Jump to content

Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Door lock

Why is there no mention of the manual override of the locks outside the cockpit door? From the manual: "A forward-opening hinge door separates the cockpit from the passenger compartment. It has three electric locking strikes, controlled by the flight crew. In normal conditions, when the door is closed, they remain locked. When there is a request to enter the cockpit, the flight crew can authorize entry by unlocking the door, that remains closed until it is pushed open. When the flight crew does not respond to requests for entry, the door can also be unlocked by the cabin crew, by entering a two to seven-digit code (programmed by the airline) on the keypad, installed on the lateral side of the Forward Attendant Panel (FAP)."

That lock also has a 5 to 20 minute delay that can be engaged before the manual keypad override engages. This is optional, and up to the airline policy. But the plane was descending for 8 minutes, so the external keypad override on the cockpit door lock is relevant. The airlines response on this issue should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.107.182 (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No reliable source seems to have addressed this question, but if you have a ref it could be added. - Ahunt (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The article states

The pilot had a code to unlock the door, but the code panel can be disabled from the cockpit controls.[98][7] The pilot requested re-entry using the intercom, knocking and then banging on the door, but received no response

all backed up by RS with no speculation added. -- Aronzak (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

The article is not clear as to when the 8 minute descent started.

Was it as soon as the pilot left the cockpit or a bit later after the pilot attempted to regain entry into the cockpit? Ammobox (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

We have well-sourced information that the descent started at 10:31 and the crash occurred at 10:41. That makes it a 10-minute descent, although I have seen 8 minutes as well. I know of no good way to resolve the disagreement until an official report is released.
As for the time-of-day when the pilot left the cockpit, our New York Times source says the following:

10:28 to 10:31 - The captain asked Mr. Lubitz to take over the controls and left the cockpit for a short time, possibly to use the bathroom.

I'm not sure how to interpret that, whether he left the cockpit at 10:28 or sometime between 10:28 and 10:31. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Or possibly that he left at 10:28 and returned at 10:31? Plenty of time if you only need a quick gentlemanly pee. --wintonian talk 02:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
That does seem like the most reasonable interpretation, as I don't know how they could have arrived at a 3-minute window in which he left the cockpit. It must have come from the CVR, which would have the clear sound of him shutting the door and a precise time of that event. The question is whether that's too much WP:SYNTH. I'm for including 10:28 if there is consensus here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hunting through sources there seems to be quite a lot of '09:30 GMT aprox sound of chair being pushed back/ captain went to the loo, etc' type stuff, so I wouldn't call it. This is one of those details that might have to wait until the report comes out. However they do seem to agree that the final descent started at 09:31 GMT --wintonian talk 02:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Locked his girlfriend in the bathroom

No, it doesn't very much go into his state mind; that is your very own supposition. We should not be insinuating that he was an abuser, or the fact that he might've been an abuser had any part to blame in his later actions, on the basis of the uncorroborated claims of one individual. Alakzi (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So, it's important to note that his mother was a piano teacher (Andreas Lubitz#Early life), but it's not important to note that he had a history of subjecting another person to bizarre, illegal conduct? It's not insinuation, it's a referenced statement. And it is referenced to a very reliable source. WWGB (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It's tabloid material. Millions of people suffer from depression and don't crash planes. Let's wait for the investigation to finish before drawing conclusions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
How do you lock someone else in a bathroom? Aren't the locks on the inside? I question the accuracy of that quote. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please avoid straw man arguments. The Telegraph is a reliable source (for some degrees of "reliable") but it is merely quoting Bild, which is quoting his ex-girlfriend. Please see WP:NOTNEWS and remember that we bear some responsibility for the things we publish. Alakzi (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Mandruss on the matter. Lets avoid peacock terms as much as possible. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Some bathroom doors have a lock with a key which can be locked from both sides. It ain't rocket science! 87.113.71.30 (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If the validity of the source is in doubt, surely it has no place within Wikipedia? Caulkie (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Crash section needs updating

