Talk:Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409

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

Time of disappearance[edit]

The BBC is reporting the flight dissapeared after 5 minutes while Reuters is saying it dissapeared after 45 minutes. CNN just reported it dissapeared after 30 minutes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manufrk (talk • contribs) 03:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFP quotes an anon airport official with "Ethiopian Airline Flight 409 crashed about five minutes after takeoff at 2:30 am (1230 GMT) with 83 passengers and nine crew members". Ref [1]; can't figure out a direct link to the story. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i live in Naameh, where the plane has crashed. the airport is about 10 min by car. if the plane has crashed 45 min after take off, it would be impossible to crash in the sea facing Naameh, it would crash in Cyprus or Syria. it seems to me much more logical that the crash occured about 5 min after takeoff.Moreever, we smelled Kerozene about 2.45 AM local time, and the plane is scheduled for departure around 2.37 AM. The crash occured in my oppinion no more than 5 min after take off

Aircraft type[edit]

The reference cited doesn't list the type of 737; flightglobal.com suggests a 737-800. I have to run and don't have time to check... -- Flyguy649 talk 05:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once we know the aircraft's registration the rest will fall into place. Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft regestration G-CEJP. Picture http://www.flickr.com/photos/40168621@N07/4173097014/ if you want to embed. Guyag (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately an "All rights reserved" picture... Slasher-fun (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ligitimately linked in "external links" Mjroots (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just removed it as it is not ET-ANB! MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the ET-AMZ confusion caused by the airline! Added a photo of ET-ANB now. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 injuries, 0 survivors[edit]

This is a result of the conflicting reports in the media on whether there are seven survivors (according to local media) or no survivors (according to airline officials)? Regardless of who is right I think it would be good to be, at least, consistent... Andreas Willow (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best to keep injuries/survivors off for now. Only count confirmed deaths unless/until it is stated that there are no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I came in here to ask that very question. As of now, the text of the article includes the statement, "Twenty-one fatalities have been confirmed, although officials said it was unlikely anyone on the plane survived." But the info box says "Fatalities: 21 (confirmed)". In light of the previous sentence, shouldn't the info box say something that indicates that, though only 21 fatalities have been confirmed, 90 are suspected? I am not wise in the ways of journalism nor Wikipedia, but it seems that we're dancing around the fact that a betting man, asked to guess the final casualty count, would say "90". TypoBoy (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better way of saying things is (21 confirmed) ? (So we include the parentheses to indicate that it is not expected to be final.) The text should made clear that the death toll may rise. Andreas Willow (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water depth[edit]

there is no reference for the water depth at the estimated site of the crash, i looked for an online seachart or something like that, but can't find one, maybe someone who knows how can have a look, i would think it is probably 60-70 mtr , but could be up to perhaps 240.24.132.171.225 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the article now says 330ft but the figure i have seen said 40 mts (~130 ft) however a few days before that an article stated they were supposed to be at (i think) 1km however searching delivered nothing then. anyhow, it has also been stated that technical error (and i think weather ) was not a cause after the initial research on the black boxes that reportedly registered all of the incident, peculiarly it was also said the plain broke up during the crash before it hit the water, wich appears to contradict witness statements. i guess it just broke up slightly then.24.132.171.225 (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll[edit]

Right now, the article says there's 21 confirmed death's, and this, which is a reference in the article right now, backs that up, but this says 24 bodies have been recovered. Which one should we go by, since they're conflicting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by C628 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be annoying or anything, but the New York Times and CNN say 23 bodies. If no one responds for a few minutes, I'm going to go ahead and change it to 23, given two sources agree for that. C628 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No survivors[edit]

Reuters ((video report), Beirut are saying no survivors. Can we take this as the final word. It's been 18 hrs since the crash and we would have expected news of survivors by now. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Safety Network also saying no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ASN also mentiones that Rescuers are continuing to search for bodies and wreckage, but officials say it is very unlikely that any of the 90 people on board will be found alive. I suggest that we keep only the current mention in the article (it is unlikely that there are any survivors) until the search and rescue operation ends, we can then put the death toll to 90 (24 confirmed) and survivors to 0. Andreas Willow (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official passengers/crew numbers[edit]

I've noticed in the "Accident" section there were: have had 83 passengers and seven crew members. While in the table of "Passengers and Crew" some of the statistics are different. On ninemsn.com.au it stated 83 passengers while on nytimes.com it stated 85 passengers. It can be confusing. Adamdaley (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The official release by Ethiopian Airlines says 82 pax and 8 crew. There is often confusion in these matters to start with. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently took off in wrong direction[edit]

supposedly took off in the wrong direction according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8480569.stm (193.188.128.15 (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No, the aircraft turned opposite the direction given by Beirut Centre. The Jepps departure plate shows BOD 2 from runway 34 as being out bound on 326 turning at 6,000 feet to 355 then intercepting the 286 radial of CHEKKA passing over it at 13,000 feet.

