Talk:Garuda Indonesia Flight 200

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Conditions

Has anyone found as to whether the tarmac was wet or not? The airport tarmac in the past has been known to have a slippery surface and also a runway that has no 'overlap' that is it is short SatuSuro 09:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Will check that one. Imoeng 09:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut

I've made one. It's "Flight 200". Imoeng 09:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This should be deleted with extreme prejudice. 70.51.11.95 05:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Try other "flight xxxx" and you'll find many similar shortcuts. Imoeng 10:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No, try searching "flight 577". If this is not wikipedia i would have said something else. **** - Imoeng 10:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Can someone find an image in public domain? I haven't edited Wikipedia for awhile so I kinda forgot all the rules and stuff. Cheers -- Imoeng 09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You do have the option of a fair use image as well Gnangarra 09:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
So I just have to find an image (any) and tag it as a fair use image? Imoeng 09:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah thats basically it you need to have the source of the image on the image description page and also place a fair use rationale as to why the image is being used. There also a tag requesting that the image be replaced with a free version, I'll find that and put a link here. Also one image is enough, its quality should be low so as not to diminish the photographers ability to sell itGnangarra 09:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool thanks I'll wait for the link. Imoeng 10:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
{{fairusereplace}} the link Gnangarra 11:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

cool thanks, but i need to go to bed now. Imoeng 11:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify policy states that images used under fair use must not be resonably replacable. Current intepration of policy is that if the image is resonably replacable it should be deleted. Of course, what's resonably replacable is of some debate. But generally, quite a number of people feel if it is a living person who appears publicly or an object or landmark in a location where it can be accessed resonably easy by the public then this is resonably replacable. The guideline on this is still in flux Wikipedia:Replaceability of fair-use images but you might want to read the discussion for some info. I'm strongly supportive of free images and the deletion of resonably replacable fair use images but in this case, as it's a unique event I think most people would agree it's not resonably replacable so it will be okay provided it meets the other criteria Nil Einne 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
but I'm sure the crash image would not be repeateable and of course replacable. — Indon (reply) — 15:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This whole copyright thing makes me mad. Imoeng 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, new image. Hopefully it's okay. Imoeng 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
As I remarked, I don't think there will be any debate about the replacability of the image but as I also remarked, the photo has to meet the other criteria which it apparently doesn't. Nil Einne 05:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This one is quite a nice photo: http://i.today.reuters.com/pictures/galleries/Stories/633003715863906250/Previews/pixlog2007030701.jpg quadpus 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is. But maybe the same dude will tag it again for deletion. Imoeng 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be a nice photo but it doesn't appear to meet the all the criteria. There is little doubt it's not reasonably replacable but it's my understanding press photos should not be used unless they're iconic Nil Einne 05:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bouncing

Al jazeera mentions witnesses saw the plane bounce when landing (and tyres break). This should be significant. Does it mean the plane had to land on a higher then usual speed? Wich is what i think.(so to keep airspeed) Or is it an indication of the technicallity that caused the crash? (i think there is no sabotage because sabotaged planes crash anywhere but usually on landing.)80.57.243.16 13:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is not a forum to discuss possibilities. If you find reliable sources about a fact, then we can put it in this article. — Indon (reply) — 14:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually (s)he is correct. I saw a news mentioned that the plane bounced twice because of overspeed. But then a good citation would be useful. Imoeng 19:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Try this. Can't do it myself because i have real-world work to do now. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I've added the info, though with another source. Anyway thanks for that - Imoeng 20:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Imo, i dont agree with you on your somewhat pretentious statement about the use of the discussion pages. Wiki discussion pages are the apropriate place for underdocumented facts... and the bouncing "like a pingpongball" is still not in... I dont care much, but it makes things simpler if you know the plane came down with problems. Also POV statements even, belong in the discussion page. Because i am such a controversial person in stubbornly reporting facts, even the ones only known to me i am actually very glad with the additional means of the discussion pages in wich i not uncommonly find both the opinions and sometimes some facts, that stay hidden in the article.i hope the means of wiki discussionpages will this way help us describe a better history in the future. I also hope that the most sensible thought that in the discussionpages material hard to proof , but possibly of later interest is abundant, and Wiki saves them for future use by historians. I would like you to respect all of this. Would i find out wiki doesnt save the discussionpages to the articles , i would definetly never again contribute to an article because i would support a biased medium that deletes essential info instead of a database of knowledge. Cheers.80.57.243.16 07:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Anon editor, please read WP:TALK carefully. — Indon (reply) — 07:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
IP user Please also read WP:CIVIL all Indon did was point out that the talk page is not for speculation, its for improving the article, he also asked for a reliable source so that it could be included. Gnangarra 07:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garuda