According to all of today's Italian media outlets, the cockpit recording reveals that the passengers actually began screaming at 10.33 when the plane began its rapid descent and Captain Sonderheimer started knocking on the door. On it are also heard the conversation in the cockpit between the two pilots when Sonderheimer tells Lubitz to prepare for the landing in Dusseldorf. The latter's words (when translated into English) were "I hope. We'll see". And Sonderheimer's final words before the plane impacted the mountain were: "Open for the love of God" and lastly "Open the God-damned door".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia is making an ass of itself by relying on outdated information. WHY were my sourced updates removed? A lot has emerged since 27 March including the possible discovery of Lubitz's body!!!! It is useless to edit here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You mean he's dead? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Remains taken away for examination have been possibly identified as his. I suppose the editors here at this page will wait until the search is over before this is allowed to go in!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Jeanne Boleyn, I share your frustration, but I for one am suspicious of the single Bild source that other newspapers are translating and quoting; the latest information seems to be coming from only this one source. If only this one source has the new information, aren't you suspicious also? Let's be cautious and professional. Prhartcom (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
All the Italian news outlets are reporting it and using Sonderheimer's exact words to Lubitz. Think about it. Would the passengers have remained silent for over five minutes as the plane descended rapidly with the Alps looming up and the pilot screaming and kicking at the cockpit door? Surely nobody believed for a moment it was part of a Germanwings stage production put on expressly for their onboard entertainment?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
When you say "all are reporting it", aren't they just repeating the single Bild source? Double-check. I found and deleted a Bild source on this page that had not a single fact; it was just a huge pile of breathless speculation. I am simply asking us all to use caution. Wikipedia is not a news source looking for the latest scoop; it doesn't have to have up-to-the-minute updates. Certainly if you find something to add that reliable sources report as fact, I agree you should add it. Just keep a suspicious eye. Sometimes sources are just speculation, or are just repeating another source's speculation. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Anyway the facts will all come out at the end of the investigation when they've identified all the bodies and start the inquest. Lufthansa is facing a huge monetary payout to the families so every detail will be scrutinised with a sieve.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
"You mean he's dead?" Indeed, is there a reliable source saying that Lubitz is dead? He might have survived the crash somehow and is now singing duets with Elvis in South America. Per Wikipedia policies WP:V and WP:BLP we should remove the unverified information like Lubitz's death date from the relevant articles. After all, the investigation is not complete so including that information would be premature. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's leave the guy's name out de-emphasize the guy's name

The suicidal co-pilot once told a girlfriend that "everybody would know his name"; so, in a way, by committing a heinous act, murdering 150 people, he unfortunately got his wish, not by being famous, but by being infamous. In a way, Wikipedia is rewarding such bad behavior by publishing his name, which might possibly encourage future bad behavior. So, my question is, is the guy's name necessary? How about we all agree to call him the "suicidal co-pilot" and leave it at that, or maybe have one see-also link at the bottom of the page for those who really need to know that information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, I doubt that doing this would achieve anything useful - his name has been plastered all over the mass media, and omitting it now would merely attract further comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I suppose there has to be an article on the guy, but I see nothing wrong with de-emphasizing it here. As a referent, we can simply call him the "suicidal co-pilot" and that does the job. The name is not all that important. Maybe list it once, or have a link like [[the guy's name|suicidal co-pilot]]. Lots of Wikipedians fly. Think its a good idea not to encourage depressed pilots to fly into mountains.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer: The co-pilot isn't alive to collect any perceived reward, and there's no chance of him being resuscitated. So, it's a moot point, unfortunately. N.b. I was the first person to put his name in the article, and that was two or three days ago. Plenty of people have seen it since then, I'm unaware of any other complaint and nobody, amongst the several hundred thousand page views, has attempted to remove it. Regards, EP111 (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@EP111: I was not blaming any one edit, in fact I was the person who originally floated the article suicide by pilot. My concern is not with the deceased co-pilot but with future pilots, possibly suffering from depression, thinking they may possibly get some recognition after they die just like this co-pilot did, and my concern is for the passengers who may be riding on such a plane. If we can not remove the name entirely, I recommend de-emphasizing it as much as possible. It is perfectly acceptable to use the phrase "a depressed co-pilot" rather than the guy's name.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but it applies just as much to hundreds, or thousands, of other articles. If you seek that kind of change, it would have to be site-wide. Your only hope for that would be an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and that would be a very small hope. It might even require endorsement by the WMF, making it even less likely to succeed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Encyclopaedic coverage precludes such a moral, or humanitarian, initiative, however well-meaning. Maybe we shouldn't mention that shouty guy's name over at World War II? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, good points. Still, what we can do, is de-emphasize the guy's name, emphasize the mental illness, to lessen the chance of copycat crashes in future. We all fly on planes, don't we? Seems reasonable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's just rubbish to think that Wikipedia is going to somehow influence someone when many, many news stories in print and on television are carrying on about this incident. That's not a responsibility of the project and pointless, anyway. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with HammerFilmFan to think that by citing his name within Wikipedia will influence a future copycat is inconsequential. By his actions, Lubitz has greatly reduced the chance of a future copycat situation because airlines will put measures into place to ensure that the possibility is greatly reduced. Caulkie (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't censored out of a random belief that it will prevent violence. ― Padenton|✉   07:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
That's good news for the curators of list of rampage killers. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Pilot's name

