Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
199.46.251.141 (talk)
m →‎unclear sentence: response in unclear sentence
Line 220: Line 220:


[[Special:Contributions/199.46.251.141|199.46.251.141]] ([[User talk:199.46.251.141|talk]]) 15:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)"
[[Special:Contributions/199.46.251.141|199.46.251.141]] ([[User talk:199.46.251.141|talk]]) 15:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)"

I gave it a shot, according to the translated articles it looks like some people could not get on the flight due to not being able to produce negative COVID tests. - [[User:Alpacaaviator|Alpacaaviator]] ([[User talk:Alpacaaviator|talk]]) 16:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:24, 12 January 2021

Sources

Flightradar24 is a good and valid source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing, yes they are indeed. However the original file is lost. A lot of news outlets rely on them, so nothing to worry there. GeraldWL 11:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No file was cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

Edit conflicts are tough to compete, so here are sources:

GeraldWL 12:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map

A flight path map would be a good addition, and an update when they find the crash site to indicate that -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is, actually, the flight map from Flightradar24, however I'm not sure if I can give critical commentary in the caption, as United States fair use requires that. Usually we just wait for the govt to release a map, on which it could be under public domain. As of now, various editors are sticking to news updates. GeraldWL 14:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone with graphic skills can edit one of the base maps for the region, if it is available on COMMONS, to put in a flight path, in a new image file -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://geohack.toolforge.org/geohack.php?pagename=Pulau_Laki&params=5.9575_S_106.52139_E_type:isle for coordinates. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger list

@PaPa PaPaRoony: according to The Aviation Herald, there were 56 passengers onboard, with 6 being non-active crew for a later flight.[1] Would we include this in the crew section in the infobox? I wouldn't say so because they were (from my understanding) passengers waiting to be crew on a later flight. I don't think we should value primary sources over secondary sources either, does the official statement say that there were 6 inactive crew? FozzieHey (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @FozzieHey: It was from the official statement of Minister of Transportation himself, Budi Karya Sumadi. I think we shouldn't change the number since it IS the official number given from the government. If the final report stated differently, however, THEN we may change the number.(talk) 23:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PaPa PaPaRoony: In your citations it says that there were specifically 6 active and 6 inactive crew. Unless you can cite the exact statement from the government saying there were 12 crew total then I don't think we should include the 6 inactive crew in the crew section? FozzieHey (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @FozzieHey: The citations did state 6 extra crews but nevertheless they were included as crew members by the airline and the government. Technically, they were included in crew members, not passengers.(talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PaPa PaPaRoony: Where does it say they were included as active crew members on the flight by the airline and the government? Do you have a link to the actual government statement rather than a mashed up syndication of it on other news sources? If the 6 inactive crew were simply just passengers waiting to start being crew on a later flight then I don't feel like we should include it in the crew infobox section. FozzieHey (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FozzieHey: It was stated DIRECTLY in a video conference held by the ministry. I don't understand how to cite it here but there's literally a whole 1 hour conference on it. The ministry itself stated that there were 12 crew members, so it is NOT a mashed up syndication. Parts of the statements in the articles were taken directly from the video conference itself.FozzieHey (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PaPa PaPaRoony: 12 crew members or 6 active and 6 inactive crew members? I think the difference is key here. If the 6 inactive were simply just passengers waiting to start work on a later flight then would you consider that a part of this specific flight's crew? FozzieHey (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FozzieHey: You're punching the bushes again. It IS a number given from the official statement. Until there's another different report from official statement, then do NOT use personal opinion on the subject .PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PaPa PaPaRoony: What about this is a personal opinion? The cited sources state that there are 6 inactive crew members. Do you really consider being a passenger and having the occupation of a crew member should classify as being a crew member in the info box? If so then I think we should take this to the WikiProject instead to get some sort of a consensus on this. FozzieHey (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FozzieHey: Currently, the only decision that I could agree is to list 12 crew members in the infobox, with an additional information that 6 of whom were inactive (pay attention to this sentence).[2] If you want me to make your day, I actually DID think the same way like you did, even earlier, right during the video conference. But again every Indonesian media alongside with the ministry itself released a statement that there were 12 crew members and this is NOT UP TO DEBATE, so the infobox should stay that way UNLESS there's another statement from the airline or the ministry itself. This discussion should no longer up to debate.PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some details, saving here first

Saving it here to be included later on. I fear edit conflicts, so.

