Jump to content

Talk:Voepass Flight 2283

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Protoeus (talk | contribs) at 23:57, 13 August 2024 (→Requested move 9 August 2024: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 9 August 2024

Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 → Voepass Flight 2283 – As per WP:COMMONNAME, lots of the sources seem to refer to it simply as Voepass < DimensionalFusion (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Disaster management, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, and WikiProject Brazil/Transportation in Brazil task force have been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Oppose: United Airlines can be referred to as just United, but United Airlines Flight 232 is called United Airlines Flight 232, not United Flight 232. Neither is American Airlines Flight 11 called American Flight 11. So why would we call Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 just Voepass Flight 2283. Though I do not know Portuguese so maybe calling it Voepass Flight 2283 is accurate. Alexysun (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
im brazilian and and i just think calling it voepass linhas aereas 2238 is better 2804:1B2:1143:C191:2116:1AF3:510A:CEE2 (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that was the "answer to the move page question". I said it was my answer. The redirect addresses the ability of readers to navigate to the correct article with the name mentioned by the OP, which is not the name of the airline. General Ization Talk 21:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a slightly different issue. "TAM Airlines" is literally the English translation of "TAM Lihneas Aereas". The proposal above is not to move to "Voepass Airlines Flight 2283" (though I would still be opposed). General Ization Talk 21:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Protoeus Maybe the name "TAM Airlines" is wrong, because at the time that airline was truly called Tam Lihneas Aereas. Though obviously if you translate it to English it's TAM Airlines, but I guess it depends if they had an official english name? But then that brings into question the Chinese airlines names and if they have an official english name, because if they don't it wouldn't be viable to put Chinese characters as their name. Alexysun (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexysun: I apply this name for having an shortened name that it’s also encyclopedic, if the name had just the name Airline or Airways i wouldn’t apply this. Protoeus (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a small correction: the term is Linhas, not Lihneas. Erick Soares3 (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Protoeus Sorry, can you elaborate what you mean by "if the name had just the name Airline or Airways i wouldn’t apply this." Alexysun (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexysun: It does not have sense that if the proper name is China Airlines we should put airlines as a common name, China Airlines Airlines. Protoeus (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Protoeus Yes, but I'm not sure that anyone is arguing for that. Alexysun (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all major Chinese airlines have their official English name. So it's not a problem. Awdqmb (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awdqmb: Yeah, that’s the point, however Brazilian airlines normally don’t have English names. Protoeus (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infact in us wikipedia, most South American airlines aren't named in English. Such as Aeroméxico, Cubana de Aviación, Aerolíneas Argentinas. So I think we should follow our traditions. Awdqmb (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But its more respectful to say "linhas aereas" 2804:1B2:1143:C191:2116:1AF3:510A:CEE2 (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Protoeus (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the top of the linked page. WWGB (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian airlines tend to exclude the "Linhas Aéreas" from the name as it is difficult to pronounce for an English speaking audience. Plus, that's the logo of the airline and for minimalism, the airline tends to exclude it. The remainder of the article mentions "VOEPASS Linhas Aéreas" 3 times, so it's pretty clear with what the airline wants to be called. GalacticOrbits (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed title should be (and already is) a redirect for articles with shorter names, see: [2]. We don't call Garuda Indonesia Flight 421 as "Garuda Flight 421", or as seen above, we don't call United Airlines Flight 232 as "United Flight 232" as these are only alternative shorter names. People colloquially tend to exclude the "Airlines" or in this case "Linhas Aéreas" from the name, however, Wikipedia shouldn't follow this as it is not encyclopedic. GalacticOrbits (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Oppose We believe that it is better to use the Portuguese name, even in the English version. This is because the airline's head office is in a Portuguese-speaking country and it is expected that it should be displayed in its native language.LendingNext (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It seems to me that the only viable options are "Voepass Airlines Flight 2283" and "Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283" (i.e. no move): "Voepass Flight 2283" is as noted above equivalent to "United Flight 2283", which is good as a shortened form in speech but should not be used as a formal title. Given the airline is not actually called Voepass Airlines, the correct choice, which also goes with consensus, is "Voepass Linhas Aéreas". By the WP:COMMONNAME policy, also (this is just a policy argument and doesn't matter as much) Veopass Linhas Aéreas is probably the common long-form name, even if Voepass is used as a common shortening like United is for United Airlines. The only argument used in favor is that the short form is common. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per existing precedent on aviation accident articles, we use the full name of the airline, and I don't see why that should change.
MiasmaEternal☎ 03:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Despite the prima facie reading of WP:COMMONNAME I believe both precedent and a deeper understanding of that policy means the current title is appropriate. I agree with @GalacticOrbits on this one for sure. This may also be approaching WP:SNOWBALL? MrAureliusRTalk! 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – seems like a straightforward case of WP:COMMONAME. Look at the References section: not a single headline reads Voepass Linhas Aéreas; they all simply use Voepass. In this Brazilian source alone, Voepass outnumbers the full company name 10:1 (or 10:3 if you want to count the company's own press release, which you would expect to be formal) so let us not be pedantic. The other mentioned precedents are hardly relevant: every case needs to be evaluated on its own merit for prevalence in common use, and in Voepass's case, it seems pretty clear which one is the common name. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least the Argentine Austral Líneas Aéreas is commonly knows "Austral" in both offical and commons. So should we also change it to "Austral (airline)"? Awdqmb (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the main point of this discussion but, regarding your question, that would depend on what the sources say. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obviously the main point, that they're in similar naming. For me I think we should follow traditions of us wikipedia, that use full official name if no better name can be used. Awdqmb (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was that the main point of this discussion is whether or not to move the current title. This is not a discussion on whether or not other articles should be moved or not. That's a discussion not relevant to this section and which should be discussed elsewhere. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned above, such exclusions are often rather colloquial and "unencyclopedic". Sources can call it whatever they want to while Wikipedia should stick to the norm by using the name given in the airline article. To extrapolate your idea, news reports surrounding the accident of Delta Air Lines Flight 191 call it "Delta Flight 191" or even "Delta 191" per these sources (even used by the FAA) with : [3], [4], [5], [6].
