Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:05, 25 July 2014

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409 was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 25 January 2010.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on January 25, 2011 and January 25, 2013.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Ethiopia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ethiopia (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Accidents 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Lebanon Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Aviation / Maritime / Middle East / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Middle Eastern military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

Time of disappearance

The BBC is reporting the flight dissapeared after 5 minutes while Reuters is saying it dissapeared after 45 minutes. CNN just reported it dissapeared after 30 minutes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manufrk (talk • contribs) 03:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AFP quotes an anon airport official with "Ethiopian Airline Flight 409 crashed about five minutes after takeoff at 2:30 am (1230 GMT) with 83 passengers and nine crew members". Ref ; can't figure out a direct link to the story. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

i live in Naameh, where the plane has crashed. the airport is about 10 min by car. if the plane has crashed 45 min after take off, it would be impossible to crash in the sea facing Naameh, it would crash in Cyprus or Syria. it seems to me much more logical that the crash occured about 5 min after takeoff.Moreever, we smelled Kerozene about 2.45 AM local time, and the plane is scheduled for departure around 2.37 AM. The crash occured in my oppinion no more than 5 min after take off

Aircraft type

The reference cited doesn't list the type of 737; flightglobal.com suggests a 737-800. I have to run and don't have time to check... -- Flyguy649 05:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Once we know the aircraft's registration the rest will fall into place. Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft regestration G-CEJP. Picture http://www.flickr.com/photos/40168621@N07/4173097014/ if you want to embed. Guyag (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately an "All rights reserved" picture... Slasher-fun (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ligitimately linked in "external links" Mjroots (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just removed it as it is not ET-ANB! MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the ET-AMZ confusion caused by the airline! Added a photo of ET-ANB now. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

7 injuries, 0 survivors

This is a result of the conflicting reports in the media on whether there are seven survivors (according to local media) or no survivors (according to airline officials)? Regardless of who is right I think it would be good to be, at least, consistent... Andreas Willow (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Best to keep injuries/survivors off for now. Only count confirmed deaths unless/until it is stated that there are no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I came in here to ask that very question. As of now, the text of the article includes the statement, "Twenty-one fatalities have been confirmed, although officials said it was unlikely anyone on the plane survived." But the info box says "Fatalities: 21 (confirmed)". In light of the previous sentence, shouldn't the info box say something that indicates that, though only 21 fatalities have been confirmed, 90 are suspected? I am not wise in the ways of journalism nor Misplaced Pages, but it seems that we're dancing around the fact that a betting man, asked to guess the final casualty count, would say "90". TypoBoy (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way of saying things is (21 confirmed) ? (So we include the parentheses to indicate that it is not expected to be final.) The text should made clear that the death toll may rise. Andreas Willow (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Water depth

there is no reference for the water depth at the estimated site of the crash, i looked for an online seachart or something like that, but can't find one, maybe someone who knows how can have a look, i would think it is probably 60-70 mtr , but could be up to perhaps 240.24.132.171.225 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

the article now says 330ft but the figure i have seen said 40 mts (~130 ft) however a few days before that an article stated they were supposed to be at (i think) 1km however searching delivered nothing then. anyhow, it has also been stated that technical error (and i think weather ) was not a cause after the initial research on the black boxes that reportedly registered all of the incident, peculiarly it was also said the plain broke up during the crash before it hit the water, wich appears to contradict witness statements. i guess it just broke up slightly then.24.132.171.225 (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Death toll

Right now, the article says there's 21 confirmed death's, and this, which is a reference in the article right now, backs that up, but this says 24 bodies have been recovered. Which one should we go by, since they're conflicting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by C628 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be annoying or anything, but the New York Times and CNN say 23 bodies. If no one responds for a few minutes, I'm going to go ahead and change it to 23, given two sources agree for that. C628 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No survivors

Reuters ((video report), Beirut are saying no survivors. Can we take this as the final word. It's been 18 hrs since the crash and we would have expected news of survivors by now. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Safety Network also saying no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ASN also mentiones that Rescuers are continuing to search for bodies and wreckage, but officials say it is very unlikely that any of the 90 people on board will be found alive. I suggest that we keep only the current mention in the article (it is unlikely that there are any survivors) until the search and rescue operation ends, we can then put the death toll to 90 (24 confirmed) and survivors to 0. Andreas Willow (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Official passengers/crew numbers

