Talk:Andreas Lubitz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Luftsportclub Westerwald

He was a member of Luftsportclub (or LSC) Westerwald. www.lsc-ww.de The spelling in the NYT makes no sense in German. Unfortunately the LSC's homepage ist down. https://www.google.de/search?client=opera&q=fliegerverein+lsc+westerwald&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=luftsportclub+westerwald&safe=off&tbm=nws --92.201.76.105 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Internet Archive has several snapshots of the page. -Mardus (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

It could help pilots for the future...

(your reason here) --A bit iffy (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• I see no reason to delete this redirect. I doubt there would be an article on Lubitz, so the redirect seems appropriate. Even if there is to be an article on him, the page could easily be converted to one.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• It should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.165.85.105 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh, Christa McAuliffe etc., are also known for one event. WP:ONEEVENT specifically states that when an event is significant, and a persons role in it are significant, a separate article is usually appropriate. I have restored the article. Let's allow the article to develop, have the inevitable AfD discussion, and proceed from there. "Consensus will out." Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As Michaelh2001 has stated, WP:BIO1E would not apply here. This individual has had a significant role in a significant event. Even though this story is still "breaking" it's already had a lasting effect. Several airlines have released statements in changing their policies regarding the minimum number of flight personnel in the cockpit and greater screening for pilots with depression. These changes are in direct response to this individual. Mkdw^talk 16:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. They're in direct response to that one event he caused, which has its own article. And again, McVeigh also had a notable trial. McAuliffe won a contest to go to space. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

• Well there is no free photographs of this man! Should I upload a "free-use" (copyrighted?) photograph to the local English Wikipedia for this article of Andreas' facebook profile photo? Thanks! CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by 109.22.60.132

Of course the article should not be deleted ! The heat of the moment or supposed "offensiveness" does not change the fact that Lubitz has (tragically) become a public figure. Deleting the article, which is written in perfectly sober language, would mean tens of thousands of other Wiki articles "should" be deleted. Don't go there ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.22.60.132 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Tone of article

As it now stands, due to the chosen syntax and grammar, the article reads like a news report, not an encyclopedia entry. It would be good if editors could put themselves into the frame of mind of being 20 to 50 years in the future and possibly being born years after the event being described. To someone from a future era, the current phrasing would seem stilted. You might as well fix it now, because over the coming weeks and months, some copy editor is going to have to do it anyway. — Quicksilver^{T @} 23:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo non-free use rationale is disputed

Hello everybody (Including Ulcerspar12, Ahunt, Mkdw). I recently uploaded an image of Andreas Lubitz, under fair use (File:Andreas Lubitz.jpg). I give a rationale of using a non-free photo of Andreas. There is no free photos of him, and only copyrighted photos, so I had to use a non-free photo with a fair use tag. The purpose of the image was for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his biographical article infobox. WWGB removed my image claiming that my rational was disputed (please read the rational on the file page). I think that this photo is indeed free-use and has a fine rational. This person is deceased, and very unlikely for any free photograph of him to be released. I think the photo should be aloud in the article, and on Wikipedia. Please reply below with a message to WWGB (the editor who removed the photo from the article) and explain why we need a photo of him, and please if you would like, update the file rationale, because obliviously mine is not good enough. Thank you! CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems like an obvious situation where a "fair use" image would be allowed under US Copyright law. - Ahunt (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have checked the "fair use" on this image and all seems to be in order. The person who tagged it did not indicate what the problem was, so I have removed the and placed the image back in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated the image for deletion. "Fair use" does not mean that you can use a non-free photo merely because it is convenient to do so, and because you hope that one day someone else will look for a free image. (And yes, this is essentially what you wrote in the fair use rationale for your upload: "No free photos have been found due to the fact that this person is just recently in the news, for the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525. If a free photograph is found of him, this photograph shall be deleted.") I am not saying that this image cannot be used under a claim of fair use, though I do think that the justification you have provided is invalid. I would be happy to withdraw the nomination if, for example, someone were to confirm that they had made a reasonably extensive and good-faith effort to locate a free image. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me in this but I don't know enough about Wikipedia's copyright policies to be able to contribute. To be crass for a second his Mum and Dad would clearly have photos of him but uploading one here probably hasn't been a priority recently. I don't know what you do in a situation like this Ulcerspar12 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Psychonaut: -- I will be fixing the files rational so it complies with Wikipedia's fair use policy. I will message you when I am finished with it, so you can check it out to see if its a fair rational. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Second nomination to delete

A second nomination has cropped up with a goal to delete the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz (2nd nomination). -Mardus (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As well it should. This is an extremely offensive article and has no place in an encyclopedia!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.12.18 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have closed the second debate as a procedural close. Please allow a delay before nominating again until further facts arise and the assessment of this case in reliable sources is clearer. If you wish to dispute this close, please go to deletion review. Fences&Windows 21:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

For the third nomination, keep in mind that a nomination can only be withdrawn if no-one else has supported the deletion proposal. The first one was a bad call, for that reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

To dispute that first close, discuss at User talk:Foxj#Withdrawn AfD nomination. or go to deletion review. When considering a future deletion nomination, please consider the guidance in WP:1E and WP:PERP (not WP:BLP1E as the subject is not living), and consider a WP:MERGE discussion rather than deletion. Fences&Windows 17:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the first one, just an FYI for the next one. If it's me starting the next one, it won't be soon. Too much hoopla. But yeah, consider those guidelines, too.