    Granted, these terms may be used in the analysis of the accident or investigation sections, but as a title, stick with the airline name and the precedent. GalacticOrbits (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GalacticOrbits, "Wikipedia should stick to the norm by using the name given in the airline article"" – who said that? The chief WP guideline at play here is WP:COMMONAME, and this is a pretty clear-cut case, in my view. Who cares about Delta or United Airlines? We are discussing a Voepass occurrence here: show me a majority of sources that use Voepass Linhas Aéreas instead of simply Voepass in relation to this accident and I'll change my !vote. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to point out that, we need a standard policy to all similar pages, we can't use different standard every time such event happened. So if this one passed with a different naming policy, any other similar pages should also be changed. Awdqmb (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, I agree that "Voepass" is more commonly used than "Voepass Linhas Aéreas" but this doesn't necessarily translate to using the former in the title. WP:NPOVNAME makes mention of how colloquialisms should be avoided in article titles in favor of more encyclopedic titles. It's been the tradition as seen in the Brazilian airline articles as well as the Delta, United and Garuda articles.
    Once again, I see no issues with the use of colloquial terminologies in the article itself. However, the title should both be a commonly recognizable name whilst being sufficiently precise, an ideal scheme for encyclopedic articles. The proposed title serving as a redirect should be enough. GalacticOrbits (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how the proposed title would be non-neutral as there's no POV-pushing. It's a neutral common name. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well since the title should be commonly recognizable and precise, doesn't the proposed title fit those requirements? Voepass is easily recognizable, commonly used and is precise and concise. The current title, which uses the official name, could serve as the redirect. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So what about similar pages? We must follow a standard format in all similar page, changing it every time just because "commonly used" will be a chaos. At least in aviation sector, we use the same name with airline page title. And I should point out, many sources also use IATA flight number to name an aviation accident, should we also use it as page title? Awdqmb (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistency isn't the only reason why an article should be named x. The proposed title is a common name. Based on the criteria, Voepass Flight 2283 is easily recognizable, natural to an english speaking group for an english Wikipedia and it is precise and concise since there are no similar titles that could be confused with and clearly identifies the subject without the need for the official name. There is a bit of consistency since TAM Airlines Flight 3054 isn't named after the official name but named as such since it is the common name. Look at Air Inter Flight 148, the official and correct flight number is Flight 5148 yet Flight 148 is used since it is the name used by the majority of sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move to Voepass Flight 2283 and alternatively to Voepass Airlines Flight 2283 – Whilst Voepass Linhas Aéreas is the official name for the airline, the majority of sources use the term Voepass which looks to be the common name: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
Would not oppose the inclusion of Airlines into the proposed title – Voepass Airlines Flight 2283 – as some sources also use this term whilst also simply using Voepass: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
Additionally, the proposed title would be recognisable without the need to add the official name of the airline and would also be a natural title. The proposed title is precise and can't be confused with another event and is concise enough to identify the subject. Most english language sources identify the subject as Voepass (sometimes using Voepass Airlines), not Voepass Linhas Aéreas. Wikipedia doesn't necessarily base itself on consistency. For example, TAM Airlines Flight 3054 uses a common name for its title, not the official name. Another such example would be the case of Air Inter Flight 148. The official and correct flight number for this event would be Flight 5148, yet Flight 148 is referred to as such since it is the name that is commonly and majoritarily used by sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm leaning towards the WP:CONSISTENT argument given precedent (as shown by GalaticOrbits). S5A-0043Talk 11:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Look at today's WP Main Page, In The News section: look how clumsy "Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 crashes in the Brazilian state of São Paulo" reads. How many news outlets or other sources would refer to the event as such? I doubt very many. That's either pedantry or fixation on consistency with other stuff already existing on WP, at the expense of common sense and clarity. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But we are not a news website right? It's the Wikinews work. Most news even use the IATA or ICAO flight number to call an aviation accident. So should we change the page name further to "2Z2283 crash"? Awdqmb (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right: we're not a news website; we are a bunch of pedants with OCD, Obsessive Consistency Disorder. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's how encyclopaedia works. I need to point out again that, terminology in professional sector have nothing to do with common sense. Also we need follow WP:CONSIST, which change in one time will need to deploy to all similar title. But one thing you are right, there's indeed someone that have OCD, like the other topic on this talk page, which a wikipedian insist to use word "crash" instead of "accident" to refer all similar aviation occurrence events, although all major organizations and regulators use them. Awdqmb (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The common full name of the airline includes "Linhas Aéreas", and it is consistent with previous usage. I suppose, if there is disagreement, then we should have a guideline on naming air accidents. I would be okay with either outcome in that case, but until that day I think the best course is to attempt consistency.--cyclopiaspeak! 13:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose precedents say that the full name of the airline should be displayed. I personally think it could be just VOEPASS Flight XXX, however I also think it's important to keep things standard so... No change, please.
Examples: TEAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 6865, Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907, Total Linhas Aéreas Flight 5561, Rico Linhas Aéreas Flight 4815, Rico Linhas Aéreas Flight 4823, Noar Linhas Aéreas Flight 4896 Mateusmatsuda (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per the existing precedent to be WP:CONSISTENT with other aviation accident/incident articles. The title should be WP:CONSISTENT with the airline article. If it can be demonstrated that "Voepass" is the common name of the airline and the airline's article is moved, only then would I support such a move here. - ZLEA T\C 18:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flawed argument. WP:CONSISTENT reads "To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics", i.e. articles about air accidents should be titled broadly consistently among themselves; same for articles about airlines. The guideline does not extend to topics that are dissimilar but related, such as articles about air accidents and articles about the related airlines. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I've updated my !vote accordingly. - ZLEA T\C 20:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalities

I see some sources that say there were 58 passengers, and 4 crew members, They were 57 o 58 passengers? I don’t know. Protoeus (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Aviation Herald is reporting that the airline is saying that there were 57 passengers on board. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 21:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read that on Simple Flying they said 58 passengers, which demonstrates that the website is un-reliable, I first asked this question but then I remembered that Simple Flying is un-reliable. Protoeus (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to question its reliability but since this was breaking news, wouldn't it be normal for information to be inaccurate at first with a correction coming in later? I mean, the airline revised the death toll of the accident showing that this isn't really a case of unreliability. News agencies reported on what was known at the time, which was that there were 62 on board. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name list of passengers and crew members can be found here. Major news outlets are updating the news for 57 passengers and 4 crew members.
Official numbers provided by IML(Legal Medical Institute, coroners) are yet to be released. 179.247.246.26 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per CNN, the airline itself has revised the fatality count to 61 (57+4). General Ization Talk 21:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The airline confirmed this morning there was a passenger not on the manifest. 62 total casualties. portuguese source Driop (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now there's no other reliable source yet. I think we need to wait until other reliable source to confirm this. Awdqmb (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ABC News and Reuters also reported the new figure of 62: [19][20]. S5A-0043Talk 13:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Brazilians there were three Venezuelans on the plane. A woman, her daughter and her grandson. [21] Sapun (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn’t say anything about their citizenship, just that they were living in Venezuela. Celjski Grad (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Imagens gravadas na sexta-feira (9) mostram o menino venezuelano Joslan Perez" (Images [...] are showing Venezuelan boy, (Redacted)). The list of victims says there were three Venezuelans: [22]. Here's another source: [23].Sapun (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're starting to get into excessive detail and/or tribute page territory. Mentioning that 3 Venezuelans died in the crash seems sufficient. General Ization Talk 22:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SIGMET citation lapsed and needs update