I've noticed in the "Accident" section there were: have had 83 passengers and seven crew members. While in the table of "Passengers and Crew" some of the statistics are different. On ninemsn.com.au it stated 83 passengers while on nytimes.com it stated 85 passengers. It can be confusing. Adamdaley (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The official release by Ethiopian Airlines says 82 pax and 8 crew. There is often confusion in these matters to start with. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently took off in wrong direction

supposedly took off in the wrong direction according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8480569.stm (193.188.128.15 (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

No, the aircraft turned opposite the direction given by Beirut Centre. The Jepps departure plate shows BOD 2 from runway 34 as being out bound on 326 turning at 6,000 feet to 355 then intercepting the 286 radial of CHEKKA passing over it at 13,000 feet.

This is not consistent with the reports that the aircraft was at 8,000 feet and southwest of the airport.

That would be more consistent with the BOD 1 departure from runway 21 which would have been a quartering tailwind. Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

According to flight global the departure was from runway 21 All departures from that runway show an outbound heading of 220 until 4 or 5000 feet is reached followed by a turn to the right until turning towards either BOD or KALDE. The Jepps chart shows the crossing of BOD should be at 8,000 or above, KALDE at 13,000.

It is pretty clear that the airplane did not take off the 'wrong way.' Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

although don't have time to understand half of what's being said (exams), that night they were varying landing/takeoff directions a number of times that night (i can see the usual landing alignment and less usual takeoff alignment, this aircraft took the usual takeoff direction), anyway, point being: there is no reason other than that that i don't understand that the aircraft couldn't have been instructed to take off in a north-ish direction, as other had done that night, i know a witness like me can't be used for evidence, but can you guys investigate this, cos it can't be wrong that there are statements coming from officials that are baseless, they will have conducted some interviews and come to that conclusion. same person as first post on this section (193.188.128.15 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

there are a couple of things behind, the confusion about type and id. could be suiting either an airline or other aviation company, however the controverse about witness statements is probably mostly a problem because the lebanese government declared it was not a terrorist attack before they could really know anything (although maybe they did know..). the flying altitude was probably lower (perhaps then required) the reason for misinterpreting the pilots turn is possibly provocation, or else lack of reading capacity. a lot of people want to leave it at that, at least one witness, but i think he was with others, said he first saw an explosion, it is now told that the plane/pilot (completely) failed to respond to a weather warning, and that the plane turned right (seaward) shortly after (a pilot might do that to avoid casualties on the ground while crashing) , to quickly disappear from the radio. The number of eyewitness that said they have seen it on fire is over 2, and it went down 5 minutes after departure at most, wich the article shows btw., both things indicate it was rather lower then the required 8000 feet then higher. Also it has been stated the aircraft broke apart while still in the air, that means that whatever was the problem, the pilots had probably no control at all anymore. or it had hit the sea somewhat intact. the problem is indeed it depends on eyewitnesses , if one or a few persons describe what could be a rocket or a bomb or a few tell it came down in flames, and everybody else want it to break apart or not to be one of these things. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/2010126174935266216.html 24.132.171.225 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Al Qaeda attack?

I've reverted the addition of the accident being an Al Qaeda attack because the source does not seem to be reliable. For instance, hizballah - is this Hezbollah? One would expect that a reliable journalistic source would at least get the spelling correct. If this is an Al Qaeda attack, it will be reported by far more reliable sources such as BBC, Sky, Reuters, Associated Press etc. Mjroots (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hizbollah" is a reasonable English rendering of the Arabic name of the organization. However, you are correct that this web site is not a Reliable Source, so we can't use it. Zero 10:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go by an early, off-the-cuff opinion at RSN, not until several editors weigh in over a few days. I've studied the issue and while it's not RS to cite Debkafile out of the blue as it is now, we could build a paragraph about the debate over whether this was an accident or sabotage. There are other sources that debate terrorist involvement, and a paragraph based on them would provide sufficient context for Debka's opinion, which should be attributed as such. I've responded in more detail with sources, at WP:RSN under Debka.com, and invite the editor who wanted to use Debka to respond there. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Debka.com. Chesdovi (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Details are incorrect