Someone changed this from Sondenheimer to Sondheimer, citing a Telegraph source dated today. Since Sondenheimer gets four times as many hits in a search of Google News Archive, I'm changing it back to Sondenheimer, citing a CNN source dated today. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"Sonderheimer" would appear to be the commonest. Alakzi (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Five times as many as Sondenheimer at Google News Archive. The difference is far less clear when I limit it to news within the past 24 hours. It doesn't give estimated hit counts when you do that, and the actual content is very mixed among the three spellings. I'm leaving it as is for now, and hopefully the media will sort this out in a few days. If others wish to play ping-pong with the name in the meantime, who am I to deny them that pleasure? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This name has been removed pending official release. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What the British MSM have named him is not relevant. What is relevant is that the German Press call him Sondheimer. 87.113.71.30 (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Tend to agree. Not the sort of mistake the German press would make. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no urgency to get the name into the article before it has been officially released, and it's not useful to get into debates about the relative competence of German vs. non-German news media as to the names of German citizens. Does German media have access to hard information that the rest of the world does not? I'm not speaking of leaks. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Is the airline legally obliged to release a full list of passenger and crew names? And if so when? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Doubtful, it's really only the business of the family members, and only for their loved ones. To the rest of the world it's just a spectacle, but that's just my opinion. I just don't see how there'd be a law forcing it. ― Padenton|✉   22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There is now a CNN article, with video, calling him Sondenheimer multiple times, both in writing and in speech, attributing the name to a relative who they name using the same pronunciation. That's good enough for me. The change has been made by a different editor and I'm for letting it stand until contradicted by something more authoritative. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"What is relevant is that the German Press call him Sondheimer." No it is not. We have WP:COMMONNAME for deciding cases like this. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
this is not a case of WP:COMMONNAME . this is about someone's actual name, i.e. the one in his id or passport. ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
True. This person was unknown until a week ago, and this is just a matter of some of the media getting the name wrong in the rush to publish something. It's not a question of "what name is this person better known by", which is what COMMONNAME is about. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Video of Thomas Winkelmann and archives

Thomas Winkelmann made a videos. Unfortunately as of right now the videos are too big to archive at http://webcitation.org.

As of writing there are no versions with Spanish or French subtitles WhisperToMe (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I watched the English version, so thanks for the link. He doesn't really add anything substantive to the information we have, though. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, ok. In order to help Wikipedians and researchers I often mass-archive primary sources (especially air accident investigation agency reports and side documents), especially if somebody at a later point finds them useful and/or if they fall into the public domain and can be included as media. I'd rather not need something and have it, than need something and not have it. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure, no problem just archiving it here for future use. You never know who many find it of value later on. - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Framed

The Independent reports that "Supporters of the Germanwings crash co-pilot Andreas Lubitz claim he may have been framed as responsible to cover up a major mechanical failure." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Our first conspiracy theory, isn't it? What took so long? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
"A Facebook group that reportedly includes hundreds of people from the pilot’s hometown", eh? Sounds impartial. Might be worth a mention, but with due weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
And while we're at it... the Daily Mail claims - girlfriend pregnant, he cheated on girlfriend with a stewardess and police found 'small mountain of pills' in his flat. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Must've had a huge flat. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll request a move to CHEATING DRUGGIE GERMAN PILOT KNOCKS UP GIRLFRIEND, FRAMED FOR AIRLINER CRASH !!!. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I tried Googling "small mountain of pills" to see where "reports emerged" from, and it seems The Daily Mail can time travel, because the only ones repeating that unattributed quote emerge later (at least every recycler six result pages in). Way to ruin the Internet, boys! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Has small mountains, but there is a nearby gap. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