Change needed for citation - SIGMET icing between 12,000-21,000 feet (citation 11) to following archived source, as original SIGMET is no longer available through conventional weather services as effective time has passed. It is the pertinent SIGMET for severe icing that the aircraft was flying through at time of occurrence.

https://dd.meteo.gc.ca/bulletins/alphanumeric/20240809/WS/SBGL/15/WSBZ23_SBGL_091525___24273

Permanent meteo.gc.ca (Government of Canada weather service) source Ofcgow1012 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The airspeed seemed all over the place for the entire flight. I was wondering if it was ice on / around the cockpit on one of the first pictures of the wreckage. 2601:2C7:8E01:1600:95BD:4A88:A986:92CD (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The aircraft was definitely in a fully stalled condition and in a spin in the videos. Severe icing would do that. 2601:2C7:8E01:1600:95BD:4A88:A986:92CD (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could honestly just be bad ADSB, but the groundspeed readouts towards the end made me think ice. Normal descent to zero to falling in less than 2 minutes. Ofcgow1012 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FlightRadar 24 had said on their X (Formerly known as Twitter) page [24]here that the ground speed data for the aircraft had been inaccurate not only for the flight in question, but previous flights, therefore should be considered erroneous.
On their blog post about the incident [25]here they have a graph of the air speed which they consider more reliable. Teribus13 (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: The original source for SIGMET was removed and replaced with different sources than proposed above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

Motitasmeow25 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Vuelo 2283.png
Flight 2283, Note the fluctuation in speed throughout the flight, dropping dangerously to 122 km/h.

 Not done - file was deleted from Commons as a copyvio. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 ground injury

1 person on the ground was hurt. On the news it said “one person on the ground was hurt” From the 2024 Brazil ATR-72 crash. 72.131.35.93 (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a reliable source. WWGB (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024 (2)

Not all passengers were Brazilians but one was Portuguese.

https://www.euronews.com/2024/08/10/48-year-old-portuguese-among-the-fatalities-of-the-plane-that-crashed-in-brazil 37.161.32.207 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Celjski Grad (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential WP:WEASEL

Just in regards to this paragraph:

Aviation experts speculated that ice buildup could have been a factor in the crash, while stating that it was too soon to draw conclusions.

Should we elaborate further on what these aviation experts are saying? Because as far as I can tell, the article contains each of their opinions on what the cause of the crash was. Furthermore, the wording might fall afoul of WP:WEASEL (in my opinion, at least). MiasmaEternal☎ 03:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence accurately covers what was said, and that it is too early to draw conclusions. I don't see anything wrong with it as it stands. As the invesitigation progresses, it is likely that it will be replaced. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

The plane did not spin, but rather a flat spin 2401:7400:601B:206D:99A9:C2DE:4C2F:D23F (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oncologist versus cancer doctor

Another editor has queried why the article makes a distinction between cancer doctors and oncologists. Oncologists are specialists with higher qualifications. Some doctors treat lesser cancers, like skin cancers, without being considered a specialist oncologist. Other doctors like radiologists interpret medical images for cancer without being an oncologist. So there is a difference. WWGB (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024 (2)

add tge following wiki page to "See also" section [Category:Accidents and incidents involving the ATR 72] Mrbarlas (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done There is already a link to accidents and incidents involving the ATR-72 in the see also section with a category of the same nature, Category:Accidents and incidents involving the ATR 72 in the external links section. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insistence on use of 'accident'