Parts of the story are wrong. The Lebanonese didn't find the blackbox or the last recovered parts of the plane. The Americans first found the box on the 29th and actually picked it, and the last parts of the aircraft. The Washington Post article from the 29th or 30th is the most accurate about them first finding it. Btw the water is way deeper than 200-300m so the lebanonese divers wouldn't have been able to dive down there..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.4.148.74 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Do you have sources that say this? We base what we say off of the news media reports. They have supremacy over unsourced statements like that of above. If you have better sources (they may be in any language), please show them. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Appendixes

Here are the appendixes

• http://www.lebcaa.com/pdfs/App%20A.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/66rDvm04z
• http://www.lebcaa.com/pdfs/App%20K.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/66rFBdcN6
• http://www.lebcaa.com/pdfs/App%20M.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/66rFE0613
• http://www.lebcaa.com/pdfs/App%20O.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/66rFFAFtk
• http://www.lebcaa.com/pdfs/App%20P.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/66rFGanmb
• http://www.lebcaa.com/pdfs/App%20Q.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/66rFHeajA BEA document - Is there a French version?
• http://www.lebcaa.com/pdfs/App%20U%20Etihad.pdf - Info from Etihad Airlines - http://www.webcitation.org/66rFLXioC
• http://www.lebcaa.com/pdfs/App%20U%20Malev.pdf - Info from Malev Hungarian Airlines - http://www.webcitation.org/66rFUsBLm
• http://www.lebcaa.com/pdfs/App%20Z.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/66rFa9AwN

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

• http://www.mfa.gov.et/Press_Section/publication.php?Pub_Page_Id=4900 - http://www.webcitation.org/66rFoJMdB
• http://www.mfa.gov.et/Press_Section/publication.php?Pub_Page_Id=4903 - http://www.webcitation.org/66rFy76G9
• http://www.mfa.gov.et/Press_Section/publication.php?Pub_Page_Id=4963 - http://www.webcitation.org/66rG1RdKP
• http://www.mfa.gov.et/Press_Section/publication.php?Pub_Page_Id=4992 - http://www.webcitation.org/66rG3WWph
• http://www.mfa.gov.et/Press_Section/publication.php?Pub_Page_Id=6008 - http://www.webcitation.org/66rG4zj3X

They are:

• 1 PM Meles expresses regret over ET-409 accident (January 26, 2010)
• 2 Boeing expresses condolence over ET-409 crash in Beirut (January 27, 2010)
• 3 Ethiopian Airlines Expresses Its Position On ET-409 Flight Accident (February 11, 2010).
• 4 Ethiopian says all bodies of victims from ET-409 accident recovered (February 24, 2010)
• 5 Ethiopian refutes Daily Star’s report on ET-409 crash (September 14, 2011)

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over the type of accident to be included in the infobox

The thread below is copied from my talk page, where an IP editor and I argued over the type of accident that should appear in the infobox. Please read it and drop some lines regarding the matter. Thank you.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409

"Pilot error (sometimes called cockpit error) occurs when the pilot is considered to be principally or partially responsible for an aircraft accident."

As stated in the article itself, Ethiopian Airlines disputes the conclusion of the final report released by the Lebanese Civil Aviation Authority. Please explain why you are insisting the Type be "Pilot Error."

Do read http://www.flyethiopian.com/en/docs/downloads/ET409Inv/3_Part_II_Appended_to_the_Final_Report.pdf before reverting edit of "Disputed" to "Pilot error" (I will revert back your edit if I don't have reply from you). If you still further insist that the conclusions of Lebanese Civil Aviation Authority should be taken as facts, then you are going to have to present your point as to why you believe so. Please respond, or I will go ahead and re-correct the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You cannot use a primary source in this case. The airline will always challenge a report blaming it for any crash.--Jetstreamer  21:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I can use a primary source to indicate dispute. You cannot use a primary source (Lebanese Civil Aviation Authority) and present their conclusion as facts. Your belief that an airliner may challenge a report is irrelevant in any case. Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Facts here are supported by reliable sources, and the agency that took over the investigations of the crash concluded that it was due to pilot error. I'm not inventing anything, I'm just following WP:VNT. The airline's press release report you're citing does not provide a valid cause, it just denies the official investigation. I'm afraid that's not enough information to say pilot error was not the cause. There won't be another investigation, so the conclusions have been drawn. The dispute raised by the airline is properly included in the article.--Jetstreamer  22:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

