faith. If you have contrary evidence let’s have it, of course. Otherwise, WP:AGF is a requirement not a recommendation. And alongside that principle, the more specific rules about hacking around with other people’s Talk-page contributions are reasonably clear. The recommendation not to bite the newbies is also relevant; again, if you have evidence tht the original contributor is not a newbie, let’s have it . . and then we can consider the block-warning protocol. Not, again not, hacking the Talk-page. That is such a bad look for a community encyclopaedia. Yes, endlessly resurgent baseless speculations are pretty disenchanting - especially, somehow, in relation to air accidents. But the body of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - ie following lede + contents - opens with the words "There is reasonable allowance for speculation". And it’s a community encyclopaedia. Not all those likely to think about articles are experts. Leaving these contributions in-place and clear-to-see has benefits, too. Next time someone wants to contribute a similar idea, s/he can be referred to this section - with its useful emphasis on sources. Or s/he might even spot the section before starting to type!! So, there’s lots of aspects. Of all the different principles, rules etc against what you have been doing (@Begoon too here) the one I’d single out to take time thinking about is Assume Good Faith. It’s a community encyclopaedia! - SquisherDa ( talk) 13:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC) —— @DorD, I recognise the move to hide / collapse the discussion as a creative and productive compromise. But as first applied here, masking the whole section, it has the drawback of masking Specter Koen's call for sources (and mine!) - so making them ineffective in guiding future contributors. And I’m puzzled by Ur reference to the Talk page guidelines. The guidelines seem pretty clear that "[t]here is reasonable allowance for speculation". They also state that the purpose must always be to improve the article, yes: and 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:C5's style certainly leaves room for doubt about that. But if we must fill the gap with assumptions, they have to be assumptions of good faith. Beyond that, it’s maybe a bit discourteous (arrogant?) of 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:C5 to state a view without explanation - or sources! - or even signature!! (though that last can easily be unintentional). And judging by his talk-page and contributions he’s not the newest of newbies. Still, though, if we’re going to push back against discourtesy and arrogance there are other places to start. (I’m feeling that quite strongly myself, at this moment.) Bad example is as powerful as good. We’re missing opportunity here! - SquisherDa ( talk) 12:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah! Drive-by! I’d forgotten that! Yes, the original comment’s positioning on the Talk-page was negligent and disruptive. And - this is the break-through point - it is evidence as to good faith! As evidence, it can potentially displace the mandatory assumption. I guess my own view is tht that some degree of arrogance and negligence is consistent with good-faith intention to improve the encyclopaedia. But I can see it might well be felt tht dumping a brief unsourced allegation in an unhelpful place is sufficient evidence tht there’s no real concern to cooperate: a lack of good-enough faith! To me, that’s the only real consideration. Yes, an irresponsible theory (unless there’s some worthwhile source suggesting it); yes, totally unsourced; yes, conspiracy tumbleweed: for practical purposes an intrusive irrelevance. I recognise the value of quick waste-disposal! But for a community effort, intent seems to me absolutely central. With that resolved now, it still feel a bit silly to squish Specter Koen’s contribution - and my first effort, which mentioned similar facile theories about USN collisions. Those contributions clarify to any future 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:C5-type editors tht unsourced speculations go nowhere. Why suppress that clarification? |
There is no information about the visibility at the time of the loss of control. No weather, no METAR, no TAF, whether they were operating in Visual Flight Rules or Instrument Flight Rules? DouglasHeld ( talk) 10:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I propose to strike the entire Lawsuits section per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Although I find it novel to try to hold an airline liable for a pilot's lack of proficiency, there have been no significant news updates since 2019, and I think the topic is now well past its expiration date. Any objections or comments? Carguychris ( talk) 21:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Atlas Air Flight 3591 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Until more information about the accident is published, the summary will remain as it is. The image caption depite one minor undo, again will remain as it is, as the way it is layered out is the same with most air accident info boxes. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 00:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh my god, look, just because he lives there doesn’t mean that he can’t travel down to Miami on holiday or to go plane spotting, I’ve done t myself countless times. And not only you’ve removed the date as well. Serisouly come on. Not even I’d remove all that if I though the location was ‘flase’. Why don’t you check the planes flight plane 9 days ago? OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 15:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Stop sourcing planespotters and the like per WP:UGC - Bohbye ( talk) 16:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Maps
|
---|
Which Map (Map A or Map B) will work better for this page? (or can anyone make a better map?) Thanks. OkayKenji ( talk) 01:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
BMJ-pdx ( talk) 09:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
One of the occupants was deadheading, which would make him a non-revenue passenger. Should the infobox therefore be changed to say 2 crew and 1 passenger, rather than 3 crew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfire ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 25 Februa:::ry 2019 (UTC)
Jason Rabinowitz (@AirlineFlyer) was at MIA the day of the accident photographing planes, and possibly captured an image of N1217A on the ground, at the airport. It is possibly the last normal photo of plane, and was posted on Twitter. Should this be included on this wiki page? Jmanroc ( talk) 02:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I have already added the photo buddy. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 23:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
