Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rtc (talk | contribs) at 03:04, 3 April 2015 (→Murder suicide debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Germanwings Flight 9525 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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 5 days

A news item involving Germanwings Flight 9525 was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 March 2015.

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. 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. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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. 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. France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance 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. Germany Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany 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. Spain Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Germanwings Flight 9525 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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Let's leave the guy's name out de-emphasize the guy's name

The suicidal co-pilot once told a girlfriend that "everybody would know his name"; so, in a way, by committing a heinous act, murdering 150 people, he unfortunately got his wish, not by being famous, but by being infamous. In a way, Misplaced Pages is rewarding such bad behavior by publishing his name, which might possibly encourage future bad behavior. So, my question is, is the guy's name necessary? How about we all agree to call him the "suicidal co-pilot" and leave it at that, or maybe have one see-also link at the bottom of the page for those who really need to know that information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, I doubt that doing this would achieve anything useful - his name has been plastered all over the mass media, and omitting it now would merely attract further comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose there has to be an article on the guy, but I see nothing wrong with de-emphasizing it here. As a referent, we can simply call him the "suicidal co-pilot" and that does the job. The name is not all that important. Maybe list it once, or have a link like ]. Lots of Wikipedians fly. Think its a good idea not to encourage depressed pilots to fly into mountains.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: The co-pilot isn't alive to collect any perceived reward, and there's no chance of him being resuscitated. So, it's a moot point, unfortunately. N.b. I was the first person to put his name in the article, and that was two or three days ago. Plenty of people have seen it since then, I'm unaware of any other complaint and nobody, amongst the several hundred thousand page views, has attempted to remove it. Regards, EP111 (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@EP111: I was not blaming any one edit, in fact I was the person who originally floated the article suicide by pilot. My concern is not with the deceased co-pilot but with future pilots, possibly suffering from depression, thinking they may possibly get some recognition after they die just like this co-pilot did, and my concern is for the passengers who may be riding on such a plane. If we can not remove the name entirely, I recommend de-emphasizing it as much as possible. It is perfectly acceptable to use the phrase "a depressed co-pilot" rather than the guy's name.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it applies just as much to hundreds, or thousands, of other articles. If you seek that kind of change, it would have to be site-wide. Your only hope for that would be an RfC at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy), and that would be a very small hope. It might even require endorsement by the WMF, making it even less likely to succeed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic coverage precludes such a moral, or humanitarian, initiative, however well-meaning. Maybe we shouldn't mention that shouty guy's name over at World War II? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good points. Still, what we can do, is de-emphasize the guy's name, emphasize the mental illness, to lessen the chance of copycat crashes in future. We all fly on planes, don't we? Seems reasonable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:22, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just rubbish to think that Misplaced Pages is going to somehow influence someone when many, many news stories in print and on television are carrying on about this incident. That's not a responsibility of the project and pointless, anyway. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with HammerFilmFan to think that by citing his name within Misplaced Pages will influence a future copycat is inconsequential. By his actions, Lubitz has greatly reduced the chance of a future copycat situation because airlines will put measures into place to ensure that the possibility is greatly reduced. Caulkie (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't censored out of a random belief that it will prevent violence. ― Padenton|✉   07:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That's good news for the curators of list of rampage killers. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:22, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Merge from Andreas Lubitz

Per WP:ONEEVENT. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge. Potentially one of the most heinous crimes of the 21st century, the infamous deeds of this individual pass any criteria for notability. WWGB (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Deeds? It was one deed. Of course the deed was notable, but that does not mean the perpetrator is separately notable. His name will probably forgotten soon, remembered only as the mentally-disturbed pilot who deliberately crashed Germanwings 9525 after locking his colleague out of the cockpit, which this article adequately covers. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• sidenote, 2015 Baga massacre killed 2000. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• One of the most heinous crimes of the 21st century? I do agree, this is a sad event (and heartbreaking), but I don't think its one of the most heinous crimes. The September 11th attacks seems like the most heinous crime of the 21st century. Even though the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525, the co-pilot is not notable for a separate article due to him only being broadcast on media due to his mentally-disturbed actions. CookieMonster755 (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment result of two previous AfD's was keep. One of the recurring comments in the AfD discussions was that this event could spur different psychological evaluations during pilot training - if so, enduring coverage is likely, and the article has merit on its own to documents how the case is examined for signs to look for in troubled pilots. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't create/keep articles on the basis that future coverage is arguably likely. We do it if enduring coverage has already been established. The event is certainly historic, but the perpetrator will only ever be mentioned in connection with the event. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge - Two AfD discussions has resulted in Keep. This merging discussion should be swiftly ended.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge - I can see no need for separate articles. There is nothing that could be included in the other article that would be out of place in this one. There is no danger of a combined article becoming unmanageably large. Unjustifiable nightmare keeping the two articles coordinated and in agreement. Skeptical of users who call for a swift end to discussions that might produce a result they wouldn't like. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge later The first discussion was a bit of a bad call, the second one fell apart just because the first one did, but that's the sort of thing that happens when things are recent. The news gets speculative and hyperfocused, and Misplaced Pages follows suit. I say give it at least a couple of weeks. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:25, March 29, 2015 (UTC)
• Do not merge: A lot of personal information will soon be available on the guy that might seem irrelevant to the crash article but perfectly relevant to the Lubitz article. The crash article should only mention what the guy did, a brief description of what the investigation sees as his reasons and anything else relevant to the crash. The Lubitz article can mention all that in more detail and cover more of his personal life and life outside and irrelevant to the crash. He is significant enough to have his own article due to the sheer magnitude of what he did.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rihazrihazrihaz (talk • contribs)

Yes, what he did that day had magnitude, which carries over to him. But that doesn't do anything for his keenness on running marathons, his mother's piano teaching, being depressed six years ago or where he went to school. That's still mundane and not directly connected to the thing that had the magnitude. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:18, March 29, 2015 (UTC)

• Wait and see. At the moment, a separate article still looks justified for now, but if the article does not grow further in the next couple of weeks, it might well be worth considering a merge. Let's wait a month or so, and see what happens. -- The Anome (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Do not merge: the bio article has enough text and refs for background info that wouldn't belong in the crash article that it should remain separate. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, do not merge for now. While it may emerge that all relevant details of this man are included on the accident page and then we can have this discussion, we don't know yet whether this is the case. In fact, more details about both the accident and the man himself are coming out daily. Why are we having this discussion three times in the first week? Give it some time, nominators, no rush, at least wait for the investigation to be over. And why didn't this last nominator follow procedure and create this discussion on AfD? Rwxrwxrwx, please open a new case there now and move this entire discussion into it.Prhartcom (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There have already been AFDs for Lubitz, but no serious merge discussion. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge Andreas Lubitz and Germanwings are not one and the same item. BlueAndWhite123 (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Very true, but no one is proposing to merge Andreas Lubitz with Germanwings. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge. This article is obviously notable enough to stand on its own and should not be merged with the germanwings article, since they do not overlap in all of the information. Some info is only necessary in this article, like his birthday etc.... Rayukk (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Do not merge. At the moment, and until further details have emerged, he should be considered separately notable in a similar way as Hamza al-Ghamdi is to United Airlines Flight 175 and Wail al-Shehri is to American Airlines Flight 11, for example (and the rest of them). He cannot be considered a terrorist in any conventional contemporary sense, however, his actions, or lack thereof, have caused the death of many people on board an aircraft. EP111 (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment in addition to my reply - Note also per WP:ONEEVENT: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. EP111 (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge – Andreas Lubitz is completely non-notable outside the context of the Germanwings crash. Almost all of its biography is irrelevant even in relation to the event. There's no separate article for the Kouachi brothers, for example; only a brief biography as part of Charlie Hebdo shooting, and what they did is not less heinous than what Lubitz did. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Note I have already !vote'd below, but saying an event that saw the murder of 12 (Charlie Hebdo) during a mass shooting and the murder of 149 in a deliberate plane crash is on the same level of heinous seems a little naive. We have a page on Andreas Lubitz for the same reason we have a page on Gameel Al-Batouti, for EXACTLY the same reason. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Gameel Al-Batouti article is just as pointless; the relevant information (not that much) could be merged into EgyptAir Flight 990, the rest is just irrelevant (his father's job: who cares?) or a repetition of the accident article. As a side note, heinousness is not measured by the number of victims. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge – Andreas Lubitz is completely non-notable except for the Germanwings crash.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge per one event. CookieMonster755 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Do not merge - strong keep as stand-alone Lubitz has become very notable for his actions in this disaster. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed far less people than did Lubitz, and yet they have an in depth article. This is just one example. A similar article to Andreas Lubitz is Gameel Al-Batouti, alleged to be responsible for the crash of Egypt Air 990, and Al-Batouti has his own article here. Lubitz is very notable, both for his actions, and for the legacy of his actions as noted above. Juneau Mike (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge - There is no need for a separate article, especially if we consider the tragedy is closely linked to the actions of the co-pilot. He was no celebrity, he became infamous because of the event, and the primary focus should be the event. - 179.153.241.50 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge - Totally merge. If you want to keep an article about him, then I'm going to create one for Captain Patrick Sondheimer. --109.49.229.30 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Wait - This is still a very recent case. We cannot yet know if seperate articles are needed. Although I would incline towards merging these. Ceosad (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Yes there will be a ton of material in a short time that should suggest tat the one event rule will apply here, but I suspect he will have a greater legacy over the long term in overhauling airline rules and regulations on dealing with mental illness in the cockpit. We all know that mental illness is incredibly hard to deal with, and a few years ago, companies in Europe started allowing for pilots to take anti-depressants to deal with this. I would suggest waiting and seeing what comes out in the next few months, as it is likely that this will result in some serious discussion about how airlines should be screening for this, as well as helping their workers function at the highest-possible way possible in the process. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