If you search articles for "Brazil Plane" today not one headline on major RS use 'accident' yet a @Aviationwikiflight insists on injecting this loaded term on the article. We follow RS, and most major, reputable RS are using "crash". Accident is a loaded word and simply because an infobox guideline page suggests it does not mean we use it instead of more appropriate English such as crash, collision, incident, explosion, etc when useful. The AP Stylebook also warns against using accident in most cases. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AP Stylebook bears no weight on what should or should not be on Wikipedia. There is no guideline on wikipedia that says accident should be avoided, if there is one, cite it. I did not suggest that Template:infobox aircraft occurrence should removed all mentions of crash, what I meant to say is that for the infobox, it states that accident, incident, hijacking or occurrence should be used. A few examples of sources that use accident and/without crash include:
The Aviation Herald uses both accident and crash.
Flight Global only uses accident with crash used as a verb in the title (crashes).
[26]: Meteorological reports for the period surrounding the accident indicate areas of turbulence, thunderstorms, icing in the vicinity.
"[...] and the first fatal aviation crash involving Voepass Linhas Aéreas since its establishment in 1995." The two sources cited state: "is the first accident involving regular Brazilian commercial aviation since 2007."; "Voepass accident is the biggest in commercial aviation since 2007"
BBC – "The four crew members on board at the time of the accident were all duly licensed and had valid qualifications, it added."
Most reliable sources use both the term accident and crash, some with or without the other. If accident is a loaded word, then do not use it but do not remove the term when reliable sources also use accident. Simply searching doesn't mean anything, if you search for the term accident in the sources, in most articles, you will find them using the term accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AP stylebook informs journalism, so it actually does have some weight as far as this discussion. You're also cherry-picking trade publications that are more likely to use aviation jargon and 'accident' even though it's an inferior word for what happened. Major outlets largely lead with crash. Either way, accident implies nobody is at fault and there was no underlying cause. Such a determination is months away at best. We should not cling to an inferior word just because there are some outlets using it. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should add a new topic at talk page of template:infobox aircraft occurrence. Awdqmb (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to add a new topic at an infobox talk page because infobox talk pages don't define correct terminology, reliable sources and common sense do, and common sense explains to us that accident is the wrong word to use for airplane crashes. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need to point out that, terminology in specific professional sectors has nothing to do with common sense. Most people and news media use IATA flight number to refer an accident, so should we also use same in page title? If you think "accident & incident" is a improper name to refer an occurrence event, should we change it into "aviation crashes"? Awdqmb (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have checked, all major aviation organizations, including IATA and ICAO, and country regulators like FAA, use word "accident" even "fatal accident" to refer severe aviation occurrence events. So are you suggesting your so-called "reliable source" and "common sense" are better than these solid, professional organizations and regulators do? If you don't believe you can directly visit their websites. Awdqmb (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a website for journalism so it carries no weight. I just gave a few examples since there are a lot of sources which use accident. ICAO's definitions of accidents is as follows [27]:
"Annex 13 defines an accident as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft: in which a person is fatally or seriously injured; in which an aircraft sustains damage or structural failure requiring repairs; after which the aircraft in question is classified as being missing." Furthermore, "Annex 13 also states that the sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident is to prevent accidents and incidents and that the investigation is not to apportion blame or liability"
"You're also cherry-picking trade publications that are more likely to use aviation jargon and 'accident' even though it's an inferior word for what happened."
It's disingenuous to discard these types of sources (which are reliable mind you) solely because they focus on aviation related news whilst using aviation terms.
Here are some more sources which use accident: The Associated Press CNN ABC News Voice of America Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can find instances of both. In aggregate, crash is probably used more, but I don't think we should waste time tallying them. In the AP article you link, it's important to note they're using accident once in quotations and the other times in the context of official statements where they use that word. It's still an inferior word to crash for the reasons I shared earlier. We should avoid using it, not only because most RS are using crash, but because it implies there is no fault to be assigned in this incident. We don't know if this was purely an accident yet. If there was an icing issue, a training issue, etc, those come from human error and mismanagement. "Accident" is simply not good writing and not what most RS are using. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inferior in your opinion. In this discussion and across your edits, you seem to be the only one advocating for such a change even when multiple editors have said that the use of accident is fine. As stated above, in the context of aviation accidents, accident does not necessarily imply that there is no fault and/or blame. Per Annex 13, accidents are defined as "occurrences associated with the operation of an aircraft: in which a person is fatally or seriously injured; in which an aircraft sustains damage or structural failure requiring repairs; after which the aircraft in question is classified as being missing." Nowhere in Annex 13 does it state that blame is absolved. Accident investigations are not meant to be trials where those involved in the accident are prosecuted and charged, they are meant to prevent similar events from occurring again, if not, that would defeat the entire purpose of investigating and preventing accidents which is stated in Annex 13. Most investigative agencies are against the use of their findings in courts which is stated, in their reports, also being against the prosecution and/or detainment of pilots and/or of those involved. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think such definition of aviation occurrence is wrong, you should change the template:infobox aircraft occurrence first. Wikipedia has its own standard to difine the summary of aviation accidents and incidents, I think we should follow this, unless someone request to change it and most wikipedians agree with new standard. Awdqmb (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we have this discussion in November? - ZLEA T\C 01:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We did! It's not a closed discussion and most RS agree on using 'crash' not accident. We should avoid the use of 'accident', for the reasons I've explained. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using the word 'accident' for a plane crash is bad English point blank. We know a plane crashed. We do not know if it was an accident. Agree or disagree, RS broadly call it a crash. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using the word 'accident' for a plane crash is bad English point blank. Tell that to Voepass, the company's CEO, ATR, and the Brazilian and American governments. All of them were quoted by CNN using the term "accident". - ZLEA T\C 02:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't follow blindly Brazilian airline CEOs or plane manufacturers, we follow RS, and broadly, they use crash, not accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at your recent edit history and found an alarming pattern of you removing the word "accident" from a large variety of articles (examples from just the last few weeks include: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], and [33]). I don't know what led you to hold the word "accident" in such low regard, and I'm going to assume that your actions were done in good faith. However, as far as I am aware based on this and previous discussions I've seen, everyone else has told you that you are wrong. Maybe you should stop and consider the fact that you might indeed be wrong. - ZLEA T\C 03:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You insist on ignoring the reasons I've outlined for why we should use crash and avoid accident. That's ok, and I understand that you disagree. But most reliable sources for this entry on wikpiedia use crash, and simply put, we follow reliable sources. Can you explain how you know this crash was accidental? I'd hazard that you cannot. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far, no one, not even any government organizations, have presented any evidence, let alone baseless claims, of foul play being involved. When reliable sources quote governments, airlines and their CEOs, and aircraft manufacturers using the term "accident" with absolutely no opposition, Occam's razor says that they believe that the events in question were accidents. - ZLEA T\C 03:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't follow Occam, we follow reliable sources, and most of them are going with crash instead of accident for good reason. It's the better, more accurate word to describe what happened without getting into tricky territory. We should avoid the use of the word accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We also follow WP:COMMONSENSE. If multiple reliable sources quote governments using the term "accident" with no opposition, common sense says it was an accident. There is no "tricky territory" here, almost everyone agrees that it was an accident, even if the sources that quote them follow a stylebook that advises them to not call it one directly. As Aviationwikiflight said, the Wikipedia is not bound by the AP Stylebook, even if the sources we use are. - ZLEA T\C 03:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree about the terminology, not the course of events. Please try to understand that. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also we are obligated by some degree by reliable sources and most of them call it a crash, not accident, except in reference to official statements or quotes by which they are bound to refer verbatim Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this source has 16 instances of the word crash, including the headline, and only four instances of accident, most of them in direct quotes which they are obligated to reproduce verbatim. Just because some person uses the wrong word doesn't mean RS prefer it and doesn't mean we should insist on it either. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I'll concede for now based on this technicality. However, we will inevitably revisit this once RS which are not bound by the AP Stylebook start covering this accident. - ZLEA T\C 04:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further thought, I will retract my premature concession. You stated that Just because some person uses the wrong word doesn't mean RS prefer it and doesn't mean we should insist on it either. The problem is that no one is questioning the term "accident", therefore your claims that it is wrong are entirely baseless. Following a style book that explicitly discourages the use of "accident" is not the same as refuting or challenging the term. The very fact that AP themselves directly called this an accident in the link you provided, especially since it is their own style book that discourages its use, is grounds to use the term in the article. You also seem to be using a WP:COMMONNAME-type argument that we should be using the wording that is numerically more common in reliable sources. I am not aware of any policy or guideline that supports such an argument for article text. As long as both terms are supported by reliable sources, we can and should use both. - ZLEA T\C 15:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other points aside, if there's a choice between the two, we should use the word RS are using most. That is crash, not accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources currently are going with, in their latest stories:
USA Today: Crash (17) Accident (2)
AP: Crash (18) Accident (1)
CNN: Crash (7) Accident (0)
FOX : Crash (15) Accident (1)
Reuters: Crash (14) Accident (3)
NYTimes : Crash (29) Accident (0)
US News and World Report Crash (15) Accident (3)
So Reliable Sources appear to overwhelmingly prefer crash, not accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other points aside, if there's a choice between the two, we should use the word RS are using most.