This is not consistent with the reports that the aircraft was at 8,000 feet and southwest of the airport.

That would be more consistent with the BOD 1 departure from runway 21 which would have been a quartering tailwind. Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to flight global the departure was from runway 21 All departures from that runway show an outbound heading of 220 until 4 or 5000 feet is reached followed by a turn to the right until turning towards either BOD or KALDE. The Jepps chart shows the crossing of BOD should be at 8,000 or above, KALDE at 13,000.

It is pretty clear that the airplane did not take off the 'wrong way.' Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

although don't have time to understand half of what's being said (exams), that night they were varying landing/takeoff directions a number of times that night (i can see the usual landing alignment and less usual takeoff alignment, this aircraft took the usual takeoff direction), anyway, point being: there is no reason other than that that i don't understand that the aircraft couldn't have been instructed to take off in a north-ish direction, as other had done that night, i know a witness like me can't be used for evidence, but can you guys investigate this, cos it can't be wrong that there are statements coming from officials that are baseless, they will have conducted some interviews and come to that conclusion. same person as first post on this section (193.188.128.15 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

there are a couple of things behind, the confusion about type and id. could be suiting either an airline or other aviation company, however the controverse about witness statements is probably mostly a problem because the lebanese government declared it was not a terrorist attack before they could really know anything (although maybe they did know..). the flying altitude was probably lower (perhaps then required) the reason for misinterpreting the pilots turn is possibly provocation, or else lack of reading capacity. a lot of people want to leave it at that, at least one witness, but i think he was with others, said he first saw an explosion, it is now told that the plane/pilot (completely) failed to respond to a weather warning, and that the plane turned right (seaward) shortly after (a pilot might do that to avoid casualties on the ground while crashing) , to quickly disappear from the radio. The number of eyewitness that said they have seen it on fire is over 2, and it went down 5 minutes after departure at most, wich the article shows btw., both things indicate it was rather lower then the required 8000 feet then higher. Also it has been stated the aircraft broke apart while still in the air, that means that whatever was the problem, the pilots had probably no control at all anymore. or it had hit the sea somewhat intact. the problem is indeed it depends on eyewitnesses , if one or a few persons describe what could be a rocket or a bomb or a few tell it came down in flames, and everybody else want it to break apart or not to be one of these things. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/2010126174935266216.html 24.132.171.225 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda attack?[edit]

I've reverted the addition of the accident being an Al Qaeda attack because the source does not seem to be reliable. For instance, hizballah - is this Hezbollah? One would expect that a reliable journalistic source would at least get the spelling correct. If this is an Al Qaeda attack, it will be reported by far more reliable sources such as BBC, Sky, Reuters, Associated Press etc. Mjroots (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hizbollah" is a reasonable English rendering of the Arabic name of the organization. However, you are correct that this web site is not a Reliable Source, so we can't use it. Zerotalk 10:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go by an early, off-the-cuff opinion at RSN, not until several editors weigh in over a few days. I've studied the issue and while it's not RS to cite Debkafile out of the blue as it is now, we could build a paragraph about the debate over whether this was an accident or sabotage. There are other sources that debate terrorist involvement, and a paragraph based on them would provide sufficient context for Debka's opinion, which should be attributed as such. I've responded in more detail with sources, at WP:RSN under Debka.com, and invite the editor who wanted to use Debka to respond there. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debka.com. Chesdovi (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Details are incorrect[edit]

Parts of the story are wrong. The Lebanonese didn't find the blackbox or the last recovered parts of the plane. The Americans first found the box on the 29th and actually picked it, and the last parts of the aircraft. The Washington Post article from the 29th or 30th is the most accurate about them first finding it. Btw the water is way deeper than 200-300m so the lebanonese divers wouldn't have been able to dive down there..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.4.148.74 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have sources that say this? We base what we say off of the news media reports. They have supremacy over unsourced statements like that of above. If you have better sources (they may be in any language), please show them. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appendixes[edit]

Here are the appendixes

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs[edit]

They are:

  • 1 PM Meles expresses regret over ET-409 accident (January 26, 2010)
  • 2 Boeing expresses condolence over ET-409 crash in Beirut (January 27, 2010)
  • 3 Ethiopian Airlines Expresses Its Position On ET-409 Flight Accident (February 11, 2010).
  • 4 Ethiopian says all bodies of victims from ET-409 accident recovered (February 24, 2010)
  • 5 Ethiopian refutes Daily Star’s report on ET-409 crash (September 14, 2011)

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over the type of accident to be included in the infobox[edit]

The thread below is copied from my talk page, where an IP editor and I argued over the type of accident that should appear in the infobox. Please read it and drop some lines regarding the matter. Thank you.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409[edit]

"Pilot error (sometimes called cockpit error) occurs when the pilot is considered to be principally or partially responsible for an aircraft accident."