All true, Kevin, but whatever the legacy will be, it won't belong to any Andreas Lubitz article. It will be the legacy of the event, not of the person, and will likely be easy to cover in the accident article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge - relevant info into this article and summarize accordingly. Being a "keen runner" and working "part-time at a Burger King" is not notable or relevant information about this individual. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"Working part-time at Burger King" is very notable and relevant information regarding the background of pilots of the best airlines in the world. It tells us that the kind of people who are suitable and selected to become airline pilots are the kind of people that would otherwise do part-time work at Burger King. This is very relevant in the case of this pilot and pilots in general. BlueAndWhite123 (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Truck-drivers and pilots of the best airlines in the world are one and the same: any truck driver could be a part-time worker at Burger King and also a pilot at any of the best airlines of the world. I am perfectly happy with that. Flying a Dreamliner is just the same as driving a truck - all that is required is different training. I am perfectly happy with that. BlueAndWhite123 (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge I cannot see that the perpetrator is notable for anything else other than this. There's no sense having two articles which are basically going to duplicate each other.--5 albert square (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge - I reckon there's no need for a separate article because there is one event that took place.--Infinite0694 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, do not merge per Juneau Mike. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 04:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge All notability criteria that support maintaining a separate article for the flight's first officer are based on a currently ongoing investigation. I consider that until the investigation concludes that the first officer was the primary cause we should keep all relevant information in one place. This decision should be revisited when the official investigation report is released. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge at this moment. If the flight data recorder is found, confirming it was actually Lubitz (or if the investigation proves his guilt otherwise), then I'd support having a separate article, like Gameel Al-Batouti. Brandmeister 09:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• I think ... merge per WP:ONEEVENT. The guy is not reknowned for anything else than the air crash. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 10:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge Whatever the legacy of this incident I've no doubt the name of the co-pilot will be forgotten and it will be the report into the accident that specifies recommendations. Mattojgb (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Do not merge – enough biographical info & interwiki links for separate article. --Bazi (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bazi: The presence of info does not grant notability. ― Padenton|✉   17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge He does not warrant an article of his own; and no way in hell will anyone be able to produce enough material to produce a biography. Besides, supporters of a separate article are all giving him, what motivated him to crash the plane in the first place. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 11:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Do not Merge for the following policy-based reasons:

Per WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP1E] does not apply in this case: “WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people” (Revised per WP:BDP)

Per WP:BIO1E: “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate”

JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@JoeSperrazza: Keep reading down to WP:BDP.

"Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime."

― Padenton|✉   17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Do not Merge there is an avalanche of publicity about this person on media outlets as well as online social networking sites.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jeanne boleyn: Social networking sites are not WP:RS, no one cares what random people are saying about the incident. ― Padenton|✉   17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I see you conveniently ignored the first part of my sentence; besides academia, it is the media which typically confers notability on an individual by the amount of coverage it gives to the person.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Find me one WP:RS that provides thorough coverage of Andreas Lubitz (per WP:GNG) without mentioning Germanwings Flight 9525 and I will change my comment. ― Padenton|✉   17:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge initially I agree, the article about Lubitz has the potential to swamp the original article about the loss of flight 9525 but best to merge them meantime. 87.113.71.30 (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge Outside of this extremely tragic event this person is non-notable. 88.165.240.35 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Do not merge The fact that The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. crashed the plane on purpose makes him as notable—and infamous—as, say, Charles Whitman, or Andrew Cunahan.TH1980 (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@TH1980: Unconfirmed speculation. Wait for investigation. ― Padenton|✉   17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge per the clear applicability of WP:1E. I notice that few of the oppose votes cite any policy. ― Padenton|✉   17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• And actually fewer support votes that cite any policy either. It's not clean on both sides so hopefully whoever closes takes into consideration only the policy based arguments. I assume that this will be closed as no consensus though. Mkdw 19:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge This guy wasn't close to notable until this one event. His name should be a redirect and he should have a section on the crash's page. That's it. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note re. AFDs: The first one was withdrawn and thus closed while the second one was closed as "too early for re-nomination" and thus flawed (IMO). Two procedural closings do not endorse a valid "keep" (or "delete") per policies.--TMCk (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge - Has had a lasting impact on aviation procedures, influenced policy on airlines, the German Wings article is in no-way the type of article to have a mini-biography section . This is a biography which our readers would be curious about, let alone potential criminology students later on which as academia the main point for a encyclopedia. What policy is a merge based on? WP:ONEEVENT doesn't imply due to the impact he has had on his industry plus the media coverage, like him or not i think most of the merge argument is based on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT policy . Like it or not this man has left a lasting impact on the aviation industry and arguably the world, to be referenced in cases like this for years, like Osama bin Laden for terrorism and Ted Bundy for serial killing or D. B. Cooper for air piracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuzzyG (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: He has not had a lasting impact on aviation procedures nor policy. The incident has. Without this incident he had no impact on the airline, nor other airlines. It doesn't matter what our readers would be curious about, that's what tabloid magazines are for. Your argument against WP:ONEEVENT is nonsense, his only impact on aviation and airline policy is because of the one event, which is exactly what ONEEVENT is talking about. Osama bin Laden is notable for things other than 9/11, go look at his article again. Ted Bundy's psychopathology is a topic of study at the FBI, he was on FBI's Most Wanted list for multiple acts. D B Cooper isn't a person, the perpetrator was never identified, and the article is about the one incident, not a person.

― Padenton|✉   19:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Take care to not WP:BLUDGEON. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge The pilots who flew some planes into buildings on 9/11 have their own articles, don't they? Are they only notable for one event? —Мандичка 😜 19:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with your view to not merge, I point out that your argument (and others who've made the same or similar) is not valid, per WP:OTHER. My rationale is per WP:BIO1E: “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate”. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@JoeSperrazza: I don't think WP:OTHER is always - sometimes it is valid to make a comparison to a parallel article. —Мандичка 😜 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Wikimandia: For convenience of other editors, the hijackers seem to have their articles linked in the lead here: Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

1. Your argument is WP:OSE, a fallacy. The existence of another article is not grounds for the notability of a separate article for Andreas Lubitz.
2. Each of these hijackers have received substantially more coverage than Andreas Lubitz, and some participated in other incidents.
3. Since multiple editors are bringing this up, I hope you will all forgive me for adding a table here, I think it's really the easiest way to present the information, rather than a block of text. 9/11 and Germanwings Flight 9525 are vastly different in multiple ways. (WP:DUH) I've listed some that come to my mind in a table below. This is in no way exhaustive. Some, like the 'Thoroughly investigated' line might change with time, but per WP:CRYSTAL, it's not WP policy to have an article before its time.

Difference	The 9/11 terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda	Germanwings Flight 9525
Ideologically motivated	Yes	No WP:RS suggesting an ideological motivation
Death count	2996 confirmed dead, 6000+ injured	150 dead
Thoroughly investigated (is there enough confirmed info to fill articles)	Yes, there are several large well-sourced articles	No, still being investigated, few facts are definitively known
Substantial coverage to fill multiple articles	Multiple individual articles with substantial coverage	Barely enough coverage for 2 articles
Hijacking	Yes	No, technically...
Lead to the passages of new national laws	Yes	No, though airlines have made policy changes citing the event
# of people believed responsible	19 directly-involved hijackers	1 person
Premeditation	Heavily planned, years in advance	No evidence found yet suggests premeditation
Intentional	Yes	Believed to be, but currently under investigation

So no, 9/11 is a separate discussion. ― Padenton|✉   20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton: That's nice of you to make a handy table but a lot of what you're writing is a moot point. If you intentionally kill 150 people, you kill 150 people. It makes no difference if you planned it six years in advance or six minutes in advance; or what your reasons were; or whether or not it was not "technically" a hijacking, etc, etc. You've destroyed the same number of lives. —Мандичка 😜 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge as people are attempting to add the same disputed information to both articles resulting in parallel reverts, talk page discussions, etc. An example is that the girlfriend is pregnant. The present Andreas Lubitz article is very small and only contains information that will fit in well in a section of the main Germanwings Flight 9525 article. Initially I was thinking a merge was not needed per WP:BIO1E's “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate” but this is not the first entry in List of murder–suicides in commercial aviation. Calls for regulatory changes will likely cite EgyptAir Flight 990, LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470, along with Germanwings Flight 9525 rather than citing the names of the person(s) believed responsible for the crashes. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge for now I think WP:1E could read either way on this, but for editorial convenience I would keep the bio inside the crash article. As new details emerge, only one article needs to be updated and there is no risk of inconsistency creeping in. We can revisit this question when more is know officially. I suspect the focus of investigation will shift to lapses in cockpit security, pilot screening and the need for periodic mental health evaluations, in which case there will be less reason for a separate bio of one apparently unstable individual who sought notoriety in his suicide.--agr (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Do not merge I hate to comment in these things by effectively typing "as per xxxx" or just repeating what has already been written. I came here as I just couldn't understand why someone only notable for a single event that has it's own article should have their own. However I have become quite swayed by the WP:ONEEVENT argument (not something I had seen before), in fact I find the guideline quite compelling, and have difficulty in seeing when it would apply if it is found not to in this case.