Because...? Reliable sources use both accident and crash, there is no reason to discard accident solely because it is less frequently used than crash. This event was both a crash and an accident. There exists no guidelines stating that we should follow what sources say word-for-word, and certainly not one that bars editors from using a less frequently cited word. Judging from this discussion and previous ones, it's clear that there exists no consensus on discarding the term accident despite its "limited use". I agree that accident is definitely less frequently used in reliable sources, but that in itself is not sufficient enough of an argument to argue in favour of the use of crash over accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because we follow RS and most RS prefer crash, not accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're missing the point. We don't need to choose between the two. Reliable news sources are using both terms despite following a guidebook that discourages the use of "accident". Everyone not bound by the AP Stylebook is using "accident" a lot more liberally. This was both a crash and an accident, so let's stop pretending that these are mutually exclusive terms. - ZLEA T\C 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And let's resolve the dispute by following nearly every single headline and word used in the body of RS which is crash, not accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Crash and accident do not mean the same thing. Given what RS are saying we should prefer crash, and for the reasons I've outlined before. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, WP:HEADLINES. Second, I'm not saying "crash" and "accident" mean the same thing. I said that this is BOTH a crash AND an accident. Your continued insistence on avoiding the word "accident" seemingly by any means necessary is becoming highly disruptive. You have been told by numerous other editors that you are wrong, yet you continue to exhibit WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. - ZLEA T\C 20:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your disagreement or misunderstanding is not a case to cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Other editors have disagreed, and others have agreed. That's the point of us meeting here to have this discussion. Reliable sources are mostly going with crash. And you literally do not know if this was an accident or not. For all we know, this could have been a bombing. We literally do not know yet. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For all we know, this could have been a bombing. Are you serious? We have numerous reliable sources as well as the airline and CEO, the manufacturer, and several governments confirming that it was an accident, as well as multiple videos of an intact ATR in a flat spin. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aircraft bombings do not typically result in an intact airframe entering a flat spin. It's comments like these that make people question whether you are even here to build an encyclopedia. - ZLEA T\C 20:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accident and crash do not mean the same thing, and for the 14th time, most RS prefer crash. You insist on using a loaded word that most RS seem to be avoiding. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far in this discussion, you have been the only one to express your viewpoint. Icing for example, has been discussed by sources and experts as a possible contributing factor/cause. A bombing however, is supported by absolutely zero sources at all. However, the fact that both accident and crash are used in reliable sources means that both terms are perfectly acceptable to use. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All true, and also true that RS prefer crash over accident. So why cling to a word that is much less commonly used by RS? If some kind of malfeasance or negligence led to an icing condition, then there will certainly be litigation to hold responsible the parties accountable. We simply do not know yet and most RS use crash. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because "crash" and "accident" are not mutually exclusive. As I've stated numerous times already, this was both a crashed an accident. It doesn't matter that "crash" is used numerically more often than "accident", only that the sources are using those two terms at all. Therefore, we can and should use both words to describe the event. - ZLEA T\C 21:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It actually does matter what words reliable sources choose use to describe events like this, and there's a reason most avoid 'accident'. I am happy to agree to disagree, but please avoid casting aspersions in the future when having a civil discussion about the words we use to describe incidents which led to a significant loss of life such as this. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No aspirations were cast, everything I have said is based on observations of your behavior, and I stand by it. It's clear that no good will come from continuing this discussion here. - ZLEA T\C 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One could say the same about your ignoring reliable sources in your own insistence on using a word that is plainly less accurate. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now you are suggesting that airline CEO and aircraft manufacture is not reliable than your so-called "reliable sources", which are all news medias? Awdqmb (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perennial sources favor crash over accident. We go with them over one-off statements from airline CEOs. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event was an accident, caused by currently unknown causes (but most likely not a mid-air collision/crash), which ended with the crash. The article is about the entire event. This entire discussion thread is one troll throwing a tantrum because he has a personal issue with the word accident. Fbergo (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should also know better than to use pronouns of fellow editors who have not disclosed such Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion (or this portion of it) seems to be devolving into a personal dispute between (mostly) two editors about their respective attitudes toward editing and each other. As such, the editors are encouraged to move (civil) discussion of those topics to one or the other of their Talk pages, rather than continuing here, where the focus must be on improving this article. (I nearly hatted some of this, and may yet do so if I can decide where to start.) General Ization Talk 21:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least I don't know what's going on. I have pointed out that terminology in professional sector have nothing to do with common sense, and major org (IATA and ICAO) and regulator like FAA use "accident" to refer such. But he still insist his "so-called RS and common sense", which are mostly less-professional media. So at least I don't get it. I mean, we are a encyclopaedia, not a information website for all commons. Awdqmb (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I just don't understand how his "reliable sources" are more reliable than the information from the airlines's CEO and from ATR. It just doesn't make sense. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is explained at WP:RS. The CEO and ATR are not reliable sources as the term is used here on Wikipedia. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but that still doesn't explain why we shouldn't use the word "accident". Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dog

