Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 06:08, 29 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 4 months

A news item involving Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 July 2013.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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. California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance). 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. United States Low‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Korea Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: July 7 to 13, 2013

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 6, 2020.

"Captain Sum Ting Wong" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

"Wi Tu Lo" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wi Tu Lo 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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Wi Tu Lo until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"Ho Lee Fuk" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ho Lee Fuk 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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Ho Lee Fuk until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"Bang Ding Ow" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bang Ding Ow 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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Bang Ding Ow until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

April 2024

@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)

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)

Statistics about the Boeing 777 crashes in order? CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

When I said "statistics", I just meant how many fatal accidents, crashes and hull losses. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Many thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• B-Class aviation articles
• B-Class Aviation accident articles
• Aviation accident task force articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• B-Class California articles
• Low-importance California articles
• B-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
• Mid-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
• San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
• WikiProject California articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Low-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Korea-related articles
• Low-importance Korea-related articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Selected anniversaries (July 2020)