Considering in particular "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified". There has been significant interest in Lubitz as an individual and his personal back story. The history of this individual suddenly becomes of major importance when we consider that knowing Lubitz's part in the incident may tell us how it happened, but it is not enough to understand it or tell us why. Here we also need to consider the psychological being. This I see as the reason why as far media discourse is concerned Lubitz is almost becoming 'THE' story if he hasn't already.

That aside the 'wait and see' argument could indeed be very valid, if it weren't for the fact that the 'parent' article, from which this becomes an offspring of, wasn't already quite comprehensive and therefore sizeable (though not overly so). Indeed this article itself, as more and more information becomes available grows and is quite able to stand it's own in regard to quantity and quality of content, (I make no assessment of the quality of the prose or style).

I do hope the reason people are against the subject having their own article isn't down to an emotionally clouded ethical response. In my humble opinion that would not be reasoned or ethical in an academic or perhaps rather encyclopaedic sense. --wintonian 00:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge In my mind, the horrific act that he allegedly performed, has made a directional change in improving air safety and cock-pit management. Lubitz's action directly influenced that improvement even though history has recorded similar tragedies that never influenced a change in policy. For Misplaced Pages to be the informative and intellectual resource that it so rightly is, Lubitz does require a separate article just for the fact that some airlines, before they received directives from governing bodies, have implemented immediate cock-pit management changes to make sure that this, and similar tragedies, are greatly reduced in the future. And I am pretty sure that there will be television documentaries relating to Lubitz and the tragedy screened as time goes on. Caulkie (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, someone says the action had significant consqequences, while trying to say the actor is notable. Many people directly affected how this played out, from the company that put the plane in the air, to the crew who manned it, to the passengers who filled it. Had it been just Lubitz alone in a small plane (or even a large one), doing the exact same thing he did here, it wouldn't exist on Misplaced Pages and just be a blip in the news. The whole incident is the important thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It's possible a solo plane suicide would be on Misplaced Pages, like 2002 Tampa plane crash or 2010 Austin suicide attack. But those pilots don't have articles, despite their "large role", and 42 somewhat similar American suicides don't have any article. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

• Merge for now Per WP:CRIME, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Misplaced Pages article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha3031 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRIME goes on to say; "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Misplaced Pages article only if one of the following applies: The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy". Additionally I wasn't aware anyone had been charged or that a trial had occurred or even been scheduled. As such I'm afraid I don't think WP:CRIME is relevant here. --wintonian 10:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

To add to the other replies, 1, There is an appropriate existing article and 2, There was a criminal event, so I don't see why WP:CRIME should not apply.

Your reading is very selective. "...in connection with a criminal event or trial...". Surely you're not suggesting that no criminal event occurred because there is no trial. The very changes that many people are citing to justify their opposition to this merge are predicated on a presumption of mass murder by Lubitz. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Do Posthumous trials not happen in Germany? Are the dead (speculation that is yet to be confirmed) not innocent until proven guilty? Either way the execution of any alleged crime is unusual, possibly not unique but not far off. Perhaps inquest verdicts equivalent to unlawful killing might be enough? But then were not there either and won't be until a report is published - I doubt.--wintonian 11:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The dead aren't automatically presumed innocent. We can and generally should, but there's no requirement. Those sorts of laws and policies are meant to protect reputations and rights, which the dead don't use. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:23, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but these things go have implications not just for the deceased but also for family members and others close to them, and although I wouldn't exactly say that peoples reputations is a concern of Misplaced Pages, we of course don't set out to destroy or damage them. Anyway I've drifted a little off topic here as my concearn here wasn't really anything to do with the ethics of the presumtion of innocence with regards to deceased persons, rather the application of Wiki guidelines and their relevance. --wintonian 12:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

We both missed another important phrase from your WP:CRIME excerpt: Where there are no appropriate existing articles. In this case, there is an appropriate existing article, and this is it. Therefore that clause does not apply. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It applies, it just doesn't support an article. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:29, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not too off-topic, no worries. That guideline applies here. I'd just give less weight to the last BLP part, and more to whether he was famous first (clearly no), and whether his motivation or execution is unusual enough to be the impetus for documentation of the event. I think it's clear this event was notable before the co-pilot was ever mentioned. The dashed off part, "or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" is the tough part to interpret, as it's astoundingly vague. I think arguing about it is inherently doomed to go in circles, forever.

If we consider the guideline, I strongly suggest not considering that part. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

"is the tough part to interpret, as it's astoundingly vague. I think arguing about it is inherently doomed to go in circles, forever." I think I'm going to have to concede this particular point, and this part of the guideline really does need refining. However my vote remains on the strength of my substantive argument and that very few (if any) media sources are refering to this as a crime, that may happen in time, but has yet to pass. - I'm off to lick my wounds. --wintonian 12:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge until further information The major part of the flight incident was just him. There isn't really much to the crash other than him. Indeed there is the thing about the trajectory change and investigation, but that hasn't happened yet. pie3141527182 (talk) 14:12, March 31, 2015 (UTC)
• Merge per above, especially User:pie3141527182's argument. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge This is very similar to Adam Lanza. Redirect bio to the mass murder/suicide. --DHeyward (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the 9/11 hijackers - I seem to notice comments citing the existence of articles about the 9/11 hijackers as logical ground for this Lubitz article. That's a fallacy, backed by WP:OTHER. The hijacker's actions were politically motived, where their act literally shaped global politics for all eternity. On top of that, they produced a history trail, with content to justify the need of separate articles. Politically, there is a clear difference between the pre-9/11 world vs the post-9/11 world. In the case of Lubitz, his history is generally personal material. We have to be careful about social media reactions justifying the need of separate articles. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If you purposely crash a commercial airliner and kill 150 people, what difference does it make whether you did it because of a) political beliefs b) your religious beliefs, c) your mental state, or d) none of the above? The end result is exactly the same: you've killed 150 people, devastated endless lives and communities, and there are probably going to be some airline industry changes. If you're a serial killer and you kill 10 people during a two-month spree, nobody would argue notability, but kiling 150 people is not noteworthy because it happened all at once. Nice. —Мандичка 😜 03:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: your entire argument is an Appeal to emotion. Do you have any policy supporting your position that the articles should be separate? Serial killers are different: first, it's multiple acts so there is significantly more coverage to put in their article from each of the cases. They are also a frequent topic of study by law enforcement organizations and academics in criminology, adding scholarly research on the topic. A 2 month spree of murders means 2 months of heavy news coverage. This on the other hand, has nothing to keep the public interested. A single tragedy, over before the news was initially reported. The person alleged to be responsible is dead, there will be no trial. There will be an investigation, a payout from the airline to victims families in attempt to compensate them for their infinite loss, and when that's done, people will move onto the next big story as soon as it comes. ― Padenton|✉   04:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, on the account he killed 149 people. That makes him notable per WP:NOTABILITY. How many people can you think of who have killed 149 people? Off the top of your head. Ready, set, go. —Мандичка 😜 04:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: 1. 'killed' is alleged until the investigation is complete, please read WP:BDP. 2. My inability to name people who are known solely for killing 149 people doesn't support separate notability. If anything, it's a point in favor of merging per WP:1E, because there is no reliable coverage independent of the incident, which is what WP:1E is about. ― Padenton|✉   04:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As for notable mass killers, at least 2,400 people have been killed by CIA drone strikes in Pakistan alone in ten years. That's an average of 342 per Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, over twice as many as this guy. By 2012, six of them were deadlier than 19 hijackers, globally (not counting the tens of thousands of non-robotic or semi-automated killings).