Shouldn't the Venezuelan dog be included in the fatalities? RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Like it or not, pets and livestock are not included in aviation fatality counts. General Ization Talk 22:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poor dog. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the dog be placed on the crew and passengers section though? Borgenland (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. WWGB (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can describe solely in contents, but not in infobox and charts. Awdqmb (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Use for Advertisement

The sentence "Brazilian television news channel GloboNews interrupted Olympics coverage to broadcast from the area around the crash, showing fire and smoke rising from the plane fuselage" is irrelevant. The impression caused is that of the use a plane crash as a subreptitious means for advertising in favour of a company, in this case, a TV channel. If this sentence is maintained, it should be changed to "Several media and television channels did the coverage of this crash, presenting videos of the flat spin during the fall, and of the fire after the crash." Antar Mandeep (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did any other network interrupt its coverage of the Paris 2024 Olympics and shift to continuous coverage of the crash? As I see it, that is what is being reported here, not just that the crash was reported (with on-scene video) by multiple networks that operate in Brazil (as would be expected and hardly needs mentioning at all). General Ization Talk 04:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant to an encyclopedic article what someone stopped doing in order to carry out his job. For sure the reporters also aborted their lunch in order to do the coverage of the plane crash. Interrupting Olympics coverage to report a plane crash is irrelevant to an article about a plane crash, and this information is also not stated in the cited references. The overall impression is that of an attempt to promote a private company, trying to take advantage of popular commiseration, which seems to be disrespectful to those who died in the crash, and also to Wikipedia itself. This TV channel might be in a state of desperation in order to seek this type of self-promotion. It is my understanding that this sentence should be removed. Antar Mandeep (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@General Ization, only Globo covered the Olympics. And it was not GloboNews as far as I can tell... RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that much of the video and on-scene reporting carried by other networks and media outlets, both domestically in Brazil and internationally, originated with GloboNews. It is not "advertising" to mention the network's widely-noted role in reporting on the disaster. General Ization Talk 04:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is not "advertising". It is a network on top of its game. WWGB (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources, [34] [35] [36] do not mention GloboNews interrupting its Olympics footage. I don't agree that this is advertising but the sentence should be rephrased to reflect what the sources say.
AP News states: "Brazilian television network GloboNews showed aerial footage of an area with smoke coming out of an obliterated plane fuselage. Additional footage on GloboNews earlier showed the plane plunging in a flat spin. A report from television network Globo’s meteorological center said it “confirmed the possibility of the formation of ice in the region of Vinhedo,” and local media cited analysts pointing to icing as a potential cause for the crash."
NBC News states: "An area of fire and smoke was captured in footage by Brazil's TV GloboNews. Other footage from the outlet showed a plane spiraling while falling."
Maybe a rephrase of the sentence could include: "Brazilian television news channel GloboNews provided aerial footage from around the area of the crash site, showing fire and smoke rising from the aircraft's wreckage." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voepass_Flight_2283&oldid=1240181411"