So should anything be added about this supposed "major mechanical failure", whatever that might be imagined to have been? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No. We Are Wikipedians. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I Am Canadian. When I said it might be worth a small mention, I meant say there's a group of supporters saying things, perhaps in a "Social media" subsection of "Reaction". Don't say the things, then cite the group. Their case is about as well-researched and reasoned as "Facebook group" suggests. I don't mind if we don't mention them at all, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Descent is not nationality

"One German citizen of Turkish descent"? [1]

Would we list Italian-Americans on a line labelled "Italy"? (I'm not talking about dual citizenship, but about Americans whose grandparents immigrated from Italy. That's what is meant by "descent".) ―Mandruss ☎ 13:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nationality can be ethnic, personal or legal. The word in the article should be changed to citizenship, to avoid the ambiguity. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
And the Turkey line should be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I got it. I mean I did it. I understand, too, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I meant the row for Turkey should be removed. The source that we give for that row says it was a German of Turkish descent, ergo it does not belong in the table. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, shit. Guess I didn't understand. Now I get it, but haven't gotten to it. How about you get this one? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Whether that person is already included in the Germany number is a different question. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
My math is far worse than my reading comprehension, but it seems to add up to 150 now. If so, the fake Turk is either already German or something else is off by one. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually it adds up to 154 now. We're far from getting it to 150, and I'm not even sure that was the intent of the person who came up with this scheme. Part of me thinks their idea was to list citizenships, with the footnotes explaining why it doesn't add up. On the other hand, there are no rows for Bosnia or Poland, which are parts of two of the multiples. So I'm at somewhat of a loss to figure this out. I'm working on an alternative in my sandbox; when it's done we can decide which is the least unacceptable. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you count the four multicitizens? I don't think you're supposed to. They're included under one or another already. No idea which ones, but like you say, the Bosnian must be in the Germans. Good luck finding a better way! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
See below. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Right. Duh. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd still be careful with final numbers unless a manifest is released. The press are notriously bad at math especially when they hear something like "150 dead including 6 crew members." They don't understand "including" is different than "plus" and they feed off each other. They could take that 150 and mangle it anywhere from 138 to 162 as they overthink the math. Many haven't done arithmetic since gradeschool and nary a one seems good at it. --DHeyward (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep. For quite a while, the 2012 Aurora shooting had 70 injured, total. Then one day, it was 70, plus 12 dead. I just glanced at the edit history to find out when, and noticed it's still confusing people. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
July 3, 2013. Almost a year. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@DHeyward: Well we're currently seriously overstating the degree of certainty, then, since we nowhere say anything like "This table shows only rough estimates taken from preliminary information, so the counts do not total 150." As currently written, it's "These are the correct numbers, period, and they don't add up to 150 because of multiple citizenships." That's wrong, and it's unprofessional. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a SYNTH problem that the press doesn't care about. The 150 is straight from the German Government. The nationalities are from the press human interest section. We're taking multiple sources and trying to get them to match and the sources don't care if they match so they don't. It's frustrating trying to put it together but until there is one source for all, it's gonna be tough. we can note that the numbers come from different places. --DHeyward (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternative fatalities table

