Talk:Delta Air Lines Flight 191

Trivia
The "Trivia" section needs a different heading; it's quite offensive as worded. I was thinking "Notable passengers" but I'm not sure if that's the best heading. (It's certainly better than Trivia!) Anyone have another idea? --Michael Geary 21:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed the heading to "Passengers". --Michael Geary 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaxis podcast video external link - delete? relabel?
I had an edit reversed and rather than set off a back-and-forth, decided I would take it to this page. The Zaxis video which is labeled "Animations used in court" in the external links section is NOT the animated recreation of the crash of Delta Air Lines Flight 191. It is an advertisement for a podcast series entitled "History of Animation in Court" and includes a voice-over narration which briefly summarizes how the video was technically produced by Zaxis -- with a few very brief, uninformative clips from the animated recreation (the brief audio of which is obliterated by the advertisement voice-over).

I must raise the question again - how is this informative for this article? There is absolutely no information contained on this video which directly informs the crash of Flight 191, and since it was produced to promote a private, for-profit company, it is fair to raise this question.

I would propose that the link either be deleted, or moved to an article about the history of animation in court, or about the Zaxis company -- or at least that it is relabeled to indicate it is a video from a series on the history of animation in court, which includes very brief clips from an animated recreation of the crash of Flight 191, with audio that is spoken over. NYDCSP 00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies; I was on dialup at the time and wasn't able to watch the video all the way through. I agree with you that it's awfully ad-like, but I'm also willing to let it slide for now, pending a reply from Z-Axis on that page to the question you raised there. If they can put the actual animation up somewhere, I'd much prefer to link to that, but I think the current link is appropriate if nothing else is available.--chris.lawson 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. I've exchanged a couple emails w/ Zaxis as well - I think they are trying to figure it out themselves.  I'll keep an eye out and share here. NYDCSP 03:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Math related issue
If 8 of the crew died and 128 passengers died, isnt that 136 total deaths, not 135? --70.191.206.112 00:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There was definitely something wrong with the figures as they didn't add up. I corrected them from the NTSB report. (Note that I counted the two passengers who died more than 30 days after the accident as fatalities, rather than as injuries). (Also note that two passengers were uninjured). 82.1.57.194 (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"accelerated"
The article states that "the aircraft accelerated without crew intervention", and proceeds to note a sudden increase in indicated air speed. I think that should be reworded, because, if I'm understanding the phenemonenon correctly, what happened is that a sudden gust of headwind increased the airspeed, but this would actually have slightly decreased the ground speed. 24.7.51.21 (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming Changes
Being that reverted my changes, I wanted to explain that I plan on greatly expanding the article in the very near future to FA-status. This will include my preferred styling of sfn for short footnotes, efn, and dmy notations. If anyone has a problem with this, speak up. -- Veggies ( talk ) 17:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes I dont really like anybody changing citation styles because they prefer it, theres a guideline somewhere against it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And there is another guide or similar somewhere about changing date styles, American non-military articles use American mdy dates, I cant think of a reason why anything else would be acceptable. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two templates (in case you missed them) that make it clear there are barely any citations to speak of. This article is going to balloon in sources, info, and media, and I would prefer to use the short-footnotes as they are easier for me to use as I write. As for dates, I can't see how this article has "strong" ties to the United States other than the incident having occurred here. Airline accidents, especially landmark events like these, resonate globally. Even so, if it's that much of an issue, I can keep the mdy format. -- Veggies ( talk ) 18:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I realise that the article could be improved with more citations but I still dont see a reason to change style because it makes life easier. Bit worried that you find an American aircraft from an American airline crashing in America and killing Americans doesnt have a strong tie to the United States. Also bit worried about your intention that the article is going to "balloon in sources, info, and media", perhaps you need to run that by here as well and gain some consensus. I will get some project input as they might have a different view to me. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the first point, why not? Regarding the dates, I'll concede the mdy format&mdash;no problem. On the final point, no. I don't need consensus to improve an article. Especially one so lacking in clarity and quality as this one. -- Veggies ( talk ) 21:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation for further input. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It is WP:CITEVAR says established citation styles should not be changed without getting consensus first. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware. What's your position on the matter? Are you tied to this style for 11 citations? -- Veggies ( talk ) 20:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not worked on this article. Input for involved editors is more relevant. But I think shortened footnotes should only be limited to long sources such as books and reports. US spellings seem appropriate as the crash occurred in the US and its a US airline. That's all I have, later. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the first point about shortened footnotes only for books and reports. As for the second point, no one is disputing how to spell things&mdash;it was a disagreement on formatting dates, and one that I'm prepared to concede. -- Veggies ( talk ) 21:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't change the citation styles or the American dates. There is no need to do either. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to ask everyone to forgive me, but I decided to begin making the updated, detailed improvements anyway. They are ongoing. -- Veggies ( talk ) 05:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection to use of sfn for book sources etc. As we are dealing with an American subject, the article should be written in American English and use the mdy date style. Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not seen that much improvement, plenty of addition of lots of trivia and detail that is not really needed that can be read in the final report. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why was this done? I made various edits and improvements to this article a long time ago, and was surprised to come back and see that the reference format had been changed. Not only that, it was changed from a format consistent with airline disaster articles, to a format not consistently used there. I'm going to revert this, unless there turns out to be a strong consensus against doing so. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And done. This has the benefit of reducing the size of the references section, which was pretty bloated with the repeated references to the same final report. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Error in syntax
One of the paragraphs (the first paragraph headlining the article) ends with the word disintegrating( I'm assuming it is one or both water towers that have disentegrated). This is a grammatical error. There is no subject that follows the word disintegrating. I would correct it but I can't verify that it was both towers that were disintegrated or that it was the plane that disintegrated.96.237.55.172 (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Good or featured article
I wonder if this article would be nominated as a good or featured article because it looks high-quality. MattChatt18 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Fatality count
A total of 137 people died as a result of the Flight 191 crash. This includes 136 people on board the aircraft and 1 on the ground.