I've found casting Merge votes in an AfD instead of Delete works. Though "merger" has nicer connotations than "deletion", and probably the more organized way. Might be best. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I use the term "cast votes" loosely, of course. I know it's not straight voting. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Depression claims not sourced, speculation, rumor, gossip, tabloidy

"Lubitz took time off from his flight training due to an onset of depression"
The bold part needs to be removed since there is no source. (Bild is a tabloid, not a reliable source.) 12.180.133.18 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

From The New York Times article: "On Friday the hospital denied speculation that Mr. Lubitz had sought treatment for depression there."
(The hospital is "The Düsseldorf University Hospital" in English, "Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf" in German.)12.180.133.18 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

And now we have an article for it: Düsseldorf University Hospital. -- The Anome (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Attention: Keep or Delete File:Andreas Lubitz.jpg

Dear editors and contributors to Andreas Lubitz: There has been some dispute over the photograph in the info box on Andreas' article (File:Andreas Lubitz.jpg. When I first reviewed this article (when it was first created), the talk page requested a photo. I decided to upload an image of Andreas from the Telegraph (UK), which the photograph was taken by Wolfgang Nass. After I uploaded it with a rational, I added it to the article. I had several editors "Thank" me for uploading it (using the 'Thank" button on page history). With 48 hours, the image was removed a tagged for deletion by Psychonaut. I asked why, and s/he said that the rationale was disputed. I fixed the rational, and they thanked me, and the image was restored. After talking back and forth with Psychonaut, s/he suggested that I ask the photographer if we could use this photograph on Wikipedia, and license it under CC by 3.0. After I emailed the photographer of the photo (currently in the infobox), whey declined to let us use it on Wikipedia with CC by 3.0. Than I thought, "If the author declined for Wikipedia to use it, than why are we hosting his photo with "fair-use" (which is not fair use if he declined for us to use it) which is disputed? After talking about it with Psychonaut, I decided to restore the deletion tag, because it's very rude to have a photograph under fair use when its not really fair use because the photographer did not want us to use it. After that, I decided to look for photographs of Andreas, and ask their respected owners if they would license their photos of Andreas under CC by 3.0 for Wikipedia. I am asking all of you who have edited this article, to voice your opinion. Should we Keep this photo on Wikipedia under "fair-use" (even though though the author declined for us to use it after I upload it) or should we Delete the photo, and try to find a free one by contacting photographers with photos of Andreas, and ask them to license it to use under CC by 3.0? Personally, I (CookieMonster755) vote Delete the current photo in the infobox. (I am currently contacting photographers with photos of Andreas, asking them if Wikipedia can use their photo under CC by 3.0). Please voice your opinion: Delete or Keep the photograph. Also, if strongly ask you to contact photographers with photos of Andreas as well, and ask them to let Wikipedia use their photo under CC by 3.0. If you would like a sample letter asking them to use their photo for Wikipedia, see: Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. If you would like to read the conversation I had with Psychonaut about this issue, please see: User talk:CookieMonster755#Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Andreas Lubitz.jpg. Again, please vote (with an explanation) Delete or Keep the current photograph (File:Andreas Lubitz.jpg) in the infobox (or if your an Administrator or major contributor to this article, you can be bold and delete it yourself with a reply to this thread). Thank you to everybody for your help in this project! CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The fair use provisions of US copyright law allows using the photo without the permission of consent of the creator, but, that said, I agree that we should pursue getting a freely-licenced image if that is possible. If it is not possible then this fair use image should stand. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Thank you for your feedback. CookieMonster755 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Andreas "sought treatment for vision problems that may have jeopardized his ability to continue working as a pilot," per The New York Times

• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/world/europe/pilot-andreas-lubitz-sought-treatment-for-vision-problems-before-germanwings-crash-authorities-say.html 12.180.133.18 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

German newspapers have not confirmed this. I have thus deleted this section in the article. http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/luftverkehr-airbus-absturz-behelfsstrasse-soll-opfer-bergung-erleichtern_id_4578633.html --Aldebaraner (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Reuters/AFP reporting Welt am Sonntag - RS?