But they did other things, too, so all have articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:47, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of spies, crashes, unknown motives and unpunishable killing, I think we should name this recent story GateGate, should it exist at all outside of the main one. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:15, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge This forum shopping is ridiculous. This is the third discussion on exactly the same topic in just four days. Enough is enough. More to the point, concerning policies. WP:ONEEVENT clearly does not apply for a highly notable individual in a highly notable incident, as per WP:BIO1E. We have an article on Gavrilo Princip, notable for just one important incident. We have an article on Lee Harvey Oswald notable for just one important incident (and like Lubitz, dead before any trial). We have an article on David Koresh, notable for just one important incident and also dead in that incident. The list could of similar examples go on and on. There is a large number of precedents, showing that simply "voting delete" and call on policy support in WP:ONEEVENT does not hold. Jeppiz (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Imagine that, both of them were ended prematurely without allowing a consensus to form. ― Padenton|✉   15:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton: With all due respect, drop the battleground mentality. This far, you've seen fit to comment and question no less than nine comments from people who disagree with your opinion. You have stated your own opinion. Try to accept that other Misplaced Pages users can hold a different opinion than you. There is no need whatsoever for you to comment on any user who doesn't share your views, and it's not helpful for the discussion.Jeppiz (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: And I have stated my reasoning fairly in each of those, there is no battleground here. Yes, I am commenting a fair bit here (and it's even more obvious because of my distinctive signature). Seeing as how your argument in favor of keep here was entirely WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as well as a falsehood about previous deletion discussions (neither of which resulted in a 'keep' consensus); I'd say reminding you of what actually happened in those deletion discussions is warranted. Though I admit I could've worded it more politely. For that, my apologies. I will attempt to do better in the future, and I hope that you will focus on the argument at hand rather than attacking me for my activity. I did skip over your OSE argument though, so let me get to that now while I'm here.

1. WP:BIO1E explicitly says "The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." It explicitly states "the assassins of major poliltical leaders."
2. Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand which started World War 1...if starting the largest war in recorded history isn't a significant role, I don't know what is. No one here has proposed the deletion of Gavrilo Princip (Or Adolf Hitler for that matter).
3. Lee Harvey Oswald, again, a major political leader assassination, this time, US President John F. Kennedy.
4. David Koresh was not a political assassination, he was a leader of a cult and responsible for a 51 day siege between his armed followers and the ATF, FBI, and National Guard. There are also 2 notable documentaries covering him and the incident, one of which was nominated for an academy award and won the sundance film festival.

I really don't see how you can compare the notability of a plane crash with any of these (even ignoring the fact that they're WP:OSE). ― Padenton|✉   22:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't lie about me or others. You claim there's a "falsehood" in my comment in that I said previous discussions resulted in keep. Kindly point out where I said that, or retract your accusation of falsehood. Furthermore, I fear you apply far too literal an interpretation. WP:BIO1E gives Princip and the assassination of major political leaders as an example, not as the only possibility. It's also unclear why you feel Koresh's case to be different, both Koresh and Lubitz have received an enourmous amount of media coverage. WP:BIO1E means that being implicated in one event is not enough for an article (we won't have an article on any of Lubitz's victims unless they were famous for other reasons), but when causing a major event and receiving lots of media coverage not only in the event but also lots of articles about the actual person, then an article is warrated. It applies to Princip, to Oswald, to Koresh and to Lubitz.Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: The only reason to bring up 2 previous discussions as a support for your vote of No Merge, is the implication that they show a consensus. Neither does. Yes, WP:BIO1E gives Princip as an example, not as the only possibility. However, your argument, using him as an example, relies on Andreas Lubitz having equal or greater notability than Princip does.

Koresh received news coverage throughout his time as a cult leader, and then coverage over the investigation and trial for statutory rape, followed by a nearly 8 week siege where he led armed cult members in defending against the FBI, DEA, and National Guard, right before he murdered most of the members of his cult. There were several trials convicting the members who survived for what they did under his leadership. There are multiple notable documentaries on him, one of which won an academy award and the sundance film festival. There are numerous scholarly publications on him.

The entirety of the coverage on Andreas Lubitz: The incident happened last Monday. 7 days of gossip, tabloids, and speculation. Most of it has been trivia or unconfirmed speculation. Take a look at the talk archives. A few facts here and there, but every thing that's actually relevant and confirmed is already in the flight article. The story that the media seems to have consensus on is that he was depressed and decided to end it all for him and the passengers.

A tragedy, yes, but it reaches neither the notability nor the substantial coverage of any of the above. He had no notability before the incident, last Sunday nobody in the world knew his name, and now this is the only thing he will ever be notable for.

This is not substantial coverage. This is WP:15M. You claim that there are articles about the actual person. As I said to another editor, if you can find me one WP:RS that gives substantial coverage about Andreas Lubitz without talking about Germanwings Flight 9525, My WP:HEY will have been met. ― Padenton|✉   23:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you've stated your case. It relies mainly on your personal interpretations, unsupported by any policy. I am not aware of any rule saying that Princip is the lower limit and that everybody included must have "equal or greater notability than Princip does". Entirely your interpretation. The same thing goes for your invoking of WP:15M, by which you imply Lubitz will soon be forgotten. It's futile to speculate about the future, but as you do it, I'll do it as well and say that your speculation is highly unlikely.Jeppiz (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I didn't say that Princip is the lower limit. You used him as an example of pages Misplaced Pages also has in your argument for Lubitz's notability, which implies that you think Andreas Lubitz is just as notable or more notable than Princip. As for 15M, we shall see. Is that ignoring of my request a no to you providing a single WP:RS that discusses Lubitz without mentioning the flight, to back up your claim that Lubitz has received "an enormous amount of media coverage" "about the the actual person" ― Padenton|✉   15:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to discuss when you continue to make up rules that don't exist. I'm sure there's no article about Lubitz that doesn't mention the crash, no article about Koresh that doesn't mention Waco, no article about Breivik that doens't mention Utoya, no article about Oswals that doesn't mention Kennedy and so on. It doesn't make one bit of a difference. I'm more interested in the actual policies than in your personal interpretations of them. You've made your point and I've made mine, I don't think your opinion builds on any policies, you no doubt disagree. I don't see the discussion advancing so I end it here to avoid soapboxing. Jeppiz (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No consensus It seems pretty clear that this discussion will never reach consensus. Maybe my eyes played tricks on me, but I count 18 merge !votes plus 5 more related to merge, for a total of 23. There are 21 !votes to keep, plus 2 for "wait and see", again, a total of 23. We are at a stalemate, and discussion is a good thing, as is consensus. But it seems pretty clear that consensus will not ever be achieved. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

How many were based on arguments to avoid, or cleanly rebutted? How many are conditional on notable stuff potentially being discovered later? Those don't hold the same weight as policy-based "votes". If this one isn't closed early, the stalemate will break. Be patient. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:00, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Michaelh2001: See WP:NOTAVOTE. The arguments to merge are mostly backed on policy, such as WP:1E, WP:BDP, WP:CRIME. Few of the arguments to keep have even mentioned policy. Most, including your own, are flawed arguments based on notability fallacies, such as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:ITSINTHENEWS, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:15M; falsehoods claiming 2 AfDs resulted in keeps (neither did in fact, one was withdrawn by nominator before allowing consensus to form, and one was procedurally closed. Neither resulted in a 'keep' consensus; also, even if true, it would be an example of the WP:NOTAGAIN notability fallacy). I may have missed one or two, but the only policy-backed argument in favor of not merging that I saw are by JoeSperrazza and Wintonian, who both made their arguments based on the "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." exception in WP:BIO1E. ― Padenton|✉   17:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

To begin with, you can drop the bludgeoning tone of your rebuttals. It isn't necessary to talk down to other good faith editors simply because they do not agree with you. Just because there is a re-direct for "other crap exists" doesn't mean you should use it to get snarky. 2, Just because people have, in good faith, disagreed with myself and others on whether or not this article should be redirected, does not mean we are using "flawed arguments" or have been using fallacies and have been soundly refuted or however you put it, etc., any more than those agreeing with the anti-merge side have soundly defeated the idea of a merge. We are having a debate/discussion, and I haven't seen anyone lay down the so-called Trump Card on the other side. I have seen snark creep its way into this discussion, and that is unfortunate. I have also seen a general lack of consensus. Perhaps I "started all of this", because it was originally me who took the Andreas Lubitz page off of a procedural redirect that occurred without discussion. In my revert summary, I stated that the idea of AfD or redirect or in this case a merge, should be discussed first. I never dreamed in a million years that there would be well over 100,000 visitors to this page in a few days, or that we would be on the third discussion about it. I simply believed, and still strongly so, that Andreas Lubitz and his actions are very notable, and will have lasing impact. Perhaps the first 2 AfDs ended prematurely, perhaps not. (I say not, but I digress) I have seen many of these debates, and I believe this stand-alone article will survive. But that is just my opinion. But lets drop the snark, the frustration, and the bludgeoning, etc. We are all acting in good faith, and are all better than that. Thanks! My 2 cents. Juneau Mike (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: This is not bludgeoning. I am perfectly happy to consider other points of view and if you've actually read my comments you'll notice that I have. Just because you disagree, it does not mean you are using flawed arguments. This is correct. The problem is the majority of the above do not merge posts are using flawed arguments, as I and another editor have shown above. I will not deny that there are also people voting merge without citing policy or making a reasoned argument. You are perfectly welcome to take the Lubitz page off a procedural redirect (given it wasn't the result of consensus), per WP:BRD. That's why we are discussing here. ― Padenton|✉   15:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge Once again WP:BIO1E being applied incorrectly and due to this person's involvement in a major event, actually states a standalone article may be appropriate. I should remind those participating that this isn't a popularity vote, especially those not citing any policy based rationales. Mkdw 19:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And I'll remind participants (not you in particular) that "may" doesn't mean "should" or "shall", but "can" or "might". Whether to disregard the "general rule" depends on whether there is exceptional reason to. Simply saying the guideline allows exceptions isn't cause itself to make an exception. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

