Talk:2018 Algerian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 crash/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title

The article title is currently overly disambiguated and neither in compliance with WP:CONCISE nor consistent with the way we entitle these types of events. I would suggest removing the year and going with "Algerian Air Force Il-76 crash". Likewise, 2014 Algerian Air Force C-130 crash does not need "2014". These two events are the only Algerian Air Force crashes involving one of each type of aircraft. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing the name conventions laid out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, I have retracted my proposal. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Casualty count

Several sources are saying all 10 crew and 247 passengers died. Additionaly, RTVE claim 30 ground casualties. According to my maths, that makes 287 in total. Brian Everlasting brought up this issue at my talk page, and my addition to the infobox to reflect this has been reverted. So it now needs to be discussed. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes (like me) it's a bit confused. This report clearly says "257 people killed when a military plane crashes in Algeria" but then also "Among the dead, there are 30 Sahrawi citizens, students and other civilians who had traveled to Algiers to carry out medical and bureaucratic procedures, and who usually have courtesy places in this type of Algerian military equipment." So it sounds like those 30 were on board. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I've run that web page through Google Translate. Looks like the article needs a change. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. My Spanish is not that good, but I think one can get the gist of it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, the RTVE article does not mention ground casualties. I was going to add those details about why they were on the flight to the article.--J. E. C. E. (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

By all means. It's just that "for various medical and bureaucratic reasons" looks to me like something straight out of Google Translate? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Google Translate says, but the word "reasons" actually shows up in neither "para diferentes tipos de trámites burocráticos y médicos" nor "para efectuar trámites médicos y burocráticos".--J. E. C. E. (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh well. Perhaps it just looks more natural over there. I guess readers will get the gist, especially Spanish ones? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I added the sentence in both the Spanish and English Wikipedias. It's equally vague in the Spanish article. Is that what you're getting at? I didn't want to veer too far from the RTVE source since I didn't look for the original EFE source. In lieu of the original EFE source, we could still add that Saharawi students were among those 30 individuals. J. E. C. E. (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that was sneaky! I was just suggesting that a native Spanish speaker might be able to suggest a better translation. But I now see you are es-5. So that's me told. I don't think it's a big problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

To follow up on this, several reports from the Sahara Press Service claim that all 30 Saharawi civilians were patients returning from Algiers after time in Algerian hospitals. One report claims that family members accompanying Saharawi patients were among those 30. One report claims 33 Saharawis died, most of them patients, with 4 of these being children. One report claims that 33 Saharawi civilians died. I'm not sure what is causing all these discrepancies. I was reading the Spanish and English editions. --J. E. C. E. (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

7T-WIP

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20180411-0 "Algerian aviation sources report the accident aircraft was 7T-WIP. This is not confirmed by authorities yet."

So that source doesn't satisfy WP:RS

--LaserLegs (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: The Aviation Safety Network is an extremely reliable source. That they state that the Algerian authorities have not confirmed the registration should not be taken to mean that the information is incorrect. ASN has a reputation for checking information it places on its website and can be relied on at least 99.99% of the time. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: thanks for your reply. ASN itself cites four sources, none of which indicated the hull or registration of the craft. I don't doubt ASN is probably right, but without some WP:RS it's relying on the eyeballs of aircraft enthusiasts. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

We'll leave the FV in place for that fact for now. It can be removed once ASN confirms reg is definitely 'WIP, or the article changed to reflect any new info. Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

ASN now reporting that it may be 7T-WIB. Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Finally confirmed as 7T-WIV Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Skulls

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Twice now I have removed a template with images of skulls from this talk page. It has been restored again, apparently by someone who holds the mistaken understanding that I have a personal phobia of skulls. Nothing could be further from the truth, but it has been agreed previously that they should not be shown on pages such as this. Unfortunately, the attempts at a technical solution have failed to suppress their inappropriate display by the template concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

No such agreement was ever made - quite the opposite is true. All fatal transport incidents are explicitly within the scope of the death project. Someone kicked up a fuss and had the skulls within the banner hidden on another article, but it has been ruled that the death banner should be present. A skull is a universal symbol of death and is thus an extremely appropriate part of the death banner - it's preposterous to claim that a skull is inappropriate. The claim that the skull is gruesome is ridiculous - it's a clean, undamaged skull. The claim that its a BLP vio to have the death banner here is likewise ridiculous. Anyone who is squeamish about death would not choose to view the talk page about a crash in which many people were killed. If you don't have a phobia of skulls, why are you repeatedly removing them, when you know full well that the banner is applicable? Jim Michael (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I don’t see that the skull icon enhances the Talk page for any article that gets a stamp from Wikipedia:WikiProject Death. Perhaps that’s because I don’t fully understand the usefulness of Project Death as a whole. I don’t find the image particularly "gruesome", but I can readily understand that some editors might find it somewhat childish and/or offensive. I think there may be a large degree of subjective judgement in play here – no-one would suggest adorning this Talkpage with 257 separate mini skulls, would they? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"No such agreement was ever made" ORlly? So why the addition of a parameter to hide the images in the template? It doesn't work (both technically, and because those who edit war to add the template don't even bother to use it) but there was agreement to add it. Your BLP reference is a straw man, as is your "squeamish" diversion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This article clearly falls within the remit of WP:DEATH, and therefore its template should be included with the rest of the WPs. What is needed is a discussion/RFC at WP:Death re what image to use. I would suggest that file:The death.svg might be more appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, so I have been reverted in putting this page under WP:DEATH enough times that my latest revert is the third in 24 hours. Fine, I will discuss it here.

