Talk:Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

thats so wrong

I'm not sure I follow you. If a detail on the page is wrong you can discuss it here, or since this is a Wiki, just edit the main page directly. Alternatively if you feel the events of this story are morally wrong, I can't help you. -- Solipsist 21:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

English?

Does someone know how the last sentence under the "Timeline" section is supposed to read? Right now it reads, "Santiago's news paper "El mercurio" is front page reported to the "all survivors was cannibalism"." Can someone that can actually write in English type this sentence correctly? My suggestion is, "The Santiago newspaper "El Mercurio" reported on its front page that all survivors resorted to cannibalism." However, I don't know how the original headline read in Spanish, so I don't know what the best translation would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.42.34 (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Death of Liliana Methol

Survivors' official writer P.P.Read wrote that Liliana finally accepted the meat and was becoming good when an avalanche killed her. --Ypacaraí 12:59, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. You're right, of course. I just got to that part in Read's book. Corrected the article to reflect it. Avalyn 05:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article title

Previous discussion moved here from Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/archive4

I have an article naming conundrum. I've just been looking for an article on the 1972 plane crash in the Andes following which the survivors turned to cannibalism in order to live. Wikipedia, has references to the event at 1972, in Cannibalism and for the film Alive: The Miracle of the Andes. There is also a good external reference at [1].

Now it seems to me, there should be an article for this event in and of itself - but what should it be titled? I can only think of Plane crash Chile (1972), which isn't brilliant. --Solipsist 08:27, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

For commercial airliner crashes, the standard seems to be "<Airline name> Flight <flight number>", for example Air New Zealand Flight 901 (see List of accidents and incidents on commercial airliners grouped by location). Since this was a Uruguayan air force plane, and I can't find a flight number, I might suggest Uruguayan Air Force Fairchild FH-227D if that's not too obscure! -- Arwel 10:43, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have always found the standard odd, because it does not mention that it is about a crash. Also, the Uruguayan Air Force may have other planes of type Fairchild FH-227D.--Patrick 11:09, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Personally I think the article should be named by what the incident is most commonly known as. I do note that in the United States it is common to call air disaster after the flight number. But in other parts of the world it is not. Example while US people refer to Pan Am Flight 103 people in the UK refer to it as the Lockerbie disaster. Now getting back to original question. There doesn't seem to be a common name. Andies disaster has been used by some media, but there have also been other crashes in the Andies. -- Popsracer 11:23, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suspect the Airline Flight 001 naming standard comes from general air incident investigations, the majority of which don't end in a crash. I'm not sure that Uruguayan Air Force Fairchild FH-227D works, because it sounds like it would be about a type of plane in the Uruguayan Air Force. So now I'm leaning towards Andes Flight Disaster (1972) or Uruguayan Air Force Flight (1972). An analogous problem occurs with the 1994 crash of a Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre, killing several top UK anti-terrorism experts. It seems to mostly be refered to as The Chinook Helicopter Crash/Disaster, even though I would have thought it was not the only Chinook to crash. -- Solipsist 12:23, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Might I suggest renaming the article in question with the standard plane crash nomenclature, i.e., Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571? Avalyn 06:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • Perhaps the naming strategy stems from the fact that the flight number is never used again and therefore becomes unique to the incident.*** JFC

"The 1972 Andes (crash) disaster" ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.87.84.40 (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Air Force

Why did they fly military? I understand that in the Andes, the military takes some role of colonization of the wilderness. --Error 4 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)

The only commercial Uruguyan Airline is Pluna. The flight they got was probably a chartered flight (non-scheduled). Perhaps this might have been a factor as well? (I am just thinking out lout, tho) --Pinnecco 01:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

They flew a military charter because it was less exepensive than a commerical flight. -CB

That's also the reason they crashed since a foreign military plane can't remain on Argentine territory for more than 24 hours. I'll do some research and add up to the article.--Wesborland 22:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Age

Something should be said about their ages. --Error 4 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)

nitpicky

Alpinist is a pretty eurocentric term for a mountain climber.

In this case they called themselves Andinists.