The NTSB report only lists a total of 135 deaths, but the NTSB also explained in their report that this is because they were required to list two deceased passengers as having "serious injury" instead of having fatal injuries because of federal regulations. So even the NTSB knows that 137 people died as a result of the crash. Wikipedia is not bound by federal regulations, the purpose of Wikipedia is to report facts. Multiple reliable sources confirm that a total of 137 people died as a result of the crash. I have added references to these multiple reliable sources in the article, including newspaper articles from the Washington Post and New York Times which were published in the 1980s (and thus could not have been influenced by Wikipedia's description of 137 fatalities).

Please do not edit the fatality count unless you are able to establish consensus on the talk page for doing so. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Delta Air Lines Flight 191. 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/20090307214346/http://www.exponent.com:80/multimedia/ to http://www.exponent.com/multimedia/

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) 14:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Delta Air Lines Flight 191. 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/20110615234724/http://www.exponent.com/files/RepresentativeExperience/5d7370af-0e45-4a53-9374-291e82a5797a/Presentation/Attachment/Delta191.flv to http://www.exponent.com/files/RepresentativeExperience/5d7370af-0e45-4a53-9374-291e82a5797a/Presentation/Attachment/Delta191.flv

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) 12:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines Flight 1141 accident picture is incorrectly associated with Delta Air Lines Flight 191
A famous Delta 727 crash photograph of Flight 1141 appears during a Google search for Delta Air Lines Flight 191. This is currently seen (3/5/2020) in the Google results sidebar linking Wikipedia. This should be corrected.

It's also worth noting that the crash picture of Delta Air Lines Flight 1141 is extensively misattributed to the crash of Delta Air Lines Flight 191 on the web. More curiously there are forged (modified original) crash pictures of 1141 where flames have been added to the famous post fire helicopter photograph. Not accurate at all but presumably more sensationalist, or more effective as click bait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.148.117 (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect statement in summary regarding microburst crash statistics
In the opening summary, final line: "Forecasts of microbursts improved in the following years; as of 2024 this was the last microburst crash in the US."

This is not correct:

Wspnut (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * USAir Flight 1016 (North Carolina, 1994)
 * Goodyear Blimp (Florida, 2005) although this could be rectified by qualifying the statement as "the last microburst crash for commercial, fixed-wing aircraft..."