As stated in the article itself, Ethiopian Airlines disputes the conclusion of the final report released by the Lebanese Civil Aviation Authority. Please explain why you are insisting the Type be "Pilot Error."

Do read http://www.flyethiopian.com/en/docs/downloads/ET409Inv/3_Part_II_Appended_to_the_Final_Report.pdf before reverting edit of "Disputed" to "Pilot error" (I will revert back your edit if I don't have reply from you). If you still further insist that the conclusions of Lebanese Civil Aviation Authority should be taken as facts, then you are going to have to present your point as to why you believe so. Please respond, or I will go ahead and re-correct the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use a primary source in this case. The airline will always challenge a report blaming it for any crash.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can use a primary source to indicate dispute. You cannot use a primary source (Lebanese Civil Aviation Authority) and present their conclusion as facts. Your belief that an airliner may challenge a report is irrelevant in any case. Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Facts here are supported by reliable sources, and the agency that took over the investigations of the crash concluded that it was due to pilot error. I'm not inventing anything, I'm just following WP:VNT. The airline's press release report you're citing does not provide a valid cause, it just denies the official investigation. I'm afraid that's not enough information to say pilot error was not the cause. There won't be another investigation, so the conclusions have been drawn. The dispute raised by the airline is properly included in the article.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EAL, according to the criteria, can be considered a reliable source. The information they published is verifiable. While you are considering the context of EAL's refutation to make a judgement about reliability and verifiability (actually, probably truth too), you are disregarding the fact that LCAA also has an invested interest in this context. "The airline's press release you're citing does not provide a valid cause, it just denies the official investigation." True EAL's official refutation does not supply cause for the crash. It, with substantiated arguments, disputes LCAA's conclusion. "I'm afraid that's not enough information to say pilot error was not the cause." This is true, and on the flip side, nor does LCAA's conclusion suffice as "the truth." This is exactly my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's no truth at all. I'm neither with the LCAA's report nor against it. I'm only saying the official report of the accident points to pilot error as the cause. For this case, there ain't two official points of view, since the LCAA was the only official agency that run the investigation. This does not prevent you (or anyone else) from adding content to the article with the points raised by you that need more clarification. In particular, the vision of the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority (ECAA) is worth including. You do not need my support to edit the article, so go ahead with any editing you may want to do. Just remember to back anything you add with reliable sources. Does the ECAA report fall into this group?--Jetstreamer Talk 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "official report"? LCAA conducted their investigation and arrived at a conclusion. It is LCAA's conclusion. EAL counters and disputes the conclusions. This is what we know. When "Pilot error" is listed in the box, it misleads readers giving the false impression that there is some sort of consensus. What is written already clearly indicates dispute, so what reason is there to see it as wrong to change "Pilot error" to "Disputed"? Further expansion and elaboration is, although an improvement, secondary to the discussion at hand. Under the circumstances, if you have a different/better resolution, I am interested to know. Until then, I'll go ahead and revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, but it's likely someone else besides me will revert you. LCAA conducetd the investigation because the aircraft crashed into Lebanese waters. It's a matter of jurisdiction what decides here the officiality of the LCAA report.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking in case I am missing something. Flight 409 crashed into Lebanese waters, but I do not at all see how this translates to LCAA's conclusions being end all be all. It seems their report is simply their stance on the matter ie their point of view. If you agree so far (as far as the purposes of Wikipedia are concerned) I hope you'll be there to revert back to "Disputed" when someone else edits it back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be copying this discussion into the article's talk page and ask for some feedback from other editors, if you don't mind. I'm not reverting your latest edit (actually, you reverted my reversion). I will let another editor do it, should there be a need.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2013 (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.

--Jetstreamer Talk 00:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Civil Aviation authority pages[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fatigue = pilot error?[edit]

I have reverted the edits regarding the cause of the accident in the infobox made by an IP twice ([2], [3]). It was stated in the infobox as pilot error. Even if the crew was fatigued, this eventually led to an error commited by them. If you, the author fo these edits, disagree, please provide your reasons here.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dale, have you read the investigation? he Lebanese Civil Aviation Authority stated that the flight crew mismanaged the aircraft's speed, altitude, and heading OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read below.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations[edit]

Major objections have been raised over the findings of the report that was released by the Minister of Public Works & Transportation for Lebanon, Mr. Ghazi El-Aridi. There are concerns of political influence, and lack of transparency, disclosure, and thoroughness as to the investigation. This article, primarily, is not about the investigation which Lebanon conducted. It is inappropriate to keep citing "pilot error" as the cause in the information box, especially noting the amount of discussion that has been held on that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reverts by Jetstreamer[edit]