Nitpicky, I disagree. Alpes (Alps) is not considered a word exclusive to Europe in South America. I lived in Uruguay for 6 years and Alpinistas is used (is also common in Brazil). --Pinnecco 02:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

And in Brazil, actually "alpinista" only means "rock climber". --Ypacaraí 03:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Reid calls them "Andinists" but Parrado calls them "Alpinists" (in their respective books)- Alex Durrans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.87.84.40 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by numbers of those who survived...

45 on plane. 27 survived initial crash. 9 died later.

That would make 18 survivors rescued but 16 is quoted?

12 died in or immediately following the crash

5 died during the first night and into the next morning

1 succumbed to injuries eight days following the crash

8 died in an avalanche thirteen days after the crash

3 succumbed to injuries/infection after the avalanche and before rescue

16 survived the whole ordeal--Wurmis 16:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Due to a curious navigation error, the pilot notified air controllers in Santiago that he was over Curicó"

In P.P.Read's book it seems to say that Dante Hector Lagurara was the one in contact with Santiago air traffic control and the one flying the plane at the time of the crash. Lagurara is mentioned as the copilot, and Julio Ferradas is named as the pilot. When the book is describing the pilot and copilot a few pages earlier it says that "[Lagurara] was now flying the Fairchild under the eyes of Ferradas to gain experience". I'm not sure whether to edit the article to read "copilot", since technically if Lagurara was the one flying the plane at the time of the crash then he could be described as pilot. Indeed at the end of the book it talks about the investigations into the crash that blamed it on the "human error of the pilot".--JackMcJiggins 05:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Location?

Would anyone have the actual long/lat coordinates of the crash site?

I think I found it...

Try This Map, Which I took the link from this site (in spanish)

The Cerro Sosneado is at 34 44' S 69 59' W. By looking at the map on the link above, I found the location at the crash at the coordinates 34 45' S 70 17' W --Pinnecco 10:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked on Google Earth and although I can't see anything it would be neat to have a more percise lat long and some descriptor as to the route out.

Vizintín

It says that they had been walking for three days before they decided to send Vizintín back, but then it states that it only took him three hours to get back to the crash site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.139.149.169 (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Vizintin's return was mostly downhill, some of which he used a seat cushion as a sled. The previous three days had been uphill and thus more difficult.Wurmis 15:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Flying altitude question

The article says "Because the Fairchild could not fly higher than 29,500 feet, the plane could not fly directly from Mendoza, over the Andes, to Santiago." Now, I don't know anything about aviation, so I was wondering if anyone could explain why the plane could not fly directly, given that the highest mountain in the Andes is "only" 22,841 feet high. Shouldn't the plane be able to fly over it with almost 7000 feet (2000 meters) to spare? --Itub 13:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Crash Site Today

Would it be appropriate to add in a new section on the site today and photos etc of Survivors at the site and parts of the wreckage, tail etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomerkc (talk • contribs) 18:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rugby team crash stamp.jpeg

Image:Rugby team crash stamp.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Article lead discussion

A user is trying to change the lead. I disagree with the changes and reverted them 1, 2

My explanation is simple - I don't believe the cannibalism should be put in the lead. This subject is about so much else, and the cannibalism should not be made a focus. I disagree with aspects of the change.

This article has been around for a while and changing the lead like that is a drastic change.

To avoid wp:3RR and edit warring, I will not revert again, but if user insists on putting this in the lead, I will take it to wp:30. Unless, there's consensus here.

Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Drastic changes? Not really. Cannibalism is quite bizzare. Some, at least, of the men are quite open about it. I know this first hand having seen one giving his interview only a few months ago on the worlds longest running television show and you should not need me to describe what the main topic of debate was (lol, here it is from the guy who went for help Doctor Roberto Cannessa on the Late Late show March 2008, this is a first hand account, also Kris Kristofferson sings a great tune on that show anyone should watch it). The page has a particularly short lead section most contrary to the guidelines. I should insist on putting some information in the section simply because I found it and there is not enough there. Lead sections are not left short. The cannabalism is almost top of the list in this bizzare case by first hand account. 16 men spent 2 months eating ther friends to survive. This may be a grossly offensive act (I would agree, not hungry) and the subject certainly is about much more but it is all background. Plane crashed, people died, times were tough, they ate each other, somebody escaped to safety finding help for the others. I would suggest you word it to your own taste but the shocking cannabalism is almost omitted from the whole article and quite difficult to find. I feel like a shit dragging it up now but it would be most unfair to make it appear that the cannabalism was not signifigant. Ask the guy, he is a doctor. It is a signifigant item in psychology. ~ R.T.G 14:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your view seems a bit different than classifying it as "infamous", as you did with your first edit.