Reuters/AFP based article

Police have found a number "of medicines for the treatment of psychological illness" during a search at his Dusseldorf home, Welt am Sonntag newspaper said.

Is Welt am Sonntag reliable? -- Aronzak (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In short: Yes.--TMCk (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I recommend being conservative. Papers are forced to publish soon. Someone, who want's latest news, should read a newsticker, not wikipedia. And a lot of papers are only referencing each other. Official press releases (German) are the best source. --EPsi (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Treated with injections of Olanzapine since 2010 - reliable source

Le Parisien (in French) says that Andreas was given injections of the antipsychotic Olanzapine since 2010, and that he had been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/crash-de-l-a320-le-copilote-etait-traite-pour-des-troubles-anxieux-generalises-28-03-2015-4646063.php

CNN, apparently using Le Parisien as the source, says Andreas was injected with an antipsychotic in 2010. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/europe/france-germanwings-plane-crash-main/ 12.180.133.18 (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's gossip/trivia. Alleged use of medication once in 2010 (and we also don't know what it was for) has no effect on what happened last week. CNN is also quoting other news organizations, they haven't reported it themselves. ― Padenton|✉   19:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well if you read our article Olanzapine, you learn it is mostly used for treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. No shit Sherlock, the pilot is taking antipsychotics, and you conjecture that this has no effect on what happened last week!?! If the news report about Lubitz buying two new Audis just days before the crash, with no means to pay for them, is true, then that suggests he might have suffered for mania phase of bipolar disorder then and the alternating depression phase when he murdered the passengers. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That's pure speculation, it has no place on Wikipedia. And another reminder, we are talking about a WP:BDP. Your "medical opinion" is irrelevant. ― Padenton|✉   06:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to put my "medical opinion" in the article proper. You too should refraim from making editing decisions based on speculations and original synthesis, like your totally ludicrous idea of pilot taking antipsychotics having nothing to do with pilot crashing the plane on purpose. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully, we needn't to worry about that as I don't add speculation to Wikipedia. WP:BDP states that I should remove contentious material immediately and I will. ― Padenton|✉   07:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Does the existence of this Wikipedia article incentivize the next instance of a tragic event like this?

Let's be clear. The simple existence of a major top-level article in Wikipedia for a single-event madman incident acts, on the margin, as a positive incentive of "eternal fame" and extra worldwide attention for the next madman contemplating a similar action. The Wikimedia Foundation will eventually have to come to grips with this, as no consensus of editors is ever likely to do so.

We could, and we should, leave a description of the copilot who perpetrated this act as a paragraph or a section in the main article that describes the tragedy. We need not, as Wikipedia editors, choose to give such people additional validation for their murderous achievements by leaving a self-titled article in Wikipedia for them as a memorial. N2e (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There's an (inevitable) AfD for this article already: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz. I suggest you make this suggestion there. However, the way this article is shaping up, it doesn't look like it's going to look anything like a "validation": at the moment, the picture that is emerging is rather sad, and makes him look as much an object of pity as of condemnation. -- The Anome (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course it does not matter to this person now; he's dead. But why does the Wikimedia Foundation want to create the incentive to the some other poor, sorry and confused person by saying: "Kill a lot of people, and you can be immortalized on a memorial page on Wikipedia." Just seems like the wrong incentive for the foundation to create. N2e (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

People who perform these kinda acts, (serial killers/terrorists/mass murders) by virtue become historical figures and studied (see Criminology) as a way for us to understand how they work so we can understand how to prevent it from happening again. This would be a good point if we had a page for every person who has committed one murder, quite frankly this guy has sadly taken 149 lives and that has rarely happened and is likely to be used as a case of depression prevention, he has already changed ways in which a airline is run. It is of my opinion that while some may commit a crime to get on Wikipedia WP:CRYSTALBALL (which Wikipedia has never been cited as a reason yet) these kinds of people are more then likely to do the act with or without the article. Maybe you're suggesting we delete Herostratus who actually did want infamy, even though he destroyed a classic of architecture which made his name historical, which we use to DOCUMENT on why that piece of architecture no longer exists, adding a short bio of Andreas would severely clutter and make the article on the flight large and ugly in style as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and 2014 Isla Vista killings currently are. In my mind those kinds of articles have no use for a biography which is why there should be a well written and well sourced biography written on these figures, which may help criminology studies in the future which would be the basis of a world encyclopedia, of course ONLY in high profile cases like this and not the run of the mill murder occasion, only other case like this Andreas one is Gameel Al-Batouti GuzzyG (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I also believe that this article shouldn't be deleted: censorship is always counterproductive. Even if, as a matter of fact, Wikipedia is now helping this man to achieve his goal: to be remembered for the next thousands' years. And thus is deeply, deeply, deeply sad. -- @ ^_ 11:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

When I tried to find this page yesterday (27 March 2015) I was annoyed to see it redirected to the crash page. I felt this amounted to censorship: that some people want and need to know the background of the alleged perpetrator, his state of mind and possible factual reasons for his alleged act, etc, and this information should not be suppressed. I am pleased to see there is now a page for the guy. There should be. Let it stand. 80.254.158.172 (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is deleted, the small bit of pertinent info it contains will go in its own section of the wider topic. This redirect would point directly to it. It's not censoring, it's organizing.