• Merge A murderer is not automatically entitled to to be enshrined in an encyclopedia article. It is adequate to cover him in the article about the mass murder. He is utterly unknown except for this one heinous action. Edison (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

In what way is an article an enshrinement? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. This despicable man's actions have had significant affect on aviation practices so far, looking at the Suicide by pilot article he has performed a act (Crashing a plane with 100+ casualties) only done 2 other times, the media have significant coverage far beyond the crash (his mental health, his home life, what his motivations may be) this is a huge part of information relating to him which would clog up the crash article. WP:BIO1E which states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one", which would apply in this case as he is the main reason the plane crashed as without him this would not have happened ala no significant act, him doing a despicable act is not a valid reason or we'd have no articles on criminals. GuzzyG (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That significant action is this article's topic. If nobody had booked or boarded the plane, his role would also have been insignificant. The whopping three paragraphs in Lubitz' article are about the size of every other section here, so would fit in nicely. Subarticles are usually split for size reasons, since truly notable people typically have more than a handful of notable facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:34, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

WP:BIO1E The best example for this policy is the Rodney King event, without him there's no beating ala no event. George Holliday (witness) filmed it but without the filming the beating is still gonna happen so he played a small role. At least that's how I interpret WP:ONEEVENT, either way this is a type of attack that has not happened during social media times and i can only think that people would want to read about him and by having it clogged with the main article is a disservice to our readers, some would want to read about the crash while others want to read about his psychopathology, due to the policy this action has imposed having the article is unlikely to cause a copycat which is some peoples concern as two pilots are now required at all times in most airlines. I see him as a despicable man whos actions on that plane have caused perceptions to change and now the media is starting to report on things that have no effect on the crash (like his girlfriends pregnancy). Yes he wanted infamy but the media gave that to him more then we ever could with an article, no matter if it's separate or not he still has his name here, i just don't see that as a reason to Merge.GuzzyG (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Rodney King also had quite a bit written about his post-beating life, and the video became a notable angle of its own. He was a drunk driver, a brutality victim, a viral celebrity, a poster boy, a plaintiff and a drowned man. Lubitz was a pilot, with one notable flight.

In the ideal Lubitz section, readers could read everything they can in a separate article, with being "disserviced" by having to jump pages. If they only want to read about him and type him into the search bar, his old article will be redirected to this section. THose who only want to read about the crash can skip that section.

Currently, there's more "clogging", as we repeat stuff already mentioned here.

The media grabs whatever pointless detail they can, and spins it into a feature story or headline ending in a question mark, because this is a trending topic, and they need clicks to survive. We use them as sources, but we have an entirely different mission, as an encyclopedia, and aren't meant to repeat everything they note. Those who want the sort speculation that might fill six or seven paragraphs can easily find it in the proper place, which isn't here. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:10, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

• No merge - The event is significant, and the person's role in it qualifies under WP:PERP #2, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual". Suicide by jet, taking 150 people with him, is not run-of-the-mill. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Since a lot of people are claiming his role in the WP:1E is a major one, see WP:CRIME. There is still nowhere near enough information to provide a separate article for Lubitz. It will effectively be a duplicate article of the Germanwings Flight 9525 and forever a stub otherwise.

  A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Misplaced Pages article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.

  ― Padenton|✉   16:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Check WP:CRIME number 2, which fits him quite well, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" considering this incidence is the third with over 100 casualties i'd say the execution is quite unusual. His article is currently rated at start-class, which would rule out staying a stub forever.GuzzyG (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• No Merge: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." exception in WP:BIO1E. Since mental health at contributed to this tragedy and the co-pilot's actions has had aftereffects such as some airlines now have the 2 pilot rule. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• No merge - Lee Harvey Oswald and Osama Bin Laden have their own articles. Unless this article can include his personal life section (a major factor to his behavior): "Lubitz had "a patchy relationship" for seven years with live-in girlfriend, Kathrin Goldbach, who was letting her pregnancy news from two weeks ago "sink in," knew of his medical problems but "not the extent," and knew about his affair with a flight attendant, Maria.<ref name=DailyMail-Personal>{{cite web|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021179/Germanwings-pilot-told-live-lover-having-affair-airline-stewardess-weeks-crashing-jet-French-Alps.html|title=Germanwings pilot 'told his live-in lover he was having an affair with an airline stewardess weeks before crashing jet into the French Alps'|first=John|last=Hall|date=April 1, 2015|publisher=''Daily Mail''|accessdate=April 2, 2015}}</ref>
• Merge - Other CFIT/Murder-suicide pilots do not have their own articles (the 9/11 hijackers are a special case) so why should this guy? He's only notable for having crashed a plane. --Zerbey (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Gameel Al-Batouti You were saying? a suicide by pilot that kills over 100 people has happened two times for sure and one other time allegedly the onlyother for sure one has his own articleGuzzyG (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Pilot's name

Someone changed this from Sondenheimer to Sondheimer, citing a Telegraph source dated today. Since Sondenheimer gets four times as many hits in a search of Google News Archive, I'm changing it back to Sondenheimer, citing a CNN source dated today. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"Sonderheimer" would appear to be the commonest. Alakzi (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Five times as many as Sondenheimer at Google News Archive. The difference is far less clear when I limit it to news within the past 24 hours. It doesn't give estimated hit counts when you do that, and the actual content is very mixed among the three spellings. I'm leaving it as is for now, and hopefully the media will sort this out in a few days. If others wish to play ping-pong with the name in the meantime, who am I to deny them that pleasure? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This name has been removed pending official release. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What the British MSM have named him is not relevant. What is relevant is that the German Press call him Sondheimer. 87.113.71.30 (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Not the sort of mistake the German press would make. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no urgency to get the name into the article before it has been officially released, and it's not useful to get into debates about the relative competence of German vs. non-German news media as to the names of German citizens. Does German media have access to hard information that the rest of the world does not? I'm not speaking of leaks. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the airline legally obliged to release a full list of passenger and crew names? And if so when? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful, it's really only the business of the family members, and only for their loved ones. To the rest of the world it's just a spectacle, but that's just my opinion. I just don't see how there'd be a law forcing it. ― Padenton|✉   22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There is now a CNN article, with video, calling him Sondenheimer multiple times, both in writing and in speech, attributing the name to a relative who they name using the same pronunciation. That's good enough for me. The change has been made by a different editor and I'm for letting it stand until contradicted by something more authoritative. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"What is relevant is that the German Press call him Sondheimer." No it is not. We have WP:COMMONNAME for deciding cases like this. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

this is not a case of WP:COMMONNAME . this is about someone's actual name, i.e. the one in his id or passport. ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

True. This person was unknown until a week ago, and this is just a matter of some of the media getting the name wrong in the rush to publish something. It's not a question of "what name is this person better known by", which is what COMMONNAME is about. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Descent is not nationality

"One German citizen of Turkish descent"?

Would we list Italian-Americans on a line labelled "Italy"? (I'm not talking about dual citizenship, but about Americans whose grandparents immigrated from Italy. That's what is meant by "descent".) ―Mandruss ☎ 13:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nationality can be ethnic, personal or legal. The word in the article should be changed to citizenship, to avoid the ambiguity. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:42, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

And the Turkey line should be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I got it. I mean I did it. I understand, too, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

I meant the row for Turkey should be removed. The source that we give for that row says it was a German of Turkish descent, ergo it does not belong in the table. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, shit. Guess I didn't understand. Now I get it, but haven't gotten to it. How about you get this one? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

Done. Whether that person is already included in the Germany number is a different question. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

My math is far worse than my reading comprehension, but it seems to add up to 150 now. If so, the fake Turk is either already German or something else is off by one. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:30, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

Actually it adds up to 154 now. We're far from getting it to 150, and I'm not even sure that was the intent of the person who came up with this scheme. Part of me thinks their idea was to list citizenships, with the footnotes explaining why it doesn't add up. On the other hand, there are no rows for Bosnia or Poland, which are parts of two of the multiples. So I'm at somewhat of a loss to figure this out. I'm working on an alternative in my sandbox; when it's done we can decide which is the least unacceptable. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you count the four multicitizens? I don't think you're supposed to. They're included under one or another already. No idea which ones, but like you say, the Bosnian must be in the Germans. Good luck finding a better way! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

See below. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Right. Duh. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:15, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

I'd still be careful with final numbers unless a manifest is released. The press are notriously bad at math especially when they hear something like "150 dead including 6 crew members." They don't understand "including" is different than "plus" and they feed off each other. They could take that 150 and mangle it anywhere from 138 to 162 as they overthink the math. Many haven't done arithmetic since gradeschool and nary a one seems good at it. --DHeyward (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep. For quite a while, the 2012 Aurora shooting had 70 injured, total. Then one day, it was 70, plus 12 dead. I just glanced at the edit history to find out when, and noticed it's still confusing people. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

July 3, 2013. Almost a year. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Well we're currently seriously overstating the degree of certainty, then, since we nowhere say anything like "This table shows only rough estimates taken from preliminary information, so the counts do not total 150." As currently written, it's "These are the correct numbers, period, and they don't add up to 150 because of multiple citizenships." That's wrong, and it's unprofessional. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a SYNTH problem that the press doesn't care about. The 150 is straight from the German Government. The nationalities are from the press human interest section. We're taking multiple sources and trying to get them to match and the sources don't care if they match so they don't. It's frustrating trying to put it together but until there is one source for all, it's gonna be tough. we can note that the numbers come from different places. --DHeyward (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternative fatalities table