GeraldWL 08:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: This might be good for a good article! Wanna try after the investigations commenced? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 14:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jeromi Mikhael, sure! I'll prefer to wait until the investigation results have been released, then we nominate it for GA, since by then we have more info. I plan to have one of these points for DYK-- we'll wait until it is out of ITN and until the black box has been found-- specifically, until the article is stable. GeraldWL 15:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of these details belong in an encyclopedia article, as at best they are WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flightradar 24 reliability concerns

From Flightradar24 TnC: The provided information on aircraft position and identity, in particular, originate directly from the aircraft, which transmit this information through public radio frequencies, according to the ‘Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast’ (ADS-B). The information collected and published may contain errors, due to the intrinsic limitations of radio communications (e.g. limited coverage, interference, attenuation, special weather conditions etc.), due to erroneous configuration of the ADS-B devices on board, due to negligent data entry by aircraft crew, due to erroneous position received by the aircraft GPS and due to other factors beyond the control of the Flightradar24. Data is provided for informational purposes only and is not related by any means to the safety of navigation.

Consequently, we cannot provide any type of guarantee and are neither responsible for the correctness, validity, thoroughness and accuracy of that information published, nor for the suitability of their usage for purposes other than informational only. There's no editorial and fact checking process for this. Are we sure we gonna use it? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 09:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromi Mikhael, Flightradar24 is a tracking service highly respected in the aviation community, and is used by various sources, Indonesian and international, to give a glimpse of what happened. Until KNKT or NTSB released a report on what actually happened based on the CVR and FDR, Flightradar24 is a good temporary source.
They are also significant in the investigation: the track showed a hard right bank, but debris is found on the left, which aviation analysts marked as a mid-air accident (the plane broke mid-air and scattered to places). GeraldWL 09:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions

Let's not bloat the article with the utterly predictable drivel like "the President of Poobah expressed condolences to the people of Indonesia". Just list the fawning nations or omit it entirely. WWGB (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reactions" section had only three entries: "... the leadership of Malaysia, Russia and Saudi Arabia". I added a [citation needed] tag with the edit summary " why only these three?", but this tag was hastily removed as inappropriate. "Turkey, Bahrain, Jordan, and Pakistan" have now been added. The question remains - why only these seven? There is a larger question, already expressed by some other editors, over whether this material is really encyclopaedic at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, the citation needed and clarification needed tag is not for tagging incomplete information. However, I'd like to note that this is a one-of-a-kind section in an aviation crash article-- although articles like George Floyd protests may have one, I'm not sure if condolences from international countries are even valuable in this article. GeraldWL 12:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had hoped my edit summary would have made my intentions clear. I was seeking clarification of why those three countries were in some way significant. Which tag is best for "incomplete information"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, perhaps Template:Missing information would be viable. GeraldWL 12:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'll add that one, then. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know others are missing? Perhaps only seven nations could be bothered to comment. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we don't know. Their comments may go reported. But is the information currently in the article, whether it's compete or not, really useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, no. We don't need condolences every time a plane crashes. It doesn't add much value either.PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We normally omit the the world leaders' meaningless "thoughts and prayers" stuff as it is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and adds nothing of value to the article. The only reason we would add any of this at all, is if any of them had anything substantive to say. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe if they were responsible. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
yes, that sort of thing... - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

I think we should put an edit notice to stop people from saying that all passengers died before any official announcement.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 11:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromi Mikhael, agree. However, only admins can create an editnotice page. I'll just create the template here.

