Talk:Yemenia Flight 626/Archive 1

Archive 1

Flight 626/627

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Yemenia Flight 626. -- 2help (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Yemenia Flight 627 describes the same flight. Both these flight numbers may be wrong, but references have stated that the flight is FROM Sina'a, and as such 626 is more correct. Information should be merged from there to here. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Hishighness420 (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

agree - direction was sanaa to comores —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthvaderic (talk • contribs) 05:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aircraft Type

Media reports are split between it being an A310 or an A330, both of which are in the Yemenia fleet. Anyone have any hard info? Stuart midgley (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Yemenia website (before it crashed) listed the flight as being an A310. CNN, BBC and Reuters all report A310 as well. A330 references may be confusion with the recent Air France flight 447 crash. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The A330 flew the first leg of the trip from CDG and Marseille, then the A310 to Comoros. Hence possible confusion. Mgw89 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of People

Is is 158 people? Because 147+11 = 158 not 157 Hishighness420 (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Tailnumber

Why are there four tailnumbers listed? If we don't know, it shouldn't be in the infobox.

76.66.193.20 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft has now been identified. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Date

What date should be used in the article, local or UTC? The crash occured at 230 local time on 30 June, which corresponds with 2330 UTC on 29 June. IBstupid (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe, per WP:TIMEZONE we should use local time for the event and reference it to UTC. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference

Another reference about the number of flights this aircraft took.

Please add it [1]

ChaoticSilence (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

File:7O-ADJ.jpg

File:7O-ADJ.jpg

File:7O-ADJ.jpg

The image File:7O-ADJ.jpg has a deletion notice on it... if someone could correct the problem... 76.66.193.20 (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Sole survivor age

On this article it states the surviving passenger is a 13 year old girl. On Airbus A310-300 under incidents and accidents it says she is 14. KlickingKarl (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is trivial to find a range of media reports for each of 12, 13 and 14 years. Making it rather hard to determine an actual age, so better to leave it out until the truth becomes evident. (13--[2], 12--[3], 14--[4]) 118.208.1.165 (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

@KlickingKarl she Co-wrote a book about her experience and sube has her own Wikipedia article that includes her birth-date. She was born August 1996 wucg makes her 12 at the time of the accident. 91.65.161.91 (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Route

Are there any reports on the route or where exactly the plane crashed? It would be nice if we had a map like this one:

Air France flight

France24 has a video highlighting the route in this article. I'm not sure that it's accurate, though, as it shows the crash far from Moroni, which I thought it crashed near. IBstupid (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC's article has a decent overview map, though it is surely copyrighted. It would be nice for someone with some image skills to make their own version, as with Air France, though it may be better to wait until more details (such as specific location) are released. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Reference 2 and 18 are the same news article. I am not too sure if I should remove one of them or not, can someone give me some feedback? Warrior4321^talk 01:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed 18 to point to 2. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Map

A map has appeared... 76.66.194.17 (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger Discussion (see close of this AFD)

Opening up whether to Merge Bahia Bakari into this article in adherence with WP:BLP1E. Since the merger templates link to this talk, the discussion should be here. My opinion is that one of the most important things about this crash is the survival and that it should have substantial coverage on this page. I do, however, feel that merging the content in the Bahia Bakari page is a perfect interpretation of a textbook case of 1E. Any content in the article about the girl which does not relate directly to the crash would be a WP:BLP violation. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a an AFD for Bahia Bakari, but I can no longer find the many discussions that were held. If someone could recover them, it might avoid us repeating ourselves and going over old ground.AlexandrDmitri (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I should think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahia Bakari contains most of it. Closed as keep with the admin noting that AfD is not the venue for a merge/not merge discussion. The consensus was clear that the information should be kept, but unclear on whether the case existed for a BLP. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 18:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is covered in the AfD, which resulted in a Keep. As far as WP:BLP1E or WP:BLP in general, the Bahia Bakari article stands on its own merit in relation to the accident article, and specifically meets the inclusion requirements of both BLP and BLP1E. In BLP1E there is an example of John Hinckley, to show that a person notable only for a single event is not automatically excluded from WP. To be eligible for WP inclusion per BLP1E (like Hinckley), the subject has to play a prominent role in the event, to be very notable, and the notability has to be persistent. At this point, per Google as a rough guide, Bakari is twice as notable as Hinckley (223,000 for "Bahia Bakari" vs. 111,000 for "John Hinckley"), and she is the "main star" in her survival story, which was prominently reported by mainstream media world wide, who dubbed her the "miracle girl". She is a survivor of the deadliest ever sole-survivor airline ocean crash, and the second deadliest sole-survivor airplane crash in history. These types of "records" are revisited by the media each time a new sole-survivor accident occurs, and by her holding number one and two positions per above, there is no reasonable chance for her to fade into obscurity during her lifetime. Juliane Koepcke, a similar sole-survivor (although her accident was much less deadly than Bakari's), is still notable 38 years later. In addition, the accident article has to be focused on the technical hows and whys of the crash, while Bakari's article has to be focused on her survival. Forcing the survival article into a sub-section of the accident article is improper to both subjects: readers of the accident want to learn about how and why it happened, and don't necessarily want a lot of details about the survival story, while readers of the Bakari story want to learn about the survival, and skip the technical details about the accident. Both articles have a section and link to each other in summary style, which is the best way to handle two related topics. The accident article ("Flight 626") has only 30,900 g-hits compared to Bahia Bakari's 223,000, but that doesn't mean the accident should be subsumed in her survival article. The issue is how to best present both related stories to our readers, and they each warrant a separate page to be most reader-friendly. Crum375 (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Crum, while you !voted keep, and the admin closed keep, the closing admin noted explicitly that the discussion of merger versus independent article should be continued on the talk page. I created the discussion here for exactly that reason and have provided the link to the AfD above even though I neglected to do so in the original text, I have also added it to the title so no one misses it. Hinckley has been covered extensively in academic works after the fact, his multiple appearances in both fiction and non-fiction and the extensively documented and academically discussed profound impact of his action on US history put him in a completely different league of notability. The comparison is, in and of itself, undermining for the argument, when Miss Bakari and flight 626 have been the subject of the same amount of academic and lasting analysis as Hinckley and Lincoln the argument will hold more sway. As far as google hits are concerned, multiple editors pointed you to WP:GOOGLEHITS in the AfD but you refuse to stop quoting how many google hits this has or that has. As an example, bad metric gives 7,600,000 hits, and yet bad metric is, suitably, a red link. Google. Hits. Are. Useless. They are a breeding ground for WP:Recentism. As far as any staying power as far as notability goes, speculation along those lines is WP:CRYSTAL and inherently unverifiable. In fact, looking at google news, another recentism laden site, but I'll humor it, while the subject is covered in an impressive 2079 pages in the last week, only 4, yes, four of them are from within the last four days. What does that say of fickle media interest gone cold? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the discussion focused on the issues at hand, not on individual editors. Google hits are an excellent indicator of relative notability, and certainly help in finding good secondary sources. Like any tool, they should not be used indiscriminately, and all they are being used for here is relative notability. For example, currently Bakari is twice as notable as Hinckley, and 7 times more notable than her own accident. She is also more notable than the vast majority of current WP BLP subjects. Having said that, we need to focus also on the specific merits of the subject. For example, WP is not a crystal ball, so we shouldn't make predictions or present futuristic material in WP's article space. But we can use common sense on talk space, for example to decide whether a current notable record holder is likely to fade into obscurity in the near future. As I noted above, we have no precedent for a significant record holder becoming obscure with time. As Bakari is a survivor of the deadliest sole-survivor ocean crash in history, and the second deadliest sole-survivor airplane crash ever, that means she is unlikely to ever fade away. Other sole survivors of old crashes which were less deadly are still notable today. She is already world famous today as the "miracle girl", has 220,000 g-hits, and we have no reason to believe she'll ever become obscure. Crum375 (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And the same rationale/arguments (in the sense of debate) are once again on the table. I for one am all for ignoring completely and utterly the number of Google hits on the grounds that:

1. Google references all kinds of media, including completely unreliable blogs, obscure online journals, television listings...
2. Google and the Internet in general are recent, so it is logical that a recent event be more widely reported than one that happened in 1955