Jetstreamer, you have removed a notable amount of contribution from this article without so much as explaining why. Explain your " Unsourced addition of content" and "More than a year without sources. Time to go" reasons for reverts. What you have provided does not at all suffice. Do bring up specifics and elaborate. Information was sourced and referenced, so you need to be log as to your motivations to revert. Otherwise, at least attempt improving the contribution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk • contribs)

My explanation is that you left a paragraph completely unsourced in this version of the article. I've reverted your edit again, but you may reinstate your version once you add a proper source for the last paragraph of the "Investigation" section of the link. Two more things. I'm Jetstreamer, not Jetstream. And you should sign your posts. Thanks.---Jetstreamer Talk 00:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep insisting with your version ([4]) rather than engaging in a discussion. I'll be reverting your edit in a week or so if you do not commit to discuss it here. I'll leave the discussion open for others to comment. You may want to see WP:BURDEN regarding your behaviour: you should provide sources for your changes.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe WhisperToMe, another major contributor to the article, is interested in dropping some lines?--Jetstreamer Talk 01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the addition again. Citing no sources for a paragraph, also the sources for the "Investigation" section were not reliable. Can someone please protect this page? 68.119.73.36 (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jetstreamer, why did you revert "Disputed" to "Pilot error" on 00:04, 24 May 2014‎ without adding to the discussion that is already started? Whether you agree or disagree isn't the issue. Before you revert, respond to the concerns raised in this page, and ask questions if you want. Don't just revert. This goes doubly to the "-1,104" revert you did without so much as making notes in this page. You do realize that you have reverted not only material change but grammatical and form improvements too, right? Again, do point to SPECIFIC areas (as in sentences or sections) where you are having trouble. The reason for this question is simple: it appears the sources for the information added were noted so it is not clear what the issue is. As the matter stands, however, there is a dispute as to the causes of the crash, and the list of disagreements is straight from one of the principals, EAL/ECAA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk • contribs)

My explanations are above. I'm not saying the article in its current version is perfect and nobody is allowed to modify it further: you or everyone else can reinstate your edits, but only after reliable sources for the changes are provided. In particular, you left an entire paragraph unsourced when that was not the case prior to your modifications. WP:VERIFY is a policy every single edit must be in compliance with. I just don't know how many different ways I should take to make you understand the rationale for my reversions.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not providing specifics or responding to what is asked. 1. Why did you make the revision on 24 May 2014 without continuing discussion on the talk page? 2. Again WHICH part of the addition do you have problem with (again, sentence, statement etc be specific)? 3. Why did you not bother to improve it before grossly reverting it? 4. WHICH sources do you have problem was as to reliability? What is odd, of course, is that the article was messier in its previous state and by your current rationale and criteria it would almost be empty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk • contribs)
WP:BURDEN. I'm not gonna do your work for you; it's you the one that has to provide sources for your changes. Furthermore, this was just because I agree with the cause of the accident being "Pilot error". The closed discussion above confirms it. Answers for your questions can be found in that discussion. I committed not to modify the cause of the accident until anyone else changed it. That was exactly what happened. And that was the official cause of the accident as determined by the LCAA.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are unable to provide specifics and explain yourself as it applies to this article (aside citing obvious policy and guidelines), I will revert it so that added content remains until further discussion and/or arbitration. Please cease from reverting further (edit war). This is the recommended way. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk • contribs)
I've reported you at WP:ANI ([5]) as you do not seem to continue with the discussion and rather decided to push your preferred version of the article ([6]).--Jetstreamer Talk 20:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Let's examine the additions and figure out which stuff comes from where. So we can pick out which sources are reliable and which ones aren't. While I see citations I'm not sure all of them are reliable. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided are from WikiLeaks and YouTube which I'm pretty sure are not reliable sources. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the Wikileaks and Youtube sources are not involved in the revert being discussed here. Those were there beforehand, ie before 00:43, 25 July 2014‎. The added contribution under discussion is one derived from either the report itself or the refutation, as mentioned, published by Ethiopian Airlines. The revert under discussion here only refers to the content added/changed on 00:43, 25 July 2014‎. If Jetstreamer has issues with those, he should/should have addressed them separately. For effective resolution of the issue, we should focus on the edit made at the above time stamp as that is what this one is about. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk • contribs)
(edit conflict) We cannot rely our articles upon sources that do not fall into the scope of WP:RELIABLE. I concur with WhisperToMe. Can we agree to have a broader discussion that includes not only the latest edits but also review the reliability of the sources used? This will result in a much more accurate article if we can agree that.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the sources used in the revert (you have made) under discussion are primary sources: 1. Ethiopian Airline's refutation (http://www.flyethiopian.com/en/news/pressreleases.aspx?hl=%20292) and 2. The report itself. I'm not sure what is eluding you. Perhaps you would like to explain how your "reliability" factors into this? What you have removed is mainly description of these two documents. In the Info box, beside Summary, it is inappropriate to write "Pilot error" as we are not discussing the findings of the specific report or the report itself. This aspect was pointed out to you in previous discussion as is evidenced on the talk page. If you had something new to say (aside from "I agree") you should have brought it up into this page as a continuation and not outright changed it. What your opinion of what happened is irrelevant here. I hope you realize that. Also, if you have issues with other sections of the articles, deal with them separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk • contribs)