EAL, according to the criteria, can be considered a reliable source. The information they published is verifiable. While you are considering the context of EAL's refutation to make a judgement about reliability and verifiability (actually, probably truth too), you are disregarding the fact that LCAA also has an invested interest in this context. "The airline's press release you're citing does not provide a valid cause, it just denies the official investigation." True EAL's official refutation does not supply cause for the crash. It, with substantiated arguments, disputes LCAA's conclusion. "I'm afraid that's not enough information to say pilot error was not the cause." This is true, and on the flip side, nor does LCAA's conclusion suffice as "the truth." This is exactly my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there's no truth at all. I'm neither with the LCAA's report nor against it. I'm only saying the official report of the accident points to pilot error as the cause. For this case, there ain't two official points of view, since the LCAA was the only official agency that run the investigation. This does not prevent you (or anyone else) from adding content to the article with the points raised by you that need more clarification. In particular, the vision of the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority (ECAA) is worth including. You do not need my support to edit the article, so go ahead with any editing you may want to do. Just remember to back anything you add with reliable sources. Does the ECAA report fall into this group?--Jetstreamer  22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What is an "official report"? LCAA conducted their investigation and arrived at a conclusion. It is LCAA's conclusion. EAL counters and disputes the conclusions. This is what we know. When "Pilot error" is listed in the box, it misleads readers giving the false impression that there is some sort of consensus. What is written already clearly indicates dispute, so what reason is there to see it as wrong to change "Pilot error" to "Disputed"? Further expansion and elaboration is, although an improvement, secondary to the discussion at hand. Under the circumstances, if you have a different/better resolution, I am interested to know. Until then, I'll go ahead and revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, but it's likely someone else besides me will revert you. LCAA conducetd the investigation because the aircraft crashed into Lebanese waters. It's a matter of jurisdiction what decides here the officiality of the LCAA report.--Jetstreamer  00:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking in case I am missing something. Flight 409 crashed into Lebanese waters, but I do not at all see how this translates to LCAA's conclusions being end all be all. It seems their report is simply their stance on the matter ie their point of view. If you agree so far (as far as the purposes of Misplaced Pages are concerned) I hope you'll be there to revert back to "Disputed" when someone else edits it back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be copying this discussion into the article's talk page and ask for some feedback from other editors, if you don't mind. I'm not reverting your latest edit (actually, you reverted my reversion). I will let another editor do it, should there be a need.--Jetstreamer  00:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

--Jetstreamer  00:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopian Civil Aviation authority pages

• http://www.flyethiopian.com/en/news/prarchive.aspx?id=292 - http://www.webcitation.org/6GK19xft5
• http://www.flyethiopian.com/en/docs/downloads/ET409Inv/1_Official_letter.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6GK147pHJ
• http://www.flyethiopian.com/en/docs/downloads/ET409Inv/2_Part_I_Executive_Summary_to_be_Appended.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6GK1CmgTL
• http://www.flyethiopian.com/en/docs/downloads/ET409Inv/3_Part_II_Appended_to_the_Final_Report.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6GJyzA06Y
• http://www.flyethiopian.com/en/docs/downloads/ET409Inv/4_Attachment_1ATC_Incident_report.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6GK1EcmDl
• http://www.flyethiopian.com/en/docs/downloads/ET409Inv/5_Attachment_2_Corespondance_letter.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6GK1Gywd7

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Fatigue = pilot error?