Please look at this alternative format for the fatalities table and state your preference. Note that both versions currently add up to 154, so both need some adjustment. This is just about which format is clearer, taking into consideration that my version does not require any explanatory footnotes. Also note that the tooltips for citation numbers don't work in a sandbox, so nothing will happen when you hover over a citation number in my version. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I like it, except for one thing: The number adds up to 154 but we lost clarity why it is actually supposed to add up to 150. That part needs to be fixed; it was better before with the "150" and the "4" at the bottom. I had just updated the table and it looks like you got the new tallies; good. The sources say the number of Germans is 72; I found we are not reporting 2 Bosnian citizens who are also German citizens; and I see you added that; good. I also found we are reporting 1 from Turkey although that is really a German national with Turkish descent, and I see you deleted that; good. Prhartcom (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
How about a new column in the middle, leaving the first column for only the number of souls lost, which would add up to 150, the second would have the multi-citizenship, which would add up to... (4? Not sure.) So the "Germany" row would have a "70" and a "2", "United Kingdom" would have a ""2" and a "1", etc. The two numbers added together should match the number of souls lost according to that country's source (I think). Prhartcom (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
But that wouldn't say what the other citizenships are, only how many. And all but 3 cells in that column would be blank, not a good use of space. As for the extra explanatory row at the end, "Number of fatalities with multiple citizenships" is not an explanation for why it adds up to 154. My version makes this crystal clear by splitting out the multiples into separate rows. The reason it doesn't add up is because some of the numbers are simply wrong. I didn't see much benefit to adding a row at the bottom saying, "Some of the numbers are wrong, that's why it doesn't add up." I would sooner remove the table until we have the right numbers that add up to 150. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they're wrong; I think the numbers reported by each country are now correct and accounted for, it's just that when you add the total number reported from each country it is higher than the number of souls lost and the difference is exactly the number with dual multiple citizenship. I know you made those with dual multiple citizenship clear but it is at the expense of other clarity, for example, Germany is now on two rows and the rows aren't next to each other. On reflection, I'm afraid it was better before; sorry. Prhartcom (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No, at least in my version, they're wrong because no person should be represented on more than one row. That's why I reduced the counts for Germany, UK, and Mexico when I split off their multiples. As for Germany-Bosnia being seven rows below Germany, I consider that an acceptable trade-off, but that's why I started this thread instead of boldly changing it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I hear you; I wish your version was working; I wanted to like it. End the end I realized it is good that we have a "72" next to Germany, a "51" next to Spain, and a "3" next to the UK because the sources say "72 Germans" were lost, "51 Spaniards" were lost, and "3 Britons" were lost; we can't trade that kind of matching accuracy away. We also need the tallies to total correctly; readers are going to check and ensure the numbers from each country total the numbers we placed at the bottom: a "150" (number of souls lost) plus a "4" (number with dual multiple citizenship) is that total. I suppose the footnotes are just going to have to describe who the four dual multiple citizenship souls are, and I suppose that's fine. Let's hear from some others. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm giving most readers credit for enough intelligence not to stop reading at "Germany 70" and get upset because it doesn't say 72. I think most will look farther and be able to figure out that 70 Germans and two German-Bosnians account quite well for "72 Germans". Also you speak of 4 dual citizenships, which is incorrect according to the current table. It says there are three duals and one triple, and one of the benefits of my format is that it sorts that out quite nicely, and it will add up to 150 when the numbers are corrected, eliminating any need for further explanation. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
To restate: The two problems with the hypothetical table are:
1) The numbers in the proposed table do not match the numbers reported by sources, because the sources report total per nationality (the proposed table reports single citizenship citizens separately from multiple-citizenship citizens, requiring us to work logic and math in our head from rows that are not next to each other in order to make the sources match, while the present table simply reports the same number as the sources).
2) The tallies in the proposed table do not total to the number at the bottom because supposedly "the numbers are wrong" (when the reason is really the multiple-citizenship citizens, while the present table simply depicts as another separate total at the bottom).
The current table does not have those two problems that the hypothetical table creates. As for the multiple-citizenship citizens in footnotes rather than rows, it's not a big deal, at least it's not made more confusing by creating two worse problems. Prhartcom (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I like it a bit better. It sort of feels like it's not in alphabetical order, which is OK, because it's not supposed to be, but that feeling wasn't there before Germany and Germany-Bosnia were so far apart. Probably just me being weird, though. At least it adds up. Sold! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. At least it will add up, once we correct the numbers. And like I said, "least unacceptable" is the best we can hope for in a messy situation like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
You keep saying the numbers need correcting but you have no evidence for incorrect numbers. They know who was on the flight, they have contacted the families, and they know their nationalities. Prhartcom (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
In my version, as I said above, no person should be represented on more than one row. It should go without saying, but no person should be represented more than once on their row, either. One person, one tally mark. Thus, the numbers in the rows should add up to the total number of fatalities, which we know to be 150. Instead, they add up to 154. That is my evidence for incorrect numbers, application of simple logic.
Most likely, the reason for the error is multiple occurrences of double representation. For example, perhaps there was only one person with X citizenship, a dual X-Y citizenship, and that person is incorrectly counted as two people, an X and an X-Y.
If we don't have the necessary source information to make the numbers add up correctly, I don't see how the footnotes in the existing table could be correct. Obviously we know very precise information about the multiples. Could you humor me and explain that? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(Let's suspend this pending a resolution of #Fatalities table is incorrect, below.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll withdraw this proposal as not an improvement. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Fatalities table is incorrect

This is related to the thread above but really needs to be separate. It needs attention even if it's decided not to go with the alternative format.