GeraldWL 12:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me is seems 99.9% probable that all are dead. As with most air accidents of this kind, the remains of most victims are never identified, and so it is eventually assumed all are dead for legal/compensation purposes. But I agree an official statement is required. Usually one is issued even before the interim flight accident report is published. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Martinevans123, and believe that it is unlikely any survived the accident. That being said, given the gravity and sensitivity, I also believe that it is a good policy to wait for an official statement. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peripheral articles

I've listed all of the peripheral articles required to make the readers know about people/things that were involved in this accident. I would create them at some point, but it is always good to have a helping hand.

Feel free to add more. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 12:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that only the first two might be notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: Puruhito was a three-star general who previously served as the deputy chief of staff of indonesia's air force — practically the second highest man in the air force. Tjahjono is Indonesia's equivalent to Robert L. Sumwalt. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 13:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By all means create your four articles. Their relative notability will be duly assessed, I'm sure. Just for context, how many articles, on en.wiki, do we have for UK or US generals who were "deputy chiefs of staff of the air force"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, that'd be hard to know the exact number. But I'm sure there's a category somewhere. GeraldWL 13:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current RAF Deputy Commanders to Chief of the Air Staff (United Kingdom) are Air Marshal Gerry Mayhew and Air Marshal Andrew Turner. I guess similar incumbents, for that position in the Air Forces for non-English-speaking countries, would be judged on their own merits. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: No offense, but non-English-speaking countries is a bit condescending. WP:SOLDIER don't mention any specific countries and Puruhito fulfilled number 2, 3, and 5. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 14:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No condescension intended. My point it simply that en.wiki tends to focus on English-speaking subjects. Looking forward to your articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: I understand your concerns. I usually pick military and politicians biography, because these two have a very normative and standard notability threshold - as described in WP:SOLDIER and WP:NPOL. I am very welcome to see things through different viewpoints, just the Just for context, how many articles, on en.wiki, do we have for UK or US generals who were "deputy chiefs of staff of the air force"? <- that part almost rubbed me the wrong way. Fortunately, you explained it clearly above. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: Well then. Have a nice day. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 13:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add in MV Baruna Jaya (1989), which has been involved in searches following a number of aircrashes in Indonesia. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: I've added it as number three in the list. The list is ordered based on importance and urgency. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 01:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

820.20

Unable to determine query. Website showing as a security risk. You are advised not to enter said website. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

www.zeljkocausevic.net

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—76.122.41.89 (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@76.122.41.89: Sorry, but what are you trying to convey here? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the url (I think). Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't open the link as it's privacy error. GeraldWL 06:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a security risk warning. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polishing

Excellent work so far by all concerned. Article is almost B class. Can we please ensure that all foreign language references include both a language parameter and a translation of the title of said reference. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some WPs have rated it at B class. I won't be churlish and downgrade their assessments, but the above suggestion would add the icing to the cake, so to speak. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. So we're just polishing the icing on the cake, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

New footage from Navy

The Navy has uploaded a much more shorter yet better quality footage of the search effort. Should this replace or complement the footage in the s&r section? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 01:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromi Mikhael, feel free to upload to Wikimedia Commons then put it here. Make sure to use c:Template:PD-IDGov for the license. GeraldWL 05:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: I have put the footage in the section. I decided to complement instead of replace the previous footage. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123

Wikipedia has long had to get rid of moderators like Martinevans123. This man doesn't understand anything about plane crashes. He has no technical aviation literacy. Blocks any attempt to discuss even on the Talk page. Let us come together and file a collective complaint against him. 87.126.18.56 (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think he must be blocked? Expertise does not limit editors from editing, by the way. GeraldWL 15:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly do you think "this man doesn't understand anything about plane crashes"? Why do you think that I'm "a moderator"? How do you know I have "no technical aviation literacy"? Where exactly have I "blocked any attempt to discuss even on the Talk page"? Kindly strike out or remove the personal attack above, or else take to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks so much. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@87.126.18.56: - if you have a complaint against Martinevans123 they you should discuss it with him first, either here or at his talk page. If you think the complaint is a very serious one, then WP:ANI is available. But be aware that if you go to ANI, your own editing will likely be scrutinised too. Boomerangs don't half hurt when they hit you. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, this IP has so far made one single edit. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this is the same person: Special:Contributions/87.126.16.150. I removed his two past attempts to present his own personal, unsubstantiated theories on this crash, here on this talk page, because his posts violated our policy WP:NOTFORUM. He seems to mistakenly think that Wikipedia is the place for him to to solve the mystery of why this aircraft crashed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite likely. I see both IP addresses locate to Sofia, Bulgaria. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noted that, too on whois. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Descent speed

"a drop of ... 5,150 ft (1,570 m) in its last seven seconds" is, by my calculations, a vertical downward speed of ~500 miles per hour (800 km/h). is this plausible? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be 501.6234 mph, if the data can be trusted. But 7 seconds is not a long sample time. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is very plausible if the wings are not mounted, or just if the nose is straight down. I do agree though that the sample time is short and may give a high degree of sample error. - Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: The Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max hit ground at ~575 mph, so I guess it is plausible. 119.82.84.240 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 says "nearly 700" mph, but wasn't that groundspeed, not vertical descent speed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Currently aviation experts suggest that there may be a mid-air breakup, akin to China Airlines Flight 611 (if you saw the Mayday episode you know what I'm talking about). Until we have the NTSC report, it's better to keep. this data as it may be a hint as to what happened. Media outlets also cite FR24 frequently, so I think it'd be ignorant not to cite their findings. GeraldWL 01:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If "aviation experts" suggest that there may have been mid-air breakup, this might be added to the article. Although, as you say, before a report is issued this may be just speculation. I see that Forbes says: "A compact area also suggests that the aircraft was intact when it hit the surface, while a widely distributed wreckage area suggests inflight breakup, with wreckage dispersing as it falls" while Bloomberg says "Indonesian investigators said the crashed Boeing Co. jet ... broke apart upon impact with water, which could rule out a mid-air breakup." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly advise against putting speculations in the article. Saschaporsche (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still searching for these "experts". The preliminary view of the investigating team seems to be that it broke up on impact with the sea. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, NTSC also recently suggested that the turbine may have still be operating upon impact of the water; they used FR24 data and the shape of the fan blade for this. Idk, information is mixing up, which is why I suggest reinstating the "current" template. I think listing notable speculations can be appropriate using appropriate wording, plus the amount of coverage on speculation must be controlled. GeraldWL 10:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any source(s) for "aviation experts" suggesting that there may have been mid-air breakup, please share here if possible. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Where's the blue tag!

Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 08:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf are you talking about? WWGB (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB: There should be a blue tag indicating that the investigation is still ongoing. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 09:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any clues what a "blue tag" is ? MilborneOne (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne, Template:Current. GeraldWL 10:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may be appropriate to keep the template at least until the preliminary investigation report is issued? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really needed now the news has slowed down - meant for articles with lots of activity when events happened and the activity has slowed down to some extent. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne, not really. The template says: "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this article may not reflect the most current information." This is true for now, since there's a lot of mish-mash of information, seeable at the Investigation section. GeraldWL 10:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template is used on pages with many frequent edits. It has nothing to do with progress of the investigation. WWGB (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unclear sentence

The statement is: "It was revealed that the passengers who did not board on Flight 182 neither had their COVID-19 testing results expired,[35] nor they were not able to afford the test prior to the flight health and safety regulations regarding COVID19."

I cannot figure out what is trying to be said here. Can someone who understands please rewrite this?

Thanks

199.46.251.141 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)"[reply] 

       I gave it a shot, according to the translated articles it looks like some people could not get on the flight due to not being able to produce negative COVID tests. - Alpacaaviator (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F999917984

Leave a Reply