I have reverted the edits regarding the cause of the accident in the infobox made by an IP twice (, ). It was stated in the infobox as pilot error. Even if the crew was fatigued, this eventually led to an error commited by them. If you, the author fo these edits, disagree, please provide your reasons here.--Jetstreamer  10:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Considerations

Major objections have been raised over the findings of the report that was released by the Minister of Public Works & Transportation for Lebanon, Mr. Ghazi El-Aridi. There are concerns of political influence, and lack of transparency, disclosure, and thoroughness as to the investigation. This article, primarily, is not about the investigation which Lebanon conducted. It is inappropriate to keep citing "pilot error" as the cause in the information box, especially noting the amount of discussion that has been held on that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts by Jetstreamer

Jetstreamer, you have removed a notable amount of contribution from this article without so much as explaining why. Explain your " Unsourced addition of content" and "More than a year without sources. Time to go" reasons for reverts. What you have provided does not at all suffice. Do bring up specifics and elaborate. Information was sourced and referenced, so you need to be log as to your motivations to revert. Otherwise, at least attempt improving the contribution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk • contribs)

My explanation is that you left a paragraph completely unsourced in this version of the article. I've reverted your edit again, but you may reinstate your version once you add a proper source for the last paragraph of the "Investigation" section of the link. Two more things. I'm Jetstreamer, not Jetstream. And you should sign your posts. Thanks.---Jetstreamer  00:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You keep insisting with your version () rather than engaging in a discussion. I'll be reverting your edit in a week or so if you do not commit to discuss it here. I'll leave the discussion open for others to comment. You may want to see WP:BURDEN regarding your behaviour: you should provide sources for your changes.--Jetstreamer  01:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe WhisperToMe, another major contributor to the article, is interested in dropping some lines?--Jetstreamer  01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition again. Citing no sources for a paragraph, also the sources for the "Investigation" section were not reliable. Can someone please protect this page? 68.119.73.36 (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Jetstreamer, why did you revert "Disputed" to "Pilot error" on 00:04, 24 May 2014‎ without adding to the discussion that is already started? Whether you agree or disagree isn't the issue. Before you revert, respond to the concerns raised in this page, and ask questions if you want. Don't just revert. This goes doubly to the "-1,104" revert you did without so much as making notes in this page. You do realize that you have reverted not only material change but grammatical and form improvements too, right? Again, do point to SPECIFIC areas (as in sentences or sections) where you are having trouble. The reason for this question is simple: it appears the sources for the information added were noted so it is not clear what the issue is. As the matter stands, however, there is a dispute as to the causes of the crash, and the list of disagreements is straight from one of the principals, EAL/ECAA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk • contribs)

My explanations are above. I'm not saying the article in its current version is perfect and nobody is allowed to modify it further: you or everyone else can reinstate your edits, but only after reliable sources for the changes are provided. In particular, you left an entire paragraph unsourced when that was not the case prior to your modifications. WP:VERIFY is a policy every single edit must be in compliance with. I just don't know how many different ways I should take to make you understand the rationale for my reversions.--Jetstreamer  17:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You are still not providing specifics or responding to what is asked. 1. Why did you make the revision on 24 May 2014 without continuing discussion on the talk page? 2. Again WHICH part of the addition do you have problem with (again, sentence, statement etc be specific)? 3. Why did you not bother to improve it before grossly reverting it? 4. WHICH sources do you have problem was as to reliability? What is odd, of course, is that the article was messier in its previous state and by your current rationale and criteria it would almost be empty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk • contribs)

WP:BURDEN. I'm not gonna do your work for you; it's you the one that has to provide sources for your changes. Furthermore, this was just because I agree with the cause of the accident being "Pilot error". The closed discussion above confirms it. Answers for your questions can be found in that discussion. I committed not to modify the cause of the accident until anyone else changed it. That was exactly what happened. And that was the official cause of the accident as determined by the LCAA.--Jetstreamer  19:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you are unable to provide specifics and explain yourself as it applies to this article (aside citing obvious policy and guidelines), I will revert it so that added content remains until further discussion and/or arbitration. Please cease from reverting further (edit war). This is the recommended way. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.210.195 (talk • contribs)
Let's examine the additions and figure out which stuff comes from where. So we can pick out which sources are reliable and which ones aren't. While I see citations I'm not sure all of them are reliable. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Selected anniversaries (January 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2013)
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Africa articles
• Low-importance Africa articles
• C-Class Ethiopia articles
• Mid-importance Ethiopia articles
• WikiProject Ethiopia articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• B-Class aviation articles
• B-Class Aviation accident articles
• Aviation accident task force articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Low-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class Lebanon articles
• Mid-importance Lebanon articles
• WikiProject Lebanon articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• B-Class maritime warfare articles
• Maritime warfare task force articles
• B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• B-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• B-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles