This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Latest comment: 7 months ago13 comments3 people in discussion
@User:Martinevans123. Looks like we disagree on something. I understand your point about this event occurring 11 years ago but I feel like when we state, "At the time", that makes the reader think that it no longer is a reliable aircraft. Maybe instead of saying, "At the time, the Boeing 777 had a good reputation for safety", we can rephrase it to, "The safety record of the Boeing 777 was favorable then and continues to be so". Eliminating the sentence completely might also be a way to end this conflict. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The supporting source here says it had "a stella reputation for safety", so we might want to quote that. Except that it's a single non-technical source. But rather than commenting about "reputation", it might be better to simply state the statistics? The database source could be retained for useful info. Re your suggestion, "The safety record of the Boeing 777 was favorable then and continues to be so", the first part looks ok, but that second part looks to me WP:UNDUE and out of place. Happy to hear other views. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
"But rather than commenting about 'reputation', it might be better to simply state the statistics?" That is what you said. What do you mean by Statistics? Like Statistics about what exactly? CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I meant just how many fatal accidents, crashes and hull losses, which are already given. If there was a source that gave cumulative percentage comparisons for different aircraft types/ manufacturers up to 2013, that might also be useful, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok. So how about completely removing "At the time, the Boeing 777 had a good reputation for safety." and just leaving "This was its first fatal accident, second crash (after British Airways Flight 38), and third hull loss since the 777 began operating commercially in 1995." Which are the statistics that you said earlier? CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think a good safety record of the 777 is useful context. It wasn't an inherently dangerous aircraft. Perhaps we just need better sources to support that claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that is my point! Since a good safety record is a useful context and including the first sentence goes against the claim, I'm suggesting removing it completely since rephrasing might not be as good as an idea as I thought it would be. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No strong objections, as I don't think "good reputation" is the best wording. But I'd wait and take advice from other editors before removing, as it's not strictly "incorrect". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
OOF I definitely wasn't trying to open a can of worms by changing those few words. >_<
Original intention was simply to have a grammar that accurately reflected past-tense since this happened over a decade ago and by technicality, the safety record is objectively different now because other things have happened in the last 11 years, but the plane still exists and flies today; so having the statement reflective in present tense seemed off-putting; hence the link to the 777 incident page itself.
It is also a good point that saying "at the time" makes the plane sound LESS safe which is also not really a fair conclusion; not my place to make that call, im no plane detective or accident statistician.
Moreso just that the incident statistics are different than they were 11 years ago, so saying "it is safe" and following it up with a sentence about what the stats were 11 years ago seemed strange.
With that said, all those involved here make fair points. This one line is too subjective and has a lot of retroactive editing liability.
-----
Upon reading all said above, as well as knowing the intention in the original edit, I believe the best course of action is to actually remove the line and simply present what the statistics were at that time 11 years ago as suggested above; it seems most accurate that way and leaves no guessing room for readers. Armeym (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The redirect Captain Sum Ting Wong has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Captain Sum Ting Wong until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)