AlexandrDmitri (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That may all be true, but the issue here is the relative notability, not absolute, and we can even separate old from new, if we assume that more recent events are more likely to be online. So in this case, at issue are the relative notabilities of two recent events which happened simultaneously: the accident and Bakari's survival. Although Google shows Bakari is 7 times more notable than her accident, all we really need to show is that they are roughly equivalent to justify individual articles, since there is already consensus (and decision) for a Keep in the AfD. As far as Google coming up with blogs and other junk sites, that would be roughly in equal proportions to all notable subjects. Again, at issue here are not absolute but relative numbers. Crum375 (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As I demonstrated above with my bad metric example, even the virtues of google for relative notability are basically naught (in fact, I would have thought Hinckley vs Bakari would have demonstrated that). The recentism impact of google is enormous, and from time to time, the most short lived internet meme or celebrity fau paux would exceed 100,000 hits (what a big number). I occasionally use ghits as a counterindicator of notability, such as for a purportedly "notable" band which gives three hits, but that's pretty much the limit of it. Wikipedia is not a directory of what scores high at a google search. Consensus at Wikipedia has established that major air disasters are notable, something which I am fairly comfortable with as they tend to have major lasting ramifications on air safety regulations and controls. It has also established, for both practical and legal reasons, that individuals who are drawn into a single event and receive significant coverage for it should be excluded (included as a part of the event article) until they have established lasting verifiable notability (not until someone says it is likely they will remain notable). In this case, the google news (reservations about recentism as above) now has ZERO hits in the last 4 days and the hits which are still there are filing out the back of a week and into the newspaper archives at a high pace. The 2077 quoted above is now 1,652, but might be less by the time you read this and check that link (google is much better as a counterindicator than as an indicator). Also note that Yemenia has a steady flow of 22,996 hits, almost all related to the accident and the ramification of the accident (EU black lists and all that). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Google is a tremendous tool, which like any another tool needs to be used carefully and properly. To compare "Flight 626" and "Bahia Bakari" via g-hits is reasonable, and gives us a sense of their relative notability. At the moment, the former gives us 30,900, and the latter has 223,000, about 7 times more. But the point is that they are different (though related) topics, as I noted above, and readers who want to read about Bakari's survival would be distracted by the technical details of the hows and whys of the accident. Similarly, those who want to read about the accident would be distracted by the survival story, rescue and later accolades of a single passenger. There is no reason not to have a separate page for each topic, with the two pages interlinked (as they are now) via summary-style sections. Our focus should be our readers, and this is the best way to present the two related subjects. Crum375 (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The number of google hits you've so insistently been quoting (and I've been trying to explain that nobody else cares about) has now fallen to 95,900 and chances are it will be smaller tomorrow (although the archiving and mirroring of the internet will slow this effect). Also, there are no google news hits in the last 10 days. One event, which is now over. It may be that she will rule the world, but until she does, the Bahia Bakari article should be merged into this article, per the letter and intention of BLP1E. Not that I expect I can convince you that BLP1E ever applies to anything, or for that matter that google is worthless for establishment of notability but I had fifty seconds to waste. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 20:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Old article

This article hasn't been updated for several months with new information. This article needs the newest available information, as the black boxes were already found in August 2009 and there's still no official word about the cause of the crash? Not even speculation in media sources or other sources? /Heymid (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This source is included in the Investigation section. It cites "people familiar with the work of investigators" as saying that, based on the black box evidence, the cause was pilot error. I am not sure you'll get more before the final report is issued. Crum375 (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I was struck by the similarities with the AF447 incident a month earlier. Both have a cause of accident which seem highly controversial and disputed by many experts. The new-science 'Bermuda Triangle' explanation also fits Flight 626 imo and is discussed in the talkpage of AF447 for anyone who is interested. 195.59.118.106 (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey.

I've just found out that an aircraft similarly crashed just after leaving Moroni's Prince Said Ibrahim International Airport. "On 27 November 2012 an Inter Iles Air Embraer EMB 120ER Brasilia (registration number D6-HUA) was underway from Moroni to Anjouan (both in Comoros Islands) on a charter flight with 25 passengers and 4 crew, when after taking off from Moroni's Prince Said Ibrahim International Airport it lost height, and while attempting to return to the airport, waterlanded 200 meters off the coast, about 5 km north of the airport. Local fishermen rescued everybody on board. There were only minor injuries.[1]". This sudden loss of height fits with the Bermuda Triangle-like hypothesis. It's a common feature of Clear Air Turbulance aircraft incidents and is a potential clue to the cause of the flight 626 crash imo. 195.59.118.106 (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey.

A mystery boat sinking has also occurred near the Comoros, which is reminiscent of the possible 'Bermuda Triangle-like' hypothesis. [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/comoros-islands-ship-sinks_n_923148.html]Comoros Islands Ship Sinks, 60 Killed: France[/url]. Here's another amazing ship loss mystery near the Comoros [url=http://www.heritagewatch.co.za/did-you-know/item/74-mystery-of-the-waratah.html]Unsolved: The Mystery of the Waratah[/url]. Some intersting quotes from the article are: "It didn't stop the most official explanation to date, however, from being published in 2009. It stated that the Waratah, reportedly top-heavy with cargo, probably rolled over and sank when a freak wave slammed into its portside." and "Another theory has it that a double boiler explosion left the Waratah without propulsion, sending her adrift on a north-easterly current to a spot near the Comoros, where she is said to have sunk." and "Yet another theory, of the "hole in the ocean", explains that the Waratah was possibly sucked into a vortex caused by winds and currents that open up ocean floor cavities large enough to swallow large ships." 195.59.118.106 (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey.

Date in infobox

The date of the incident in the infobox is showing up as "06" for me. Anyone else? The start date template seems to be have been properly used. D6011 (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, {{start date}} and {{start-date}} behave differently. — Lfdder (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Flight Engineer On An A310?

What was a flight engineer doing on this flight? Isn't the A310 designed to be operated by a crew of two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.187.153 (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yemenia Flight 626. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090704215214/http://uk.news.yahoo.com:80/4/20090701/twl-crashed-plane-s-black-box-located-41f21e0.html to http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090701/twl-crashed-plane-s-black-box-located-41f21e0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)