If you look closely at the current table, it's clear that each fatality is intended to be represented only once in the counts. Take, for example, the row for Germany. The number is 72, and the footnote says that includes two German-Bosnians. The German-Bosnians are not counted again elsewhere in the table, and in fact there is no row for Bosnia.

If each person is represented only once in the counts, why do the counts add up to 154?

You can't explain that discrepancy with the note at the bottom of the table. Either I'm completely losing it, or our logic is completely flawed here. Which is it? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You people are sure confusing me, that much is clear. Last time I counted, I got 150 (not counting the multis) on both versions. This time, it's 154, no multis, both versions. I sometimes miscount, but to miscount by the exact number of multis, despite not counting them, seems an unlikely coincidence. There's some sort of perfectly logical problem here, whether in math or sourcing. I can't find it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Nothing has changed in the tables, certainly not in the live version, so I give up. Anyway, let's first reach a consensus that the current table can't be right, and then we can proceed to where it's wrong and how to fix it. It's a glaring and very unencyclopedic error, and fixing it should be a very high priority. If it can't be fixed with the information we have today, we should at least stop pretending it's correct, explaining the discrepancy with a note that does not explain it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, checking the edit history was my first instinct. Same table. Should've said the situation's confusing, not "you people" (that sounds a bit bad, regardless). I certainly don't pretend it's correct, and agree that it should be a high priority. But not my priority. My brain isn't built for this. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. For the "how to fix" part, I'm mostly appealing to the people who built the table and are most familiar with the sources. Except for Prhartcom, I don't know who they are. Perhaps Prhartcom knows who they are and can ping them, or, better yet, drop notes on their respective talk pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Possibly infants less than two years old. No passport and no seat. There was at least one infant one board (I believe the opera singer had an infant). They are notoriously undereported until the actual manifest is released. There could very easily be a discrepancy between the manifest and the passport count. --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The Spanish-British-Polish passenger was an infant, who we count. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is overreporting, not underreporting. The counts add up to 4 more than the known total fatalities. But I take it you agree that the current table can't be correct. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
My point was that the "official number" of 150 may not be accurate (despite 6 days and repeated coverage). I don't think the manifest has been released yet. I'd not fret about the table until the official manifest is released. The press is almost always wrong when they run out of fingers and toes to count with. --DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I had just noticed that also; the two from Bosnia do not appear anywhere else on the table. It's the same with the one from Poland; that country also has no row. So if we continue to ignore Bosnia and Poland for the moment, both the UK and Mexico each have one muti-citizenship citizen that is also from Spain; so subtracting those two from Spain is two less the reported 51 or "49" – yet adding together all these tallies adds up to 152 – still not the number 150 for some reason. Aaarg. So what is to be done? I believe the first priority is as follows: Ensure the data in the table matches the sources. This is first and foremost. Fortunately for us, it is not our requirement as editors to explain the discrepancy or synthesize the reason the reported numbers do not add up to 150. Some of us here in this discussion feel we must get to the bottom of this right now. But it is actually not important to ensure that no person should be represented on more than one row. It is not even important to say the current table can't be right and that it is up to us to fix it. Yes, we have to help the article make sense if possible, but what is most important is that we as editors ensure that the number of nationalities reported in the table are the same numbers that were reported in the sources. I have checked the source for each row to ensure the numbers are right; I have updated a few sources; I haven't seen any more tally updates being reported (so the tally updates appear to have settled, at least for now). I'm open to new ideas but I believe we have to use the numbers as reported by the sources. Prhartcom (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: If we can't "get to the bottom of this right now", I can accept that just fine, thanks. What I can't accept is (1) the absence of any indication that the numbers are extremely fuzzy at this point, and (2) that we clearly imply that the reason for the discrepancy is the multiple citizenships, which is blatantly WRONG. The multiple citizenships actually have NOTHING to do with the discrepancy, as I have explained above. Fix those two things, and I'm happy for the time being. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I have updated a few sources and I updated the Germany tally (the sources said 72 but the table said 70; I corrected the number for Germany to 72); I haven't seen any more tally updates being reported. I wish we had more accurate reliable sources. You said it, the table is probably wrong and probably not because of the multi-nationals; more likely because the number the sources are reporting for Germany or Spain is incorrect. But our table matches the sources, so that is our main job accomplished, for now. Prhartcom (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Our job is to be as factual as we can be. We are currently not, on either of the two counts I noted above. I am working on the edit to correct that, which will take awhile as it will involve learning a little more about wikitables. If someone then wishes to revert me, we can go to an RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I know wikitables, what do you need? Don't change the numbers on the table to numbers that don't appear in the sources. Prhartcom (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: I need to remove the last two rows of the table and replace them with one row spanning all three columns and containing the small text: Estimates based on preliminary data. Counts do not total 150. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I'll set up the table and ping you when it's time for you to add the text. Prhartcom (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Okay. Prhartcom (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 Done and  Thank you very much!. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: But it makes the columns too wide because it doesn't wrap the bottom text. Any way to fix that, aside from inserting a <br> in the bottom text? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks brilliant on my browser; exactly the same size as before. Your new edit made the table smaller for me and probably for a lot of people. It's going to be on a lot of different devices. My question is: Don't we want to mention the "multiple citizenship"? That phrase is in the article (with a source). Prhartcom (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
My preference was to let it wrap the bottom text by itself, after setting the column widths according to their content. But if that's not possible, ok. As to multiple citizenship, we do mention that in the footnotes, and, as we've established, they have no effect on the total count. What would such a comment say? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Since your note tries to explain why the numbers don't total 150, so does the following: something like, "Some passengers had multiple citizenship." Prhartcom (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
If you mean that the multiples might be part of the reason for the discrepancy (which is just a guess at this point), I think "based on preliminary data" covers that adequately. If we felt the need to explain why the preliminary data remains fuzzy, we could do that in prose. We currently say, "The early count was confused by multiple citizenship," and that could instead say, "Exact victim counts by citizenship have not yet been determined. This may be partly due to individuals having multiple citizenships." or some such thing. But I don't think the table needs anything like that. Hopefully people will actually read at least some of the adjacent prose, especially if they care about the exact numbers. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Obviously passengers with additional citizenship will add additional nationalities to the mix. I hope you can see that. I have added the note. Prhartcom (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what that means, so I don't know what I'm supposed to see. As we've seen using the German-Bosnians as the example, the multiples do not affect the total count. They have absolutely no effect on the table outside of the footnotes. You have added a note that tells the reader nothing that the footnotes don't already tell them, which is that some victims had multiple citizenships. I give up. At least it's vastly better than it was a couple of hours ago, so I'll call that a good day's work. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, let me try it like this for you: If there are two people in a room alone, and one of them is German-Bosnian and the other is American, how many total nationalities can you count in the room? Is it the same as the number of people or is it more? Prhartcom (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
As I have stated ad nauseam, we are not counting the additional citizenships (must I use boldface, all caps, and <big>...</big> for you to hear that?), we are only referring to them in footnotes. Therefore your analogy is useless. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I see the problem. When the Spanish government reports 51 Spanish, I believe they are including the person who was Spanish and Mexican and the person who was Spanish-Polish-British. Meanwhile, when the Mexican government reports two Mexicans, I believe they are including the person who was Spanish and Mexican again, and when the British government reports three Britons, I believe they are including the person who was Spanish-Polish-British again. Now do you get it? Prhartcom (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
From your silence I take it you finally do. See, that's why "The early count was confused by multiple citizenship". That's why there was a row at the bottom trying to account for the "Number of fatalities with multiple citizenship" double-counts (it fails to, though; it seems to be off by two). I honestly thought you had understood this concept. Re-read other's comments and they will make more sense now. Prhartcom (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I was confused by the fact that you spent hours yesterday emphatically insisting that the numbers were correct, while I was telling you that they had to be wrong. My bad. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC) [User's comment restored by Prhartcom (talk)]
And I didn't even have to use boldface, all caps! ;-) You can take comfort in the fact that the tallies reported by the governments do still seem to be wrong. Restating from above, I only see two souls counted twice (the two Spanish). The two Bosnians are not counted twice and the one Pole is not either. It seems to be off by two. Prhartcom (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
If you are double-counting anyone, that is wrong and is the cause of all the problems. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I saw you try to change your answer there. It's not me double-counting anyone, it's the reliable sources. We are just presenting what the sources say in the table. They don't exactly add up, so our comments at the bottom of the table try to explain why. I think we're done with this discussion. Prhartcom (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
If you insist on making this a table of citizenships, rather than of people killed, then at least make it clear that's what it is. Otherwise readers will intuitively expect it to be numbers of fatalities (you can only die once, regardless of how many citizenships you have). Change the table heading to Citizenships of fatalities, and change the footer text to: The table counts citizenships, not people. Those with multiple citizenships are counted in multiple table rows, and total count exceeds number of fatalities. Counts are based on preliminary data and may be adjusted later. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Re-read the title at the top of the table. Prhartcom (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Descent time/speed