In addition, per wp:lead, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.

Surely you can understand why adding a new aspect to the lead is indeed a drastic change.

Question - is your knowledge of this subject limited to an interview on a talk show? Interesting.

Anyway, Thank You for taking this to the talk page. Hopefully there can be some sort of consensus.

--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • Are you suggesting that his being on a talk show makes little of him? Well, that does not change the importance of his opinions to this article. This was the guy who walked across the mountains to find help.

No, I'm suggesting that if all you know is an interview on the talk show, perhaps you should research the subject more.

• • • Are you suggesting that quoting him directly without ever seeing the movies or reading the books is not good enough? Well, quoting people directly is spot on.

I have not suggested anything about quoting RC. This is about the lead.

• • • As for adding "new aspect"s, Omar, the cannabalism is the main focus of interest in flight 571. Wether it is new or not, a good description would contain that information. Again go see the guy talk if you really are interested. If you are suspicous of this talk show, you haven't said why. If you are suspicious of talk shows in general, you havent said why either.

See first reply above.

• • • Sure, the word "infamous" is usually not accepted unless a person of standing says it. Good point.

If you read the Piers Paul Read or Nando's book, you would have a better understanding why I object to the term infamous.

• • • This cannablism is the main focus of interest in flight 571 and as you, Cheesebro, are saying, the lead should be a concise overview and further in that section you will find that it should be directed at the person with no previous knowledge of the subject. If it is surprising that they survived, it should say so, should it not?

Who says cannablism is the main focus?

• • • Perhaps a better wording of the lead would include the words "The main focus of interest in flight 571 is how the men were able to survive for so long in the cold without food." The main focus of interest is usually the main focus of interest. ~ R.T.G 06:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to get consensus with other users here. Our dialogue isn't accomplishing much.

--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the only question I see here. The men survived for a length of time unusual in such a situation, possibly longer than survivors of any other such incident on record. Is that worth noting in the description? ~ R.T.G 02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Also I have opened a thread at the reference desk which may turn up some information Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Eating humans and another at Wikiproject Disaster Management which again should find someone with relevant information if there is any Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management#Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571. Hopefully this is the best way to start when considering concensus (already some activity at the reference desk). ~ R.T.G 02:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is in response to a note from Omarcheeseboro on my talk page asking me to contribute to this discussion. In cases such as this, where WP guidelines do not offer a clear answer, it may be best to look towards original sources and see how the subject is discussed. I looked at the summary of the event offered by the official website of the survivors of the crash. I thought that it offered a useful template for the lead to this article as it does cover all aspects of the event but with a certain sensitivity which (particularly in light of WP:BLP) we should also keep in mind. Here is what it states:

On Friday 13th October of 1972, an Uruguayan plane, which was carrying 45 passengers to Chile, most of whom were students and rugby players, crashed in the Andes Mountains. Twelve of the people died in the crash. The survivors not only had to withstand the hunger and the fearful Mountains, but also 30 degree-below-zero temperatures during the night. They tried to survive with the scarce food reserves they had until being rescued, but they lost their hope when heard that the search had ceased on the radio. Desperate owing to the lack of food and physically exhausted, they were forced to feed themselves on their death partners to keep on living. Finally fed up with the extremely low temperatures and the avalanche threats, as well as anguished by the continuous deaths of their partners and the bad rescue prospects, two of them decided to cross the huge mountains to reach Chile. On 22nd of December of 1972, after being isolated for 72 days, the World found out and knew there were 16 survivors that beat Death in the Andes mountains.