First, since when is consensus needed about putting an article on a WikiProject worklist? Especially one that explicitly puts articles about the subject in question within its scope?

And second, if this is about a "decoration", why would I leave all the project banners nested, with the skull image visible only to those who go out of their way to click on the image.? I really don't care what WP:DEATH uses on its banner, to be honest. As I've said, and as has been said above, the proper forum for discussing the skull image is WT:DEATH. Daniel Case (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

As if there could be any useful progress from chatting with enthusiasts who devised an insensitive logo. A local consensus (that a skull looks really cool on a certain template) does not give edit warriors ownership of every article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A skull isn't offensive, childish, insensitive or decoration. It's an extremely appropriate logo for the Death project, because it's a universal symbol of death. It's a clean, undamaged skull - not a bloody, smashed one. I mentioned BLP because one of the people who removed the banner from this talk page did so by implying that it's a BLP vio to have it here. If you're not phobic or squeamish, why repeatedly remove the death banner, which is definitely applicable? This argument has happened on several other talkpages and it has always resulted in the banner staying. It's very simple: a skull is an extremely appropriate symbol of death. All articles about transport incidents in which people died are explicitly within the scope of the Death project. This crusade to remove the Death banner is ridiculous. We don't remove it for the 1% of editors who have an extreme aversion to a picture of a clean skull. Highly experienced editors know better that to do this. Jim Michael (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

As you guys are all probably aware, I've opened a discussion at WT:DEATH re the image in the template. Please feel free to comment on the proposal made. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There have been discussions about this issue on the Death project before. They are not going to remove the extremely appropriate skull logo. Jim Michael (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're not going to remove an entirely-unnecessary logo that is obviously offensive to some people, then you should probably not be surprised when those people remove a silly, entirely-unnecessary template. WikiProjects don't get to override local consensus by fiat, and I don't see any consensus here for the use of that template. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This article clearly falls under the remit of WP:DEATH, which says in its project scope "Man-made disasters: Transportation disasters (when at least one person died)". Therefore there is no argument that the addition of the template needs consensus. It doesn't. The issue, for some editors, is the image displayed on WP:DEATH's template, which is being discussed at the correct venue for such a discussion. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"Therefore there is no argument that the addition of the template needs consensus. It doesn't." Everything on Wikipedia needs consensus. That's really class 101. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is needed for the content of articles, templates etc. - not for adding clearly applicable project banners to a talk page. Jim Michael (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not unnecessary and it's only offensive to a tiny minority. A skull isn't silly. On the vast majority of the talk pages where the Death banner is, no-one objects. It's only when one of the tiny number of objectors is on one of the many talk pages that it's on, does it get unjustly, repeatedly removed. Jim Michael (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, you don't get to personally set policy for every single article talk page. There is obviously no consensus for including the image here, and thus the |image=no setting is a reasonable compromise that should settle this debate. The template is included, but the image is excluded. Can we call this done now? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

For me, yes, since it's about the inclusion of the article on the project's worklist. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing the images clearly isn't sufficient for the objectors, because that was done on a few previous talk pages, yet that didn't stop a few people removing the banner (rather than merely the images) on this talk page. This objection only exists on the tiny proportion of death articles which are visited by the few objectors. We're talking about a single-figure number of objectors out of thousands of editors on death-related articles. Jim Michael (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

The map template currently shows the coordinates for the crash as being the same as those of Boufarik Airport. This does not seem to be correct, as the plane came down in a field. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I have used available photos to show that the crash occurred very close to the fence of Boufarik Airport. You can see a guard tower very close to the tail. Abductive (reasoning) 07:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Abductive: - JACDEC show that the crash site is actually just outside the boundaries of Blida Airport. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I used this crash photo. Note the guard in the guard tower. Also note the KTHotel building in the background, under the orange crane arm. I have another pic of it showing the face visible in the crash photo. You can work out the rest from this and the coordinates I put in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 07:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the lower map image at that JACDEC web page explains the relative position of the air base and the airport very well. Is there any way a version could be constructed for the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

....um, the map shows that it took off from Boufarik Air Force Base (DAAK) and crashed near Blida Airport, about 4.3 km to the southwest of the Air Force Base? The article is currently a bit misleading, as Blida Airport isn't mentioned and it suggests that it crashed near the same "airport" it had just taken off from? So I'll try and clarify. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I took out the bit about "southwest of the capital, Algiers," so I've now re-added it in the lead section. But not sure it's really needed anywhere. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to not return incorrect information to the article. Look at the photos, and not some crappy primary source. Abductive (reasoning) 22:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Another crap source says it crashed into a mountain. Do you believe that? Abductive (reasoning) 22:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Which "crap source" was that? Please could you share it, so we can all learn to avoid it? So, according to this source, exactly where did the aircraft come down? Anywhere near Blida Airport? Or perhaps you could tell us in which direction it was flying? Or is it just that you refuse to use JADEC because you think it lacks editorial review? You might want to raise that question at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources, as it goes way beyond this one article. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)