It looks like the descent time line and speed need to be corrected. The NYTimes timeline is from 24 March. This 25 March article claims to have the correct descent time/speed: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germanwings-plane-crash-airbus-a320-glide-to-destruction-took-18-minutes-not-8-10131891.html --Pmsyyz (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the NYT source we are using for that? If so, I don't see where you are getting the 24 March date. I only see "updated March 27". The ref states a date and accessdate of 26 March. Both would make it a little more recent than your source, and in any case I don't know of anyone who considers NYT a less reliable source than independent.co.uk. I'm not saying your information is clearly wrong, but I don't think that single source is enough to justify the change. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at recent stories with timestamps and the voice recorder transcript, I guess The Independent is just wrong. Thanks. --Pmsyyz (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Gingers facing extinction? Nope. Boobs preventing women from exercising? Not quite. Facebook dead and buried? Clearly. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

type of incident

@WWGB: Currently the infobox says "murder-suicide" but if this is a murder suicide, then it must be a mass murder, and the suicide must be a suicide by pilot. Yet when I added that to the infobox, it was reverted as being "not proven". The infobox still says "murder-suicide" which is also not proven. So, this state of affairs perplexes me. If it is to say "murder-suicide", then the murder part of that statement is a mass murder, and the suicide part of that statement is a suicide-by-pilot. So what is wrong with stating what I stated? If it shouldn't say "murder-suicide", then reverting me and doing nothing else is wrong, because it still says "murder-suicide".

As it does say "murder-suicide" in the infobox after the revert, what is wrong with adding the category for it? Category:Murder–suicides (as well as the one for mass murder, Category:Mass murder in 2015 )

-- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Just as background, this issue was discussed recently and archived here without consensus. A consensus would be good. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm also perplexed. Maybe only those nearest the front were murdered, and the instant the murderer was dead, the rest were credited to inertia? Maybe a co-pilot can't be a full pilot, by virtue of his title, so can only commit half suicide?
Seriously, those are the best answers I have. I hope I didn't guess right. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to hear at least WWGB and Padenton weigh in here. If the preponderance of RS is not enough, what will be? The final investigative report? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mandruss: I'd be happy with that I think. WP:BREAKING notes that even WP:RS sources are likely to have factual errors in their rush to cover the story as every little fact and rumor pops up. Over the past few days, I've seen countless articles from ordinarily reputable sources like the New York Times continuing the gossip without any basis in fact. They'll attribute it to some anonymous source (or 'an acquaintance of the co-pilot' is one I saw today) of course, but editors are rushing to add it to the page in their haste (In good faith, of course). There's no rush to add it while it's still inconclusive. ― Padenton|✉   08:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I don't feel strongly either way, but it would be good to have a consensus that we can refer to in editsums. So, peeps, how about more participation this time around? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Now that it's not called a murder-suicide at all, I'm far less perplexed. I'd be willing to bet we could declare it now and still be right when the best source in the world comes out, but WP:NOTAGAMBLINGHOUSE. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have reverted it back to its good old plain and generalised description of 'Deliberate flight into terrain' -- with this description, we know what stage of flight the accident occurred and this also means we do not have any qualms with regards to references and exact wording (i.e. murder-suicide) of what this incident is about. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germanwings_Flight_9525/Archive_3&oldid=1143081015"