Please look at this alternative format for the fatalities table and state your preference. Note that both versions currently add up to 154, so both need some adjustment. This is just about which format is clearer, taking into consideration that my version does not require any explanatory footnotes. Also note that the tooltips for citation numbers don't work in a sandbox, so nothing will happen when you hover over a citation number in my version. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I like it, except for one thing: The number adds up to 154 but we lost clarity why it is actually supposed to add up to 150. That part needs to be fixed; it was better before with the "150" and the "4" at the bottom. I had just updated the table and it looks like you got the new tallies; good. The sources say the number of Germans is 72; I found we are not reporting 2 Bosnian citizens who are also German citizens; and I see you added that; good. I also found we are reporting 1 from Turkey although that is really a German national with Turkish descent, and I see you deleted that; good. Prhartcom (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

How about a new column in the middle, leaving the first column for only the number of souls lost, which would add up to 150, the second would have the multi-citizenship, which would add up to... (4? Not sure.) So the "Germany" row would have a "70" and a "2", "United Kingdom" would have a ""2" and a "1", etc. The two numbers added together should match the number of souls lost according to that country's source (I think). Prhartcom (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

But that wouldn't say what the other citizenships are, only how many. And all but 3 cells in that column would be blank, not a good use of space. As for the extra explanatory row at the end, "Number of fatalities with multiple citizenships" is not an explanation for why it adds up to 154. My version makes this crystal clear by splitting out the multiples into separate rows. The reason it doesn't add up is because some of the numbers are simply wrong. I didn't see much benefit to adding a row at the bottom saying, "Some of the numbers are wrong, that's why it doesn't add up." I would sooner remove the table until we have the right numbers that add up to 150. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they're wrong; I think the numbers reported by each country are now correct and accounted for, it's just that when you add the total number reported from each country it is higher than the number of souls lost and the difference is exactly the number with dual multiple citizenship. I know you made those with dual multiple citizenship clear but it is at the expense of other clarity, for example, Germany is now on two rows and the rows aren't next to each other. On reflection, I'm afraid it was better before; sorry. Prhartcom (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No, at least in my version, they're wrong because no person should be represented on more than one row. That's why I reduced the counts for Germany, UK, and Mexico when I split off their multiples. As for Germany-Bosnia being seven rows below Germany, I consider that an acceptable trade-off, but that's why I started this thread instead of boldly changing it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I hear you; I wish your version was working; I wanted to like it. End the end I realized it is good that we have a "72" next to Germany, a "51" next to Spain, and a "3" next to the UK because the sources say "72 Germans" were lost, "51 Spaniards" were lost, and "3 Britons" were lost; we can't trade that kind of matching accuracy away. We also need the tallies to total correctly; readers are going to check and ensure the numbers from each country total the numbers we placed at the bottom: a "150" (number of souls lost) plus a "4" (number with dual multiple citizenship) is that total. I suppose the footnotes are just going to have to describe who the four dual multiple citizenship souls are, and I suppose that's fine. Let's hear from some others. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm giving most readers credit for enough intelligence not to stop reading at "Germany 70" and get upset because it doesn't say 72. I think most will look farther and be able to figure out that 70 Germans and two German-Bosnians account quite well for "72 Germans". Also you speak of 4 dual citizenships, which is incorrect according to the current table. It says there are three duals and one triple, and one of the benefits of my format is that it sorts that out quite nicely, and it will add up to 150 when the numbers are corrected, eliminating any need for further explanation. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

To restate: The two problems with the hypothetical table are:

1) The numbers in the proposed table do not match the numbers reported by sources, because the sources report total per nationality (the proposed table reports single citizenship citizens separately from multiple-citizenship citizens, requiring us to work logic and math in our head from rows that are not next to each other in order to make the sources match, while the present table simply reports the same number as the sources).

2) The tallies in the proposed table do not total to the number at the bottom because supposedly "the numbers are wrong" (when the reason is really the multiple-citizenship citizens, while the present table simply depicts as another separate total at the bottom).

The current table does not have those two problems that the hypothetical table creates. As for the multiple-citizenship citizens in footnotes rather than rows, it's not a big deal, at least it's not made more confusing by creating two worse problems. Prhartcom (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I like it a bit better. It sort of feels like it's not in alphabetical order, which is OK, because it's not supposed to be, but that feeling wasn't there before Germany and Germany-Bosnia were so far apart. Probably just me being weird, though. At least it adds up. Sold! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. At least it will add up, once we correct the numbers. And like I said, "least unacceptable" is the best we can hope for in a messy situation like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying the numbers need correcting but you have no evidence for incorrect numbers. They know who was on the flight, they have contacted the families, and they know their nationalities. Prhartcom (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In my version, as I said above, no person should be represented on more than one row. It should go without saying, but no person should be represented more than once on their row, either. One person, one tally mark. Thus, the numbers in the rows should add up to the total number of fatalities, which we know to be 150. Instead, they add up to 154. That is my evidence for incorrect numbers, application of simple logic.
Most likely, the reason for the error is multiple occurrences of double representation. For example, perhaps there was only one person with X citizenship, a dual X-Y citizenship, and that person is incorrectly counted as two people, an X and an X-Y.
If we don't have the necessary source information to make the numbers add up correctly, I don't see how the footnotes in the existing table could be correct. Obviously we know very precise information about the multiples. Could you humor me and explain that? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(Let's suspend this pending a resolution of #Fatalities table is incorrect, below.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll withdraw this proposal as not an improvement. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Framed

The Independent reports that "Supporters of the Germanwings crash co-pilot Andreas Lubitz claim he may have been framed as responsible to cover up a major mechanical failure." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Our first conspiracy theory, isn't it? What took so long? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"A Facebook group that reportedly includes hundreds of people from the pilot’s hometown", eh? Sounds impartial. Might be worth a mention, but with due weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

And while we're at it... the Daily Mail claims - girlfriend pregnant, he cheated on girlfriend with a stewardess and police found 'small mountain of pills' in his flat. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Must've had a huge flat. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

I'll request a move to CHEATING DRUGGIE GERMAN PILOT KNOCKS UP GIRLFRIEND, FRAMED FOR AIRLINER CRASH !!!. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried Googling "small mountain of pills" to see where "reports emerged" from, and it seems The Daily Mail can time travel, because the only ones repeating that unattributed quote emerge later (at least every recycler six result pages in). Way to ruin the Internet, boys! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:53, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

Has small mountains, but there is a nearby gap. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

So should anything be added about this supposed "major mechanical failure", whatever that might be imagined to have been? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No. We Are Wikipedians. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I Am Canadian. When I said it might be worth a small mention, I meant say there's a group of supporters saying things, perhaps in a "Social media" subsection of "Reaction". Don't say the things, then cite the group. Their case is about as well-researched and reasoned as "Facebook group" suggests. I don't mind if we don't mention them at all, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Video of Thomas Winkelmann and archives

Thomas Winkelmann made a videos. Unfortunately as of right now the videos are too big to archive at http://webcitation.org.

• German version: https://www.germanwings.com/content/dam/germanwings/Videos/videobotschaft-thomas-winkelmann.mp4/jcr:content/renditions/cq5dam.video.firefoxhq.ogg
• English version: https://www.germanwings.com/content/dam/germanwings/Videos/video-message%20thomas-winkelmann.mp4/jcr:content/renditions/cq5dam.video.firefoxhq.ogg

As of writing there are no versions with Spanish or French subtitles WhisperToMe (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I watched the English version, so thanks for the link. He doesn't really add anything substantive to the information we have, though. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok. In order to help Wikipedians and researchers I often mass-archive primary sources (especially air accident investigation agency reports and side documents), especially if somebody at a later point finds them useful and/or if they fall into the public domain and can be included as media. I'd rather not need something and have it, than need something and not have it. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem just archiving it here for future use. You never know who many find it of value later on. - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fatalities table is incorrect

This is related to the thread above but really needs to be separate. It needs attention even if it's decided not to go with the alternative format.

If you look closely at the current table, it's clear that each fatality is intended to be represented only once in the counts. Take, for example, the row for Germany. The number is 72, and the footnote says that includes two German-Bosnians. The German-Bosnians are not counted again elsewhere in the table, and in fact there is no row for Bosnia.

If each person is represented only once in the counts, why do the counts add up to 154?