http://www.viven.com.uy/571/eng/accidente.asp

Hope that helps. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Classicfilms.. along with the example you provided of primary sources, here's a description of the Piers Paul Read book which I think can also be considered-

On October 12, 1972, an Uruguayan Air Force plane carrying a team of rugby players crashed in the remote snowy peaks of the Andes. Ten weeks later, only sixteen of the forty-five passengers were found alive. This is the story of those ten weeks spent in the shelter of the plane's fuselage without food and with scarcely any hope of a rescue. The survivors protected and helped one another, and came to the difficult conclusion that to live meant doing the unimaginable. Confronting nature at its most furious, two brave young men risked their lives to hike through the mountains looking for help -- and ultimately found it.

As far as the lead, let me take a closer look at RTG's second edit

The incident was soon portrayed in a movie and particularly notable because many of the survivors cannibalised the bodies of dead passengers for food. It was more than two months before the uninjured passengers tried to walk to safety.

1. What does "soon portrayed in a movie" mean? The Ethan Hawke one? That came out over 20 years later. Perhaps the book can be substituted for the movie...which was released in 1974.

2. "particularly notable because many of the survivors cannibalised the bodies of dead passengers for food" - fine, I change my earlier stance and have no objection to that. But I would also add the extraordinary expedition of Parrado and Canessa to the sentence. In my opinion, that is equally (if not more) notable as the cannibalism. I won't get into the sensationalism aspect.

3. "It was more than two months before the uninjured passengers tried to walk to safety.". First of all, this is false. A simple perusal of the article shows that seven weeks after the crash, they went on their first expedition. Furthermore, the successful expedition was started on Dec. 12th. The crash was Oct 13th - not more than two months. Regardless, I would not put that in the lead. It suggests they were somehow lazy, which is very far from the truth. They first had to be sure the rescues were called off, they went on scouting expeditions, they sewed the sleeping bag, they were waiting for warmer tempatures, etc etc. It's best to leave that out of the lead.

--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a way to approach the lead - every statement in it must adhere to Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines, including notability. This case was notable for numerous reasons and became notable from the moment the survivors were rescued in December 1972. The authorized account came two years later and was followed by a few films, the most recent of which, Stranded, is a documentary attempt to offer a different perspective than that of Read's book, Alive. So, unless we have a reliable source to pinpoint notability, we should not credit notability to any particular event in the lead. I think that some version of the lead based upon the quote from the survivor's website and Read's text takes the article in a better direction. Parrado also co-authored an excellent account of the event which might also offer useful quotes to paraphrase. The lead as it stands is a little short for most Wikipedia articles - could you perhaps look through the above quotes and offer a paraphrase which might extend the lead but also do so in a manner sensitive to the topic? -Classicfilms (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, Thank you for your insight Classicfilms. I just want to make something clear. (Issues on talk pages can easily become convoluted). - While I agree that the current lead is on the short side, I have no problems with it. This issue came up because another user tried to change the lead. I have objections to some things in the user's proposed changes. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as the protagonist here I am inclined to agree with how you are discussing it now. I must admit that I was aware of my insensitivity only seeking to add facts quickly to an otherwise bare lead. There is occasionally bare and/or misleading lead sections. I must thank you for pointing out, I watched the film once or twice in the past and I was sure it was a seventies film not nineties and seeing the book of the same title "Alive" I had no doubt it was the film. "Particularly notable" is possible to reference but as implied here it is only POV from me and I only pressed it to argue that the cannibalism should be mentioned in the lead. Survivalist cannibalism is usually distinct from regular "eat the strangers" type and was once standard practice. I see nothing wrong with sensitivities but I argue when the facts are changed or hidden. I would support something like:

"Many who survived the initial crash had died of cold and injuries by the next day. The remaining survivors had barely any food or heat. Faced with starvation the survivors eventually fed on the dead passengers who were preserved in the snow. The rest of the world was not made aware of any survivors until 72 days after the crash when Nando Parrado and Dr Roberto Canessa, after a 12 day trek across the mountains, found a Chilean huaso who guided them to safety and help for the other survivors still trapped at the crash site."