Readers could still know his background, but if they find any reasons, it'll be extraordinary. Every mass murder, people ask why. It's more of a rhetorical question by now. "Search for answers continues" is a very common headline. But people can read the mainstream consensus in the Perpetrator section, too. Without having to go to another article. Convenient. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer is that he may have been a completely sane individual, yet all he could see was that people thought he was insane. Perhaps he was the most caring and loving person in the world, but because he borderlined perfection everyone hated him. Probably just couldn't take it anymore, since any call for help would presumably be more "you need to fix this or that" instead of compassion. 163.251.239.3 (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Several comments are missing the point of the discussion in this particular Talk page section. There are many other Talk-page sections, on this page and on others, where editors argue, after every one of these sorts of horrific multiple murders, that the perpetrator ought to get his/her own Wikipedia article. I would expect this case will be no different, from the point of view of editors. There will not be a successful AfD of this article, now or in future months, by Wikipedia editors.

I'm asking the meta-question: Why does the Wikimedia Foundation choose, as a matter of policy, to allow their servers to be the go-to place for memorializing multiple murderers? Let the magazine writers and book writers choose to cover this "news" and historical event, as Wikipedia would as well (in the article on the event). Just don't give these perpetrators a permanently named article in their (infamous) honor on the encyclopedia of all knowledge, thus incenting other sad/depressed/angry/mentally-ill/whatever individuals to carry out a similar act, and thus get themselves memorialized on the backs of the charitable contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation to support Wikimedia server farms, employees, and other overhead. I really don't get it. And I do think the foundation ought to reconsider. N2e (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, we got that. Thanks for your opinion. (Short answer: What you are looking for is damnatio memoriae. It doesn't work.) But given that you believe that posting here will not have any effect, I can't see why you continue with this. The WMF is that way, why not contact them directly? -- The Anome (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Because only Wikipedia's process allows for removal of cognitive biases. I would argue that this is a notable name due to the fact everyone is trying to figure out what went wrong, and it seems to have a large spread emotional effect emanating from this one person's life. Sucks that this may be possible motivation for another incident, but perhaps a solution can be found. I like to think that: things may be opposite of how they appear, until I have enough data to confirm good intention or ignorance of good intention. 163.251.239.3 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia project. Serious encyclopedias write about and dedicate sections to people who are murderous, sick, aberrant etcetera, in a factual way. It's not a memorial page, even if Lubitz wanted to be known and remembered. His goal wasn't a WP page. We can't stop writing about people who make us mad or sad just because someone somewhere might get an idea to commit something heinous by reading about other heinous things. By this logic, we shouldn't have several pages dedicated to the number one heinous person ever, Hitler and aspects of his life and personality. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If you delete the page you lose the information here. You also lose a place to put other information. Therefore the page should not be deleted. 5.150.92.82 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Pregnant girlfriend?

AVweb is reporting that Lubitz's current girlfriend is pregnant. AVweb is a reliable source but, in this case they attribute this news to Bild, which we consider not a WP:RS. This should be added if it can be independently confirmed, as it may have been a psychological factor in the crash. - Ahunt (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

CBC is now reporting this, but again attributed to Bild. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone else is reporting this and other details, attributed to Bild, except Wikipedia, the reliable encyclopedia that anyone can whitewash and where mass killers cannot be called as criminals, much less mass killers. This minor fact about girlfriend is not that relevant IMHO and we must apply WP:BLP from the viewpoint of the girlfriend (and other innocent Lubitz associates). (don't talk secrets) (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the place where we don't depend on trending stories, so aren't obliged to edit about anything relating to the "big story". If an outlet doesn't follow the others' talking points for even a day, they won't get clicked. Wikipedia is always top-ranked in Google, (theoretically) unaffected by timeliness, human interest, continuity or sensationalism. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal life

Daily Mail reported he had "a patchy relationship over the last seven years" with girlfriend, Kathrin Goldbach, that they were letting her pregnancy news from two weeks ago "sink in," that she knew of his medical problems but allegedly "not the extent, and she knew about his affair with a flight attendant, Maria. If there's going to be an article on him, it should have a personal life section like every other biographical article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:1280:344A:D9F1:41C3:EFF5:4617 (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Dailymail isn't really a WP:RS, it's a tabloid. This is all gossip. :-/ ― Padenton|✉   18:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleted. WWGB (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)