What time did the plane take off from MIA? This photo must have been taken just minutes before that. — Jeff G. ツ 14:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Well the photo was taken at 9:40 EST am. So I am not sure, someone made a video of the plane taxing on MIA the sane day as well, it’s incredibly sad. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 12:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Did the permission not go through properly? I recall seeing confirmation of the correct permissions being received, but now the file has been deleted. Waterfire ( talk) 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I am probable ovethinking this or being silly. But after looking at the plane I can't help but notice the bulge on the paintwork by the tail / elevator. Is that normal? I mean I've been on a lot of 757's and a few 787's but where the elevator and tail meets, it doesnt look right in that area of the photo. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Why thanks for the information, kinda scary that the NTSB says there was a 49 degree pitch down from there current findings. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 22:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Can we have this image: File:N1217A seen on Feburary 23rd 2019.png
In the infobox as it was captured on the day of the accident, and then move the other image into the aircraft section. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 23:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the day-of image - what's the policy on this? SportingFlyer T· C 05:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, I don’t think the photos should be swapped. But there are instances such as the Redwings Tu-204 crash In 2012 in which the aircraft was photographed on its accident flight. In this case regarding the 767 I think everything regarding the photos should be kept as they are. The day of the accident photo with the date and time is perfectly normal adding the interesting side as noted by DoRD. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 13:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This plane was brought down by a computer virus that had infected the Primary flight computer via a maintenance upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:C5 ( talk) 03:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
@Andrewgprout, in your last edit you hid (collapsed) this section; and your edit summary said This content is NOT here to add to the value of the encyclopaedia. Thank you for providing the summary. But in it you state an assumption (about a contributor’s intent). That may be what you think; it may be what I think too: but we are required to assume good faith. If you have contrary evidence let’s have it, of course. Otherwise, WP:AGF is a requirement not a recommendation. And alongside that principle, the more specific rules about hacking around with other people’s Talk-page contributions are reasonably clear. The recommendation not to bite the newbies is also relevant; again, if you have evidence tht the original contributor is not a newbie, let’s have it . . and then we can consider the block-warning protocol. Not, again not, hacking the Talk-page. That is such a bad look for a community encyclopaedia. Yes, endlessly resurgent baseless speculations are pretty disenchanting - especially, somehow, in relation to air accidents. But the body of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - ie following lede + contents - opens with the words "There is reasonable allowance for speculation". And it’s a community encyclopaedia. Not all those likely to think about articles are experts. Leaving these contributions in-place and clear-to-see has benefits, too. Next time someone wants to contribute a similar idea, s/he can be referred to this section - with its useful emphasis on sources. Or s/he might even spot the section before starting to type!! So, there’s lots of aspects. Of all the different principles, rules etc against what you have been doing (@Begoon too here) the one I’d single out to take time thinking about is Assume Good Faith. It’s a community encyclopaedia! - SquisherDa ( talk) 13:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC) —— @DorD, I recognise the move to hide / collapse the discussion as a creative and productive compromise. But as first applied here, masking the whole section, it has the drawback of masking Specter Koen's call for sources (and mine!) - so making them ineffective in guiding future contributors. And I’m puzzled by Ur reference to the Talk page guidelines. The guidelines seem pretty clear that "[t]here is reasonable allowance for speculation". They also state that the purpose must always be to improve the article, yes: and 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:C5's style certainly leaves room for doubt about that. But if we must fill the gap with assumptions, they have to be assumptions of good faith. Beyond that, it’s maybe a bit discourteous (arrogant?) of 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:C5 to state a view without explanation - or sources! - or even signature!! (though that last can easily be unintentional). And judging by his talk-page and contributions he’s not the newest of newbies. Still, though, if we’re going to push back against discourtesy and arrogance there are other places to start. (I’m feeling that quite strongly myself, at this moment.) Bad example is as powerful as good. We’re missing opportunity here! - SquisherDa ( talk) 12:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah! Drive-by! I’d forgotten that! Yes, the original comment’s positioning on the Talk-page was negligent and disruptive. And - this is the break-through point - it is evidence as to good faith! As evidence, it can potentially displace the mandatory assumption. I guess my own view is tht that some degree of arrogance and negligence is consistent with good-faith intention to improve the encyclopaedia. But I can see it might well be felt tht dumping a brief unsourced allegation in an unhelpful place is sufficient evidence tht there’s no real concern to cooperate: a lack of good-enough faith! To me, that’s the only real consideration. Yes, an irresponsible theory (unless there’s some worthwhile source suggesting it); yes, totally unsourced; yes, conspiracy tumbleweed: for practical purposes an intrusive irrelevance. I recognise the value of quick waste-disposal! But for a community effort, intent seems to me absolutely central. With that resolved now, it still feel a bit silly to squish Specter Koen’s contribution - and my first effort, which mentioned similar facile theories about USN collisions. Those contributions clarify to any future 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:C5-type editors tht unsourced speculations go nowhere. Why suppress that clarification? |
There is no information about the visibility at the time of the loss of control. No weather, no METAR, no TAF, whether they were operating in Visual Flight Rules or Instrument Flight Rules? DouglasHeld ( talk) 10:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I propose to strike the entire Lawsuits section per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Although I find it novel to try to hold an airline liable for a pilot's lack of proficiency, there have been no significant news updates since 2019, and I think the topic is now well past its expiration date. Any objections or comments? Carguychris ( talk) 21:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)