How can an airline 'known for its safety' then proceed ot be criticised for being one of the worst in terms of national carriers? Isn't this a bit of an oxymoron?

Ah yeah, my bad. The thing is, before this accident, it's known for its safety. But then some dude said Garuda is the worst in terms of national carriers. Get that? Thanks - Imoeng 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Two things - for a while Garuda had had a bad reputation - then, the others took over (Adam Air) - as Garuda had employed overseas experts to improve its practices and facilities to reduce the acident rate - so whoever the dude is - it depends on what sources you use - the proper sequence should be (1) garuda did have a problem in the 1980/1990's with regular very embarrassing crashes (2) by the 2000's with overseas help the accident rate had been reducd (3) the cut price airlines like adam started having the crashes/plane loss - but then the editors who did the info in this article can choose to use particular citations and make it look like garuda is the constant culprit. not correct. it all depends what citations you use! SatuSuro 22:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well yeah, most Indonesians I know reckon Garuda is the safest and the most reliable one. Then an article came across that said Garuda is the worst. And it's just a bit confusing, as well as for the writer of the section, which is me. Imoeng 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I think what this section needs are citations from before this crash. Otherwise, neither the positive or negative claims should remain. Quadpus 22:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Really cool idea. Imoeng 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatalities

I have adjusted fatalities in info box to 21 as per the middle of the document. That might not be correct because there are two other possible numbers in the article - but I suggest we take the lowest first until deaths are confirmed.--VS talk 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Most likely the info from Garuda Indo home page is the most accurate. I've put 22 back. Cheers - Imoeng 22:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment of the injured

The radio news in Perth is reporting that survivors are being treated in Singapore, Darwin and Royal Perth Hospital ref 1 ref 2. Additionally its being reported that Fiona Wood is on site assisting the treatment of the burns victims. Any thoughts on whether any of this should be included into the article Gnangarra 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footage

Some amature footage has surfaced from a few minutes after the plane crashes, it was taken by a passenger. It simply shows the plane burning, people running, a medium sized explosion, a few slightly injured people (nothing gory) and rescue crews arriving. I am not sure what wikipedia's policy is on such types of videos or adding them (I know its uncensored) but I doubt few would call the site it comes from a "reliable source", in any case, here is the link to the video. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b9_1173306001 if anyone feels like adding it, be my quest, but I figured I would post it in here first to see what the general consensus is. Like I said, nothing gory, nothing truly shocking.--Azslande 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The video was recorded by a Seven Network reporter who was on board the flight, so it might need permission to be linked. If it was amateur footage, it could probably be added. But since it was recorded by a network, it might be a violation to add it. Since it has an ABC logo in the corner though, I'd imagine it's been released to the public for free viewing. Orichalcon 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually it's arguable if there is ever a case when you need permission to link to something (although in some cases it is polite). However people do need permission to redistributed content. In this case, LiveLeak appears to be like YouTube and people often upload stuff they don't have permission to redistribute. It is against wikipedia policy to link to copyright violations and as such if this is a copyright violation which I suspect it is (see below) we shouldn't link to it. If a source could be found for this from the news media, whether 7 News or ABC or whatever, linking to that would be fine. Note amateur footage or not, copyright issues still need to be considered. The primary issue here is that amateurs of course often choose to release their videos to sites like LiveLeak but as I remarked it has a watermark (ABC you say?) suggesting it didn't come directly from the person who shot it and it seems unlikely the contributor is or knows the person who shot it given his contribution history Nil Einne 05:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict- The fact it's uncensored doesn't matter. It would be fine in external links provided it's not a copyright violation. If liveleak makes an effort to verify their sources it would be fine. However if they're like YouTube and allow anyone to upload anything greater care should be taken. The fact that the contributor appears to have contributed stuff from the news media (I see stuff from Fox News and from MSNBC in his contributions) suggests to me the LiveLeak is like YouTube and the contributor often contributes stuff he probably doesn't have permission to redistribute and so we should take care. Also it appears to have a watermark which suggests to me it originated from another source. Finally are you sure it's amateur footage? I know there were news reporters on the plane and I heard a 7 News reporter started shooting after he got off the plane. If it were from a commercial reporter, this would be even more reason to be circumspect although there is no reason to assume an amateur has released the copyright for their footage either Nil Einne 05:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I really doubt that liveleak actually verifies any videos posted on its site. Also I did notice the icon in the upper right corner but I didn't recognize it. I just figured I would post the link and let everyone else decide whats best to do with it.--Azslande 06:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be best left out of the article unless Seven Network adds a link to their official website. People can view it from the link on this talk page if they wish. Orichalcon 09:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tail of Plane

