Talk:1990 Guangzhou Baiyun airport collisions

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

Help needed regarding sources[edit]

Hello. I found out about the 1990 People's Republic of China airliner collision but I need help building the article since all I could find in English so far was a bunch of New York Times articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found some pay articles about the disaster, but I cannot see all of them since they are for subscribers:
37 Foreigners among 127 Killed in Crash of hijacked Chinese Jet $2.95 - Miami Herald - NewsBank - Oct 4, 1990

and

China 37 Foreigners among 127 Killed in Crash $2.95 - Miami Herald - NewsBank - Oct 4, 1990

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another:
The Deseret News (Salt Lake City, UT) - October 4, 1990

CHINA CLAMPS LID ON GIVING DETAILS OF PLANE DISASTER More than two days after China's worst air disaster in a decade, officials refused to release details about the injured and said families of the dead would receive maximum compensation of $4,250.Foreign diplomats criticized the secrecy about the crash, describing as highly irregular the fact that no details on 53 injured people had emerged by Thursday evening. Officials said 127 people were killed when a hijacked Boeing 737 exploded and crashed into two parked planes Tuesday at..." WhisperToMe (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there were some way Wikipedia could pay for it, after a community discussion of course. (On a side note, I wonder if the aircraft's fuel status included a readout which was easier for hijackers to understand, like a fuel gage in a car, they'd believe the pilot because the airplane says so too.) Anynobody 04:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regard it as somewhat unlikely that the hijacker said he wanted to go to ROC (the political term the Chinese use to avoid saying "Taiwan"). Which hijacker would ever say that? It would be like going to China and introducing oneself as a foreigner - something which nobody in their right mind would do. This should be permanently changed to "Taiwan" as that's what the hijacker most likely said, pending further evidence to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrlforsyth (talk • contribs) 11:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He may not have exactly said "ROC" - but the guy was trying to get out of the PRC, so he was meaning that he wanted to go to the ROC (which not only covers the island of Taiwan, but also a few outlying islands). BTW the article about the ROC government is at Republic of China. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reqeusted move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move to Guangzhou Baiyun aircraft collision per consensus GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 04:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


1990 People's Republic of China airliner collision → Xiamen Airlines Flight 8301 — or other less awkward name.--Aervanath (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale: The current name seems awkward and unwieldy to me; my preferred title would be Xiamen Airlines Flight 8301, because that flight was the one which was hijacked, and that hijacking was what caused the collisions with the other two aircraft. Also, while people died on two aircraft (with a minor casualty on a third), the Xiamen Airlines airliner sustained the most casualties. Other suggestions are Guangzhou Baiyun airliner collision and Guangzhou Baiyun airport disaster, although these are less preferred. Different ideas are certainly welcome.--Aervanath (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The current name isn't very descriptive, and the hijacked plane is what the article currently focuses on (though hopefully more information on the damage to Flight 2812 will eventually be found for the article). The Guangzhou Baiyun airliner collision alternate seems acceptable as well, though I'd suggest simply using "airplane" rather than "airliner." SnowFire (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't mind the "Guangzhou Baiyun" alternate name. - However "aircraft" is better than "airplane" since "aircraft" is neutral between U.S. English and British English (which uses "aeroplane") WhisperToMe (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, familiar with the British/American issue there; I am just not a fan of dodging words due to that. That said, sure, "aircraft" is also fine; it's mostly that I'm not a fan of "airliner" which feels overspecific - akin to calling a car crash between a Ford Taurus and a Ford Explorer a "Ford collision" rather than a "car collision." SnowFire (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could also support Guangzhou Baiyun aircraft collision as a secondary choice.--Aervanath (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 1990 Guangzhou Baiyun hijacked aircraft collision 70.29.208.69 (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Why do you feel the "1990" is necessary? Have there been any other aircraft collisions at that airport?--Aervanath (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Guangzhou Baiyun aircraft collision as the most concise descriptive name. Jafeluv (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Distances[edit]

The article cited Google Maps for the distances between Xiamen and Guangzhou, Taipei and Hong Kong respectively. It was (and still is), nevertheless, impossible for any civilian flight to fly directly across the Strait of Taiwan. Is the distance between Xiamen and Taipei really that relevant? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear the the only way that fuel would have been an impediment to reaching Taipei instead of HK would have been if the course change attempt would have happened closer to the destination rather than the origin of the flight. Once close to the destination, HK would have been an easy change (distance wise) whereas Taipei would have been quite a way back in the opposite direction. It would also make more sense regarding the low fuel condition that made the pilot decide on the necessity of an immediate landing... Jkstark (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some research and verified your hypothesis, Jkstark. I rewrote the last third of the relevant section, adding detail.—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961[edit]

The "Also see" section has a link to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 but I don't see any connection between the two articles. There have been many hijackings, why single out Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961? Am I missing something or is this just a spurious entry? Rincewind42 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist, murder[edit]

I have removed per Wikipedia:Words to avoid the following: Category:Terrorist incidents in 1990 Category:Mass murder in 1990 and Category:Terrorist incidents in China. I don't believe that hijacking a plane to seek asylum counts as terrorism, or that wresting control of a landing plane counts as murder. If verifiable sources disagree with me, those need to be cited in the prose if the categories are to be restored. jnestorius(talk) 23:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnestorius: Sometimes committing a serious felony (rape, robbery, hijacking) with unintentional death resulting (even of other perpetrators) is still prosecuted as murder. That can get you the death penalty in Texas. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1990 Guangzhou Baiyun airport collisions. 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: 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) 18:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1990 Guangzhou Baiyun airport collisions. 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) 04:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1990_Guangzhou_Baiyun_airport_collisions&oldid=1196252306"