Your response only shows that you are not committed to improving the article in any way but just to push your preferred version. That said, I will restore the previous version in a week or so, unless other editors voice any other opinion here. There's nothing more to discuss with you.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that, the last reversion made by 50.242.210.195 shows no will to continue with this discussion further and borders WP:POINT. One of the solutions to settle this would be to fully protect the article so consensus can be reached before continuing with useless back and forth reverts.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstated previous version ([7]), as per WP:SILENCE. No further comments made.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually been watching this article. Jetstreamer, what you have done is reverted someone's contribution without furnishing reasons. It is apparent you are the non-responsive one. Why do you do this? You can't just revert someone's improvement just because it doesn't suite your views or ego. So, instead of your WP:SILENCE answer on the questions you were asked. clarkeosb
Watching the article? Maybe you've been doing so, but you also might be the same person that edited behind the 50.XXX.XXX.XXX IP and now is back with a login account. I've reverted your edits. My rationale has already been exposed and you did not introduced arguments for your changes.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This and this shows tht your only intention is WP:DISRUPT. I've requested the page to be protected again ([8]).--Jetstreamer Talk 20:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Locked[edit]

I've locked this article for a week instead of handing out blocks for edit warring. This is in the hope that the issue of the cause can be discussed and agreement reached as to how we cover it.

The official reason for the crash is pilot error. Ethiopian Airlines disputes this. It's up to you to agree how this is covered in both infobox and article. Further edit warring after the article is unprotected will result in administrative action being taken. Mjroots (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots:  There obviously is a documented issue with user jetstreamer avoiding discussion yet and reverting contribs. Can you look into this page and look what this user is doing please? Specifically jetstreamer's disruptive revert on 14:54, 31 July 2014‎. Jetstreamer removed sourced material. It was an improvment jetstreamer removed without cause. This is all documented on this page. We should consider including Lebanon's findings and Ethiopia's disputes in the info box. Any thoughts anyone? Thank you for locking the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.246.68.190 (talk • contribs)
@Mjroots: Thanks. Hope this will work, but I'm pessimist about it as the IP waited for the article to be unprotected to strike again.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jetstreamer: - in which case the article can be semi-protected indefinitely, which will make dealing with the problem easier. Mjroots (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start over[edit]

First of all, the article being full protected is not an endorsement of the current version. That said, I intend to discuss this in order to arrange the information by consensus. The official cause of the accident is pilot error, this is the conclusion drawn in the official report of the accident by the Lebanese Aviation Authority. I'm not against mentioning that the airline challenged this, but the carrier's view is not the official version of the events. I already pointed this out at the discussion bove (the closed one). I also waited for a week before reverting the changes made by the IP, and during that period there were no comments here. So please, I'm here to settle this down.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the section explaining the dispute and hence the disruption. Administrators, please look over the big revert done by Jetstramer on 14:54, 31 July 2014. Jetstreamer-- also please name the international treaty or convention that makes the report from Lebanon the 'official' one. We need facts and not POVs. Please excuse my tag errors I am learning wiki. unsigned 22:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.246.68.190 (talk) [reply]
There was no disruption at all. You're invited to re-read the comments above. You introduced an unsourced paragraph with the first edit I reverted, and it's not me the only one saying this. We won't get anywhere if you do not accept other's opinions. Moreover, editors said the article includes sources that are not considered reliable. Right from the start, we need to discuss which of these references will be kept. We cannot re-write anything based on unreliable sources. The official report and the statements from the airline are considered reliable, but Wikileaks or YouTube are not.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: to add your signature just write four tildes (~~~~) after your comment.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINS: Despite jetstreamer's repeated attempt to confuse and evade, section or contribution the user removed/reverted on 14:54, 31 July 2014 has nothing to do with Wikileaks or Youtube. It merely stated facts on the dispute. Please review! 50.246.68.190 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You're underestimating the sysops. You may want to stop calling for their attention, they won't take part in content disputes like this one is. And if there are opinions from them they are treated as coming from plain editors as you and me are. This has nothing to do with admin stuff. This is the third time I reply to your comments and still don't see your proposals for the modifications needed. I'm not evading anything. You want your edits to stay. That's just WP:POINT. Again, you had a week to discuss the matter while the article was semi-protected and you did nothing to solve this. Once the article got unprotected, you started again pushing your preferred version of the page. I made myself perfectly clear. Still waiting...--Jetstreamer Talk 00:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@50.246.68.190: - Jetstreamer is correct. I'm not going to get involved with this dispute for now, and I always protect an article at the wrong version.
I know exactly how I'd deal with the issue, but it's not up to me (yet). Have a good hard think,then put forward some proposals as to how the cover the issue. Discuss points raised in response to the proposal, and reach a consensus with your fellow editors. The alternative is permanent semi-protection of the article. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Solution has already been proposed. Include the principal's dispute along with the report's ruling in the info box. Also, restate the section Jetstreamer removed on the dispute. This has already been put forth on this page if you've bothered to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@50.246.68.190: - I'm not seeing any response here. Don't think that you can just sit this out again, because you can't. Should you refuse to discuss, three things will happen - the article will be indefinitely semi-protected, I will impose my own solution to the issue, and you will be banned from editing this article per WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I expected this. Nevertheless, I just can wait more time. There's no hurry.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specific solution proposal[edit]