on the 19:00(UTC+9) radio news it was said that Garuda has painted the tail of the wreckage black has anyone els heard this. I'm trying to find a print source at the moment??? Gnangarra 12:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Which part is the tail? The one on the pic seems white (or blue). Imoeng 12:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
What they said was that the whole tail was painted black to remove the Garuda logo from any more pictures. Gnangarra 12:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Was that the vertical tail? Not sure but I can see the logo there. Off to bed, see ya - Imoeng 13:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Image on news.com.au of tail coverup [1] Nachoman-au 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what Adam Air did to the plane involved in an incident that snapped it in half two weeks ago. Is this commonplace? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it is common; it was remarked on after an Air Canada crash a few years ago and the airline was quoted as explaining that shortly after a crash, title of the wrecked craft transfers to their insurer or perhaps a salvage operator and it's normal for the new owner—not the airline itself—to efface the logos, at least symbolically. Perhaps it marks legal acceptance of ownership or something. As for removing the tail, I dunno. Sounds like something that might be done for the safety of investigators picking through the wreckage. I can hardly imagine that the airline could sneak into a crash site with the kind of equipment that would be required. Sharkford 20:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Please don't use links to news portals like Yahoo news or direct links to the websites from Asscociated Press oder Reuters, since they will work only for sixty days and then disappear. Such links are therefore useless. --213.155.224.232 17:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Provided the link is there, we can still use it as a reference since we know what we have sourced from it before it went dead. In low-traffic articles this may constitute a problem, but since this is Main Page, I think any misinformation will be quickly noticed. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability. After teh link went dead it can't be verified anymore and the content will have to be removed. --213.155.224.232 11:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That's why we should use "accessdate" field in the {{cite news}} template. In that way, verifiability can be checked from the Internet Archives. — Indon (reply) — 11:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vehicle on runway

I've done some Google web/news searches and can find no reports that a vehicle was on the runway during the landing. All reports on the cause that I have seen discuss speed, pilot error, flap malfunction or a downdraft. The only reference cited makes no mention of a vehicle on the runway during the landing.

The only mention of vehicles on the runway that I have seen are reports of a rescue vehicle requesting permission to enter the area after the crash had occurred:

http://www.airportbusiness.com/online/article.jsp?id=10936&siteSection=1

I find it hard to believe that such a significant development, if remotely credible, could have received virtually no press coverage, so I am removing reference to it. If you want to put it back in, please provide a credible reference.Seth ze 01:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flight 200 has been changed to 202

Just wondering if anybody can confirm this. My family and I often travel in GA200, which departs Jakarta at 6AM. However when my parents went to Yogyakarta afterneath the accident, it appeared that the flight at 6 AM, landing 7 AM, has been changed from GA 200 to GA 202.--w_tanoto 21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Found the info myself from Garuda's website by searching flight arriving to Yogyakarta/Jogjakarta. Can't add as reference.--w_tanoto 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
So you know, flight numbers are often 'retired' after fatal accidents; it's the same accross the world. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)