I guess it is quite notable that the book came out so quickly. I think that it should be mentioned in the lead that the accident happened on Friday the 13th for any interested superstitious people and the lead should note that it was a time of terrible storms. Again, apologies for not correctly referencing the trek across the mountains. The guidelines set out a number of paragraphs to put in the lead section according to an articles size in kilobytes. This guideline size is quite large but every long article should have at least one or two nice size paragraphs and a few pictures. There is no list of passengers on the article now. It can be found on the website and perhaps should be listed at the bottom noting survivors, so I will add that now. I doubt anyone will object. ~ R.T.G 13:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

RTG, Thanks again for discussing the issue here. Here's my opinion on your proposed lead.

"Many who survived the initial crash had died of cold and injuries by the next day. The remaining survivors had barely any food or heat. Faced with starvation the survivors eventually fed on the dead passengers who were preserved in the snow. The rest of the world was not made aware of any survivors until 72 days after the crash when Nando Parrado and Dr Roberto Canessa, after a 12 day trek across the mountains, found a Chilean huaso who guided them to safety and help for the other survivors still trapped at the crash site."

1. First sentence - Initially I don't like it because it implies that the majority didn't make it to the next day. It says in the article that five died by the next morning, which I don't think is "many".

2. Second sentence - I'm not sure if you meant "barely had" instead of "had barely" but regardless, I would just say they were in the harsh conditions of 10,000+ ft in the remote Andes and leave it as that. That's a good addition to the lead

3. Third sentence - fine

4. Fourth sentence - "Rest of..." = not necessary.. "The World" would suffice. Rest of sentence is fine, though I would add a word or two to illustrate just how tough their trek was. Perhaps "treachous mountains". FYI, you can wiki-link to huaso, as that's how I found out what it means. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the word huaso on this article as well. I think even "treacherous" could be made better but would require some specific knowledge of the area. What you say looks good but before finishing, what do you say about adding mention of the Alive book, Friday the 13th and of course the terrible storms that hampered rescue ad possibly crashed the plane? I will try it again later today. I think now that I would mention the fact that many books and movies have been made, even plug the fact that a new movie is out, but not focus on the one book. (I will have to double check the info on the storms but if they were so bad there may be articles to link will check that stuff this evening) ~ R.T.G 10:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no to Friday the 13th, as this isn't an article about superstition. I have no idea what "terrible" storms you're referring to. A Wikipedia article does not "plug" new movies that are coming out. See wp:spam and Wikipedia:Recentism. Adding the Piers Paul Read book is fine --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean it only from the viewpoint that any mention would be a plug but no challenge to you there. I do think that Friday 13th is valid from popular culture but not from tact so forget that too. It was a storm the day before the crash but only clouds and wind on the day. Here is another go:

More than a quarter of the passengers died in the crash and several survivors of the initial impact had died of cold and injuries by the next day. The remaining survivors had very little food and no way to make heat in the harsh climate, over 10,000 feet altitude. Faced with starvation the survivors eventually fed on the dead passengers who were preserved in the snow. Rescue teams were not aware of the survivors until 72 days after the crash when Nando Parrado and Roberto Canessa, after a 12 day trek across the treacherous Andes mountains, found a Chilean huaso who guided them to safety where help was found for the other survivors still trapped at the crash site. ~ R.T.G 13:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's good. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding it like that so. Yeah, glad of the discussion. Looks better. Merry Christmas :) ~ R.T.G 17:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm celebrating Hannukah with my family this weekend, but I will try to have the Christmas spirit. Glad we were able to resolve this, hopefully other users will like the change as well. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

After adjusting a picture to remove a gap in text I am now thinking of reshuffling the pictures a bit and removing some of the instances of "Rescue" from the headings. "Rescue" appears at 3 times in the headings (Crash and rsecue, Rescue and return, The Mountain rescue) although only one rescue occured. Although some info about rescue is under each of those headings I think one should take the name and the others be named something relevant (if it is possible, I havent compared them closely just noting the repitition now) Happy Hannukah, Shalom. ~ R.T.G 13:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)