It really isn't that difficult to comprehend or implement. What's below is based on the idea that this article's purpose is to simply document pieces surrounding this incident and not to make judgements. Read that twice before proceeding.

  1. In the infobox, under the Summary field, state Lebanon's Ministry of Public Works & Transportation's findings, as well as ECAA's dispute.
  2. Restate the section on the dispute which jetstreamer removed on [25 July 2014]‎. The section jetstreamer reverted did not contain any wikileaks or youtube as reference, but rather used ECAA's own words (primary source) to explain the situation from their statements both as appended to the report as well as their press release. It also included grammatical corrections and improvements, although the focus is to explain the dispute. If there are objections here, please respond specifically.
  3. Separately, the wikileak titled "Stratfor’s investigation into Ethiopian airlines flight 409 crash" should also be included in the article as it is related to the incident. It relates to this incident. Stating its existence summarizing its content is appropriate. This is no different from informing readers of other wikileaks. We can only provide the reader with such facts, and let the reader make their own judgement.

Let's focus on improving this article and discuss. We can do this. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great to have input. I was skeptical about your response but you proved me wrong. We're now a step forward. Before proceeding, I'd like to stress the fact that Wikileaks cannot be used as a source given that it is not considered reliable. This has already been pointed out by another editor. If you want the article to be written from a neutral point of view and well sourced, let's just modify it based on the two reliable references that are in contraposition, i.e. the Lebanese Civil Aviation Authority (LCAA) and the carrier's ones. Are we in agreement about this? As for the infobox, I have two proposals: the first one is to keep "Pilot error" as the cause of the accident and to add a footnote in order to include a number of details for the challenges given by the airline. The second one is to label the cause of the accident as "Pilot error/disputed" and add appropriate footnotes to explain this reasoning, but in this case I'd like to highlight the fact that the LCAA being the official board that investigated the crash makes their conclusions official. I particularly prefer the first option. Even when the airline has all the rights to object the final report in whole or in part, their conclusions cannot be drawn as official. Please also note that the summary parameter in {{Infobox aircraft occurrence}} requires a "Brief factual summary of the occurrence" and "Disputed" does not fall within this scope. We can use "Crashed into water" or something like that if you prefer to avoid the terms "Pilot error". Incidentally, this would also solve the problem with the cause of the crash in the infobox and makes room to explain the two different versions in a neutral point of view in the proper section. Please let me know what you think.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially both suggestions are workable. The main thing is to qualify "pilot error" with "as per LCAA findings" (or something to that effect) if it stands by itself. "Pilot error/disputed" may hint to the reader that there's a dispute section. I would consider these equivalent and workable with a properly documented Dispute section. Cheers 50.242.210.195 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Seems we have struck an understanding. Under these circumstances, if I create a sandbox at my userspace, would you copy the entire content of the article there so I/we can proceed with the changes and make the neccesary adjustments out of the mainspace? Once it is proofread we may copy it into the mainspace; maybe the article should continue fully protected in the meantime. Please let me know so I create the corresponding space.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jetstreamer: and @50.242.210.195: - the locking of the article was done to get you talking. I'm going to assume in good faith that you can now implement the above discussion through the normal editing process and will therefore unlock the article. This talk page remains available to discuss matters arising in the normal course of editing. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted [9]. No content in archived version.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to add duplicated entries.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409. 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) 17:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409. 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) 04:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatization[edit]

Is it OK to add a section saying that this accident was dramatized in Mayday? CALDlykLIJ (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok as long as everything is properly sourced.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CRM[edit]

Firstly 'Andrew' CRM is noted in the final report if you'd like to me to drag that into here I can. You mention about my autism making me incompentant well buddy I read the final report. And CRM is noted for the last time.

Ok Jet if you at least add CRM then I am happy as it's noted in the final report specifically along the fact that having a vague summary is a complete waste of the viewers time, heck even I had to see why it happened.

The flight crew failure to abide by CRM principles of mutual support and calling deviations hindered any timely intervention and correction. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am edit warring against myself I admit it. Well no one is here depite arguing about it? wow.... this is the thing, I am like talking to myself, if this was such a hot topic Jet would be here but nope he obviously doesnt care as he isnt here? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@OrbitalEnd48401: The summary field is a summary of the accident - there is no (absolutely no) requirement that a cause be included in this summary. While many such summaries do include a cause this should be where the cause is both able to be summarised and not too general as to be meaningless. In almost all aircraft accidents it is difficult to distill the often multiple complex events into a couple of word summary. The CRM addition above fits into the "too general to be meaningless" catagory and misdiagnoses the overall story, this combined with the lack of agreement on the validity of the report makes it better just to leave the discussion of the cause to the body of the article where there is enough room. This fits with the current consensus. Your inability to read anything but black and white meanings into accident reports or our comments is why I made the comment that " you were letting your autism get in the way of your editing" - your recent editing is just proving my point I'm afraid and I think you really do need to decide whether Wikipedia is the best place for you to contribute. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well Andrew you last few comments are silly. Firstly I ain’t leaving, and the points I make are not for my own goal but for what I see other say as well. I have said I show other the summaries and see that they say, I mean I am not leaving never ever all because you assume my autism is getting in my way. Buddy learn what it is because the type I have does not affect the way I read or write, please I wouldn’t of even gotten my GCSE’s buddy. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment below from OrbitalEnd48401 deleted in my restoration of his original comments and the deletion of mine - hopefully detailing the chronological context.Andrewgprout (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jetstreamer I am still awaiting a response from you about the summary of adding CRM into it. If you are not planning on participating then this ‘edit war’ is over and I’ll just add CRM as you do not seem to be interested. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@OrbitalEnd48401: Nice and simple 1. Please stop harassing people - In the discussion on my talk page I mentioned Wikipedia not being compulsory please give people the time they need to respond. 2. Please do not make ultimatums like you are doing - this is a discussion to reach consensus - that is not what is happening here. Particularly if you delete parts of the discussion. and 3. Please keep the structure of the discussion intact - that mostly means don't delete other peoples input or your own - if you want to retract something you have said - say so or strike it like this .

Please DO NOT edit anything in this article until consensus is gained here that such an edit is a good thing. On the specific case of adding CRM - Cockpit Resource Management is mentioned but bad CRM has never caused any aeroplane to crash - contribute to, almost certainly, but is it something appropriate for the summary - in my opinion no. Andrewgprout (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listen here because my patience is gone because of you, I can’t have a discussion without being crisitsed by you, I cannot stand you. I removed those other comments because it was not relevant to the talk page, along the fact that all I get is you constantly whining to me about oh I did this wrong and that wrong, I am sick to the back teeth of you. Milborne is someone I respect because he hasn’t once taken the piss out of me Andrew, you have. It is my choice to be here and for you to judge me the way you have has made me look like a complete embarrassment, I can easily say that you’re harassing me sending me messages on my talk page. Stop talking to me end of, I have had enough of you. I came here to have fun along with adding information that is missing or improving edits, yes I make mistakes but for you to up my arse all the time is so frustrating to me, I honestly feel like you’re just stalking me as I edit pages because I’m apparently incompetent because of my autism, you do not care about me at all. Carry on with the messages I’ll sinply report you. I was all good until you started with your nasty comments. Serispuly I mean it STOP. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh as a side note I will be blanking you from now on, I cannot take someone so rude, you take away my happie was of being here which is why I this talk page is dead. Your comment regarding CRM will not be taken to consideration in my eyes, you’ve annoyed me long enough. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The type field in the infobox is fine the way it is. We should honor the previous discussions, at least until a new consensus is reached.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are all aware that the infobox summary param should consist of a brief factual summary of the occurrence, reflecting the body of the article. In this case, the results of the investigation are challenged and the exact cause is not clear. For that reason the infobox summary should remain Crashed shortly after take-off until such time as new properly sourced information surfaces. - Samf4u (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree, you can’t have something without having the reason why it Crahsed. Such as the Mexico City Learjet 45 crash, that was due to inadequate qualifications and pilot error but you don’t put crashed into ground? . This accident we are talking about specifically states a lack of CRM in A) the final report. I don’t understand why it should be vague in the summary. Why don’t you just put CFIT on aeroperu 603? Or Crahsed on takeoff on aero Mexico connect 2431? I don’t understand why it should be left without one or two reasons. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Summary Change[edit]

After looking at the NTSBs remake on the flight and final report, the plane actually stalled. So pilot error is a cause so for you to keep ruling out Andrew is very incompetent. New summary will be this ‘Stalled shortly after take-off due to pilot error’. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of this article is the aircraft crashed shortly after take off. Readers can read further into it if they wish. We don't need mile long crash summaries. That is the consensus, please understand that. Garretka (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a response Garrekta, don’t be over dramatic, it is not a mile long. If you think I’m having a laugh I can easily show you an actual full sentence as a summary? Don’t believe I’ll link you them. 82.132.186.165 (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for the summary to tell the whole story just a brief single sentence on what happened. "Crashed shortly after take-off" is the current summary, one could question how long "shortly" is but it works as a simple way of saying what happened. "Stalled shortly after take-off due to pilot error" is not an improvement and is a bit misleading. It didnt actually take-off and stall there was a lot more going on if you read the final report. So we keep the summary simple and provide the full explanation in the actual article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about “entered aerodynamic stall; crashed into sea”? 194.207.74.71 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Far to technical for a summary, and technically it stalled more than once. Also stalling was not the actual cause just a consequence of events. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about crashed shortly after take off due to pilot error. Now this is the first recommendation I made. Now there was pilot error without a shadow of a doubt. The final report notes it on ASN. I’m not having an I detailed summary with no cause onto why it crashed. Every accident has a ‘due to’ or ‘leading to’ or even caused by. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not doubting the cause was indeed pilot error. The article covers this quite well. A summary is, by and large, a summary. No details need to be given beyond what the end result was; in this case the plane crashed shortly after take off. The summaries should never be overly complicated or long; saying "caused by" is doing exactly that. Keep it short and sweet. Garretka (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree, I’d like to make another request to add due to pilot error on the summary. Look it isn’t sweet if it is gonna be vague like that. Nope I still disagree. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't over complicate things. It is a summary. It summarizes the article. The question being answered with the summary is "what happened"; the plane crashed shortly after take off. The rest of the article takes care of the "why" and "how's". There is a long standing consensus that these summaries are not to be long and technical. Garretka (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So answer this, why don’t we just put wake turbulence on the 2008 Learjet 45 crash. Or just CFIT on aeroperu 603? Or crashed into sea on Birgenair 301? Look its to oversimplified. I had to look at what it meant. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would do exactly that, as would many of the other users who have been trying to guide you. It's better to be simple than to be over complicated. It should be easy enough for someone with no experience to understand, and also not so clunky as to make it complicated. There's a fine line, and crashed shortly after take off tells the reader exactly what they can expect. Garretka (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I’m saying that I don’t like the fact that we are sinplyfyibg it down to much. Look I’m banging my god damn head on the table because I don’t know how to get my point across, look each accident is unique but simplifying it to much is bad. The point of the i fobox is to take down notes. Having the ‘key’ parts in this case the causes makes it so much easier then having one small line that has no detail. And no it doesn’t make it complicated as you add links to other pages such as a static port for Aeroperú 603 or aerodynamic stall for Air France 447. It’s silly, why is then that when I go through the majority of accidents they have long summaries? Now I feel like the way I do summaries are short (comparing them to outdated summaries), they have the ‘key’ causes. And they have links so if they don’t know what pilot error is they click on the link and bam they have a whole page telling them about it. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Garretka:@MilborneOne: How is adding Pilot error to end of the current sumary overcomplicated? Every summary I work on on wikipedia has a mini reason why? You cannot just have crashed shortly after take-off. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to take an example from above but just adding CFIT as a summary was perfectly acceptable without further details in the infobox, trying to add more in the summary is a recent thing which is why it is often resisted as single word summaries have been OK in the past. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained my reasoning, but I'll sum it up again. It's a summary of what happened, not why it happened. Because other articles have it is not a reason for inclusion. I would avoid including the cause all together, focusing on what happened, at a very high level. Garretka (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well just to say I wont be changin summaires to CFIT or whatever. To be honest id rather have not do that. Oh @MilborneOne: I need your assitance here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_6491# and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tupolev_Tu-204 OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries in infoboxes[edit]

Since I was reverted I might ask this. I know this is related to the above, stale topic.

What's our normal policy for writing summaries in the infobox when cause is disputed? We have placed "disputed" in infoboxes before (see Flash Airlines Flight 604), so why not here? Is "Crashed shortly after takeoff" sufficient? Or, if the other theory is only a minor opinion, then we'd probably better handle it like Arrow Air Flight 1285. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 08:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

There is no reason or requirement to put a cause in the summary field, particularly as saying the cause is disputed is saying very little. There is a real temptation to over explain detail in the summary field. Summary being the operative word. Andrewgprout (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewgprout: So you're arguing it does add merit in the other two articles? Then again, the other two handle it in a very different way. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDragonFire300: yes - both those examples are truely horendous and are not summaries. The body of the article is the place for dealing with the cause of accidents as these are normally complex and usually require more explanation than should reasonably be placed in a field labelled as summary.Andrewgprout (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_409&oldid=1213065157"