You can't explain that discrepancy with the note at the bottom of the table. Either I'm completely losing it, or our logic is completely flawed here. Which is it? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You people are sure confusing me, that much is clear. Last time I counted, I got 150 (not counting the multis) on both versions. This time, it's 154, no multis, both versions. I sometimes miscount, but to miscount by the exact number of multis, despite not counting them, seems an unlikely coincidence. There's some sort of perfectly logical problem here, whether in math or sourcing. I can't find it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in the tables, certainly not in the live version, so I give up. Anyway, let's first reach a consensus that the current table can't be right, and then we can proceed to where it's wrong and how to fix it. It's a glaring and very unencyclopedic error, and fixing it should be a very high priority. If it can't be fixed with the information we have today, we should at least stop pretending it's correct, explaining the discrepancy with a note that does not explain it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, checking the edit history was my first instinct. Same table. Should've said the situation's confusing, not "you people" (that sounds a bit bad, regardless). I certainly don't pretend it's correct, and agree that it should be a high priority. But not my priority. My brain isn't built for this. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. For the "how to fix" part, I'm mostly appealing to the people who built the table and are most familiar with the sources. Except for Prhartcom, I don't know who they are. Perhaps Prhartcom knows who they are and can ping them, or, better yet, drop notes on their respective talk pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibly infants less than two years old. No passport and no seat. There was at least one infant one board (I believe the opera singer had an infant). They are notoriously undereported until the actual manifest is released. There could very easily be a discrepancy between the manifest and the passport count. --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Spanish-British-Polish passenger was an infant, who we count. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

The problem is overreporting, not underreporting. The counts add up to 4 more than the known total fatalities. But I take it you agree that the current table can't be correct. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

My point was that the "official number" of 150 may not be accurate (despite 6 days and repeated coverage). I don't think the manifest has been released yet. I'd not fret about the table until the official manifest is released. The press is almost always wrong when they run out of fingers and toes to count with. --DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I had just noticed that also; the two from Bosnia do not appear anywhere else on the table. It's the same with the one from Poland; that country also has no row. So if we continue to ignore Bosnia and Poland for the moment, both the UK and Mexico each have one muti-citizenship citizen that is also from Spain; so subtracting those two from Spain is two less the reported 51 or "49" – yet adding together all these tallies adds up to 152 – still not the number 150 for some reason. Aaarg. So what is to be done? I believe the first priority is as follows: Ensure the data in the table matches the sources. This is first and foremost. Fortunately for us, it is not our requirement as editors to explain the discrepancy or synthesize the reason the reported numbers do not add up to 150. Some of us here in this discussion feel we must get to the bottom of this right now. But it is actually not important to ensure that no person should be represented on more than one row. It is not even important to say the current table can't be right and that it is up to us to fix it. Yes, we have to help the article make sense if possible, but what is most important is that we as editors ensure that the number of nationalities reported in the table are the same numbers that were reported in the sources. I have checked the source for each row to ensure the numbers are right; I have updated a few sources; I haven't seen any more tally updates being reported (so the tally updates appear to have settled, at least for now). I'm open to new ideas but I believe we have to use the numbers as reported by the sources. Prhartcom (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: If we can't "get to the bottom of this right now", I can accept that just fine, thanks. What I can't accept is (1) the absence of any indication that the numbers are extremely fuzzy at this point, and (2) that we clearly imply that the reason for the discrepancy is the multiple citizenships, which is blatantly WRONG. The multiple citizenships actually have NOTHING to do with the discrepancy, as I have explained above. Fix those two things, and I'm happy for the time being. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I have updated a few sources and I updated the Germany tally (the sources said 72 but the table said 70; I corrected the number for Germany to 72); I haven't seen any more tally updates being reported. I wish we had more accurate reliable sources. You said it, the table is probably wrong and probably not because of the multi-nationals; more likely because the number the sources are reporting for Germany or Spain is incorrect. But our table matches the sources, so that is our main job accomplished, for now. Prhartcom (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Our job is to be as factual as we can be. We are currently not, on either of the two counts I noted above. I am working on the edit to correct that, which will take awhile as it will involve learning a little more about wikitables. If someone then wishes to revert me, we can go to an RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I know wikitables, what do you need? Don't change the numbers on the table to numbers that don't appear in the sources. Prhartcom (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: I need to remove the last two rows of the table and replace them with one row spanning all three columns and containing the small text: Estimates based on preliminary data. Counts do not total 150. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I'll set up the table and ping you when it's time for you to add the text. Prhartcom (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Okay. Prhartcom (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done and  Thank you very much!. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: But it makes the columns too wide because it doesn't wrap the bottom text. Any way to fix that, aside from inserting a <br> in the bottom text? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks brilliant on my browser; exactly the same size as before. Your new edit made the table smaller for me and probably for a lot of people. It's going to be on a lot of different devices. My question is: Don't we want to mention the "multiple citizenship"? That phrase is in the article (with a source). Prhartcom (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

My preference was to let it wrap the bottom text by itself, after setting the column widths according to their content. But if that's not possible, ok. As to multiple citizenship, we do mention that in the footnotes, and, as we've established, they have no effect on the total count. What would such a comment say? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Since your note tries to explain why the numbers don't total 150, so does the following: something like, "Some passengers had multiple citizenship." Prhartcom (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If you mean that the multiples might be part of the reason for the discrepancy (which is just a guess at this point), I think "based on preliminary data" covers that adequately. If we felt the need to explain why the preliminary data remains fuzzy, we could do that in prose. We currently say, "The early count was confused by multiple citizenship," and that could instead say, "Exact victim counts by citizenship have not yet been determined. This may be partly due to individuals having multiple citizenships." or some such thing. But I don't think the table needs anything like that. Hopefully people will actually read at least some of the adjacent prose, especially if they care about the exact numbers. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously passengers with additional citizenship will add additional nationalities to the mix. I hope you can see that. I have added the note. Prhartcom (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means, so I don't know what I'm supposed to see. As we've seen using the German-Bosnians as the example, the multiples do not affect the total count. They have absolutely no effect on the table outside of the footnotes. You have added a note that tells the reader nothing that the footnotes don't already tell them, which is that some victims had multiple citizenships. I give up. At least it's vastly better than it was a couple of hours ago, so I'll call that a good day's work. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let me try it like this for you: If there are two people in a room alone, and one of them is German-Bosnian and the other is American, how many total nationalities can you count in the room? Is it the same as the number of people or is it more? Prhartcom (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As I have stated ad nauseam, we are not counting the additional citizenships (must I use boldface, all caps, and <big>...</big> for you to hear that?), we are only referring to them in footnotes. Therefore your analogy is useless. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see the problem. When the Spanish government reports 51 Spanish, I believe they are including the person who was Spanish and Mexican and the person who was Spanish-Polish-British. Meanwhile, when the Mexican government reports two Mexicans, I believe they are including the person who was Spanish and Mexican again, and when the British government reports three Britons, I believe they are including the person who was Spanish-Polish-British again. Now do you get it? Prhartcom (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

From your silence I take it you finally do. See, that's why "The early count was confused by multiple citizenship". That's why there was a row at the bottom trying to account for the "Number of fatalities with multiple citizenship" double-counts (it fails to, though; it seems to be off by two). I honestly thought you had understood this concept. Re-read other's comments and they will make more sense now. Prhartcom (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I was confused by the fact that you spent hours yesterday emphatically insisting that the numbers were correct, while I was telling you that they had to be wrong. My bad. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And I didn't even have to use boldface, all caps! ;-) You can take comfort in the fact that the tallies reported by the governments do still seem to be wrong. Restating from above, I only see two souls counted twice (the two Spanish). The two Bosnians are not counted twice and the one Pole is not either. It seems to be off by two. Prhartcom (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If you are double-counting anyone, that is wrong and is the cause of all the problems. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I saw you try to change your answer there. It's not me double-counting anyone, it's the reliable sources. We are just presenting what the sources say in the table. They don't exactly add up, so our comments at the bottom of the table try to explain why. I think we're done with this discussion. Prhartcom (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If you insist on making this a table of citizenships, rather than of people killed, then at least make it clear that's what it is. Otherwise readers will intuitively expect it to be numbers of fatalities (you can only die once, regardless of how many citizenships you have). Change the table heading to Citizenships of fatalities, and change the footer text to: The table counts citizenships, not people. Those with multiple citizenships are counted in multiple table rows, and total count exceeds number of fatalities. Counts are based on preliminary data and may be adjusted later. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Re-read the title at the top of the table. Prhartcom (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

type of incident

@WWGB: Currently the infobox says "murder-suicide" but if this is a murder suicide, then it must be a mass murder, and the suicide must be a suicide by pilot. Yet when I added that to the infobox, it was reverted as being "not proven". The infobox still says "murder-suicide" which is also not proven. So, this state of affairs perplexes me. If it is to say "murder-suicide", then the murder part of that statement is a mass murder, and the suicide part of that statement is a suicide-by-pilot. So what is wrong with stating what I stated? If it shouldn't say "murder-suicide", then reverting me and doing nothing else is wrong, because it still says "murder-suicide".

As it does say "murder-suicide" in the infobox after the revert, what is wrong with adding the category for it? Category:Murder–suicides (as well as the one for mass murder, Category:Mass murder in 2015 )

-- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Just as background, this issue was discussed recently and archived here without consensus. A consensus would be good. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm also perplexed. Maybe only those nearest the front were murdered, and the instant the murderer was dead, the rest were credited to inertia? Maybe a co-pilot can't be a full pilot, by virtue of his title, so can only commit half suicide?

Seriously, those are the best answers I have. I hope I didn't guess right. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to hear at least WWGB and Padenton weigh in here. If the preponderance of RS is not enough, what will be? The final investigative report? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I'd be happy with that I think. WP:BREAKING notes that even WP:RS sources are likely to have factual errors in their rush to cover the story as every little fact and rumor pops up. Over the past few days, I've seen countless articles from ordinarily reputable sources like the New York Times continuing the gossip without any basis in fact. They'll attribute it to some anonymous source (or 'an acquaintance of the co-pilot' is one I saw today) of course, but editors are rushing to add it to the page in their haste (In good faith, of course). There's no rush to add it while it's still inconclusive. ― Padenton|✉   08:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I don't feel strongly either way, but it would be good to have a consensus that we can refer to in editsums. So, peeps, how about more participation this time around? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that it's not called a murder-suicide at all, I'm far less perplexed. I'd be willing to bet we could declare it now and still be right when the best source in the world comes out, but WP:NOTAGAMBLINGHOUSE. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:33, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

• I have reverted it back to its good old plain and generalised description of 'Deliberate flight into terrain' -- with this description, we know what stage of flight the accident occurred and this also means we do not have any qualms with regards to references and exact wording (i.e. murder-suicide) of what this incident is about. not (talk/contribs) 17:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of citizenships table

It appears that the table does not count people, but rather citizenships. Those with multiple citizenships are counted in multiple rows. I can see the logic behind that, and I am not disputing that (anymore). The question now is how best to make that clear to the reader, and I don't think the current table does that. For starters, the table heading says it's a table of "people on board by citizenship", but it is not a table of people if people are counted more than once. I clarified the heading and added explanatory text at the bottom of the table, and this was reverted. So here we are.

Before my edit:

After my edit: ―Mandruss ☎ 14:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

―Mandruss ☎ 05:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Do whatever the usual practise is? Personally I would just assign them to what ever countries passport they were travelling under, although I expect others might disagree and there is likely to be practical difficulties in obtaining the information. If there is no established practice then to avoid the confusion I would suggest (assuming there are only a small number) adding cells for e.g. "Germany/ Spain", this way we actually know what the nationalities claimed are rather than having to guess from a table counting 150 but adding up to 160, 165 or whatever. Of course that will give rise to the question of what to do about flags, a problem I'll leave for someone else to solve. --wintonian 01:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Forget what I wrote above, I have just discovered that you have used footnotes alleviating the problem of what the nationalities are. --wintonian 02:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wintonian: Do you have an opinion about the subject of this thread, i.e., which of the two examples best clarifies the data for the reader? (The only differences are in the heading and footer text.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah! I prefer the 2nd example, though I do find the footer text a bit wordy. I wonder if the larger 2nd sentence would be better assigned as a footnote to the first, in the same way dual citizenship as been noted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. You're suggesting taking text that is almost essential to understanding and hiding it from all but the most thorough readers. I rarely take the time to look at footnotes because they usually contain "fine print" that doesn't significantly improve my understanding. "The table counts citizenships, not people" makes no mention of the multiple citizenships and so, by itself, would not tell the story adequately. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming that people actually bother to hover their mouse over the annotations, which lets face it doesn't involve much effort. I guess they don't and it needs to stay where it is then. But is it possible to make it less wordy or am I being picky? --wintonian 03:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's already fairly well pared to the minimum, for example omission of two occurrences of "the" in "total count exceeds number of fatalities". I'm certainly open to specific suggestions as to how it could be shortened without loss of essential meaning. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That's why I asked if it was possible as I couldn't see anything obvious :-) One thought though, use of the term "preliminary data" kind of implies that things may change so is it necessary to say that they might or do we see the clarification as important? --wintonian 04:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A fair point. Strike "and may be adjusted later". ―Mandruss ☎ 04:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing the word "are" would reduce it further by a whopping 3 chars? --wintonian 04:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

How about? "The table counts citizenships, not people. Those with multiple citizenships are counted in multiple table rows. Counts based on preliminary data and exceeds number of fatalities." --wintonian 04:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Saves three words (10%) and, in my opinion, is less clear. The total will continue to exceed the number of fatalities after the data is no longer preliminary, thus it makes more sense to put that with the mention of multiple citizenships. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, looks like it's going to be struggle that isn't worth it then. --wintonian 04:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to take that, but thanks for your input. It's five words shorter as a result. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean it's going to hard to save anything more than a word or 2, and therefore probably isn't worth thinking too long about it. Mind you eventually we will be be able to just get rid of the "preliminary data" bit --wintonian 04:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

True, although it may be preliminary for longer than we think, per comments like this from InedibleHulk above:

For quite a while, the 2012 Aurora shooting had 70 injured, total. Then one day, it was 70, plus 12 dead. I just glanced at the edit history to find out when, and noticed it's still confusing people.

Even if an accurate manifest is released, will it include complete information about citizenships? That's what we'll need to be completely accurate in a table that counts citizenships. We might well end up changing "preliminary" to "incomplete" and leaving it that way indefinitely. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I would delete "Estimates based on preliminary data" as it's pretty meaningless - it's just the most reliable data identified. If and when something better comes along, the article will be changed and re-referenced (if necessary with an explanation for any significant changes). The citation is there for readers who wish to know more of the source. Davidships (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Davidships: Thanks, maybe we can get more opinions on that. Any comment as to which version is better as to heading and footer text? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree the "Estimates based on preliminary data" is meaningless and can possibly be deleted, especially because they are not "estimates", they are simply reliably sourced data. Otherwise, the table is fine the way it currently is. Prhartcom (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally I feel that the term "preliminary data" (or something like it) is crucial to explaining why (even allowing for dual nationalities) the total may not equal 150 or change. --wintonian 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

How about: "Some passengers had multiple citizenship. Data is awaiting completion of investigation. Counts do not total 150." Prhartcom (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Understanding that some people are counted on multiple rows is essential to an understanding of the table. I'm sure you feel that follows clearly from your first sentence, but I disagree. It won't be obvious at all to a reader who is seeing the table for the first time, expecting it to count people, not citizenships. A significant mental shift is necessary, and I don't think your one sentence will get them there. I have no problem with your second sentence. Your third sentence doesn't say whether the counts total less than or more than 150, so my version is clearer and, again, more helpful to reader understanding. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps - "Some passengers had multiple citizenship and are counted more than once"? 2nd sentence is fine as long as the whole thing doesn't start to get lengthy again, in which case I feel "data is preliminary"/ "data is incomplete" etc. would suffice. As for the 3rd sentence, I'm not fussed either way. --wintonian 23:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing table rows

Since it counts citizenships, not people, there are at least two missing table rows: "Bosnia 2", and "Poland 1". These citizenships are stated in the footnotes for Germany and United Kingdom, respectively. They need to be added lest we offend the Bosnians and the Poles. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Descent time/speed

It looks like the descent time line and speed need to be corrected. The NYTimes timeline is from 24 March. This 25 March article claims to have the correct descent time/speed: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germanwings-plane-crash-airbus-a320-glide-to-destruction-took-18-minutes-not-8-10131891.html --Pmsyyz (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the NYT source we are using for that? If so, I don't see where you are getting the 24 March date. I only see "updated March 27". The ref states a date and accessdate of 26 March. Both would make it a little more recent than your source, and in any case I don't know of anyone who considers NYT a less reliable source than independent.co.uk. I'm not saying your information is clearly wrong, but I don't think that single source is enough to justify the change. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at recent stories with timestamps and the voice recorder transcript, I guess The Independent is just wrong. Thanks. --Pmsyyz (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Gingers facing extinction? Nope. Boobs preventing women from exercising? Not quite. Facebook dead and buried? Clearly. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:52, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Murder suicide debate

Are you serious? This is silly and a gross violation of WP:DICK.

What is "Deliberate flight into terrain" supposed to be anyway? This is clearly murder-suicide. And the source cannot be more clear.

Your reverts are nonsense and bullshit! "Oh, but he didn't INTENT to harm anybody except himself" Yeah. BULLSHIT!! "Oh, but you can intentionally fly into a terratin without intending to kill yourself, even if you googled for suicide the days before" Yeah, BULLSHIT!

Take back your revert. You are trying to prove your power here. The reverts have no rational basis. --rtc (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rtc: It's not murder. German law states that murder is defined as intentional killing of another person. I still have yet to see any evidence or even a suggestion that the co-pilot had any malicious intent with regard to the passengers. ― Padenton|✉   18:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

BULLSHIT --rtc (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rtc: I don't see how this discussion is going to go anywhere. I suggest you step back from this if you think you will have a difficult time viewing the incident objectively. ― Padenton|✉   18:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, I AM viewing it objectively, in contrast to bullshitty editors like you. You are spreading nonsensical bullshit here, and those reverts are abusive. This simply has to be stated. The fact is that he murdered those people as a byproduct of his suicide. Whether "maliciously" (who cares, who claims that, why should it be relevant?) or non-maliciously intended, or hazarded as a consequence is completely irrelevant. The german law (how is the german law supposed to be relevant here?!!) makes no difference about that. He knew what he was doing. --rtc (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading above it seems that you alone are the source of this alleged lack of concensus. You make wild, bullshitty claims about reliable sources allegedly not being reliable ("even WP:RS sources are likely to have factual errors in their rush to cover