Talk:AIRES Flight 8250

Similar accidents
Do we really need the unref section banner here? That the accidents are similar should be readily apparent from the articles themselves. This is a similar case to US Airways Flight 1549, which does not have an unref section banner in the "see also" section where it links to the Tupolev 124 ditching in Neva River article. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is not required - all the wikilinked articles have copious references. I'll remove it. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The objection is more probably put as original research, so I've added an OR tag. If editors are making the assumption, not supported by references at this time, that this accident was infact caused by a lightning strike, and are therefore concluding for themselves, that this list of random crashes also attributed to lightning strikes (only one of which occured during landing), are 'similar incidents', then yes, it can be correctly described as WP:OR. As the edit note placed by the person who added the original tag said, if they are "similar" accidents, it should not be hard to find references comparing them. MickMacNee (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we put OR against "See also" sections? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the intention was that this was just a See Also section, but even if it were renamed as one, the selection method still looks like rather obvious OR. And yes, I've seen See Also sections get tagged when the logic behind including certain items is disputed. To make the section usefull, you'd have to add a short explanation of what the articles are about, and when you do, it just makes it look more obvious that these have been picked on editor's assumptions. Good See Also sections contain links that would eventually make it into the perfect article, but if the OR complaint is valid, then they never would, would they? MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just a specialised See also, in my opinion... I've never seen See also referenced, but I have seen, on occasion, a brief explanation as to why the see also is relevant. To definitively, objectively link this article to other articles, presumably we'd need a RS which mentions the incidents together?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is a 'specialised' See Also, then yes, I want to see references. If it's just a See Also list, then on simple common sense editorial judgement, to avoid apparent OR issues, I say we restrict it to listing only accidents that are prima facie related - short landings in bad weather / breakups on landing with no fire / other 737-700 incidents. Otherwise, the list could be massive. MickMacNee (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, let's list only those which are prima facie related and rename as a See also? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is just my opinion, and atm is OR - Bearing in mind the reported thunderstorm and the fact that the aircraft came down short of the runway, it is likely that we had a microburst situation. This should be borne in mind and maybe the see also section should give links to other known accidents caused by microbursts. A preliminary report should be available within a month or so. Final report can take two years or more to produce. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP and recently deceased
Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is the BLP noticeboard discussion about a recently deceased person involved in this accident and the BLP policy. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming the sole dead person
Now as for non-BLP matters regarding this case.

I want to mention the name of the sole fatality in this incident. Other users disagreed and raised some points. (Previous talk page discussion: User talk:MickMacNee)

One user said "you still have to convince us that there is an encyclopoedic point to mentioning the name in the article, as I simply cannot see what it is. Of course newspapers and the airline mentioned her name, and the reasons for that are obvious, but that is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper. What is of information value to a newspaper is not necessarily what is of information value to an encyclopoedia. It has absolutely no value to the article or the reader that I can see, or that you have explained for me." - and another user said "As the victim is not a Wikinotable person, there is no need to name her IMHO."

Firstly, while not everything said in a newspaper or a reliable source is encyclopedia-worthy, reliable sources often are good indicators of what is notable and worthy of attention in an incident. When the media frequently refers to their being a sole death, one person who died, that point should be underscored. Her name is often referred to in those reports.

Regardless of whether she would pass the standards for Notability (people), her name should be mentioned anyway as there is an inherent value in listing the name of a sole person who had a different outcome than the others, both in incidents where one (or maybe two or three) died, and also in those where one (or maybe two, three, or four) lived. Consider the crashes where only one person survived (Northwest Airlines Flight 255, Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771) - We name the sole survivor in those instances. Shouldn't we, in this case, name the sole deceased? Also media sources about Japan Airlines Flight 123 refer to the names of the four women and girls who survived.

Also, on a similar matter, as long as there is a consensus for Gol Flight 1907 to keep a list of passenger fatality names, articles are supposed to "follow its example" (as Gol 1907 is a featured article) and list dead passengers on flights with fatalities. For those of you interested, there is an RFC about this matter: Talk:Gol_Transportes_Aéreos_Flight_1907 WhisperToMe (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In an accident where there are a very few survivors from a large number of people involved, those survivors acquire a much higher notability than in the case where there are a very few deaths from a large number of people involved. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no inherent value to mentioning it. If there is, give me a for example - which theoretical reader is missing out if the name is not mentioned, and why? The status of newspapers as reliable sources completely sidesteps my point about the difference between news values and encyclopedia values. As said above, there's no correlation whatsoever between 'sole survivors' and 'sole deaths'. Coverage of sole survivors is usually very extensive and ongoing, and is often very relevant to the article. Coverage of this dead woman appears to extend to just her name, age and nationality. Her age is already included and is of obvious value, her name is not because it adds nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on AIRES Flight 8250. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.rcnradio.com/noticias/nacional/16-08-10/gobierno-no-descarta-que-un-rayo-causar-el-accidente-reo
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816171706/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_colombia_plane_crash to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_colombia_plane_crash

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AIRES Flight 8250. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100227035307/http://www.jacdec.de/news/news.htm to http://www.jacdec.de/news/news.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AIRES Flight 8250. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100909003235/http://www.aires.aero/comunicado_06.html to http://www.aires.aero/comunicado_06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AIRES Flight 8250. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928084901/http://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/caribe/accidente-de-avion-en-san-andres_7866340-1 to http://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/caribe/accidente-de-avion-en-san-andres_7866340-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Age discrepancy for the first fatality
This articles sources have a discrepancy in the age of the first passenger fatality.

This article currently says 68. Yahoo!, BBC, and AP all match this figure. However, Reuters says 65, CNN says she was 'in her 70s', Aviation Herald says 72, and ABC, The New York Times, and one of AIRES' press releases say 73.

Most of these were early reports that may have had inaccuracies, but can anyone help figure out the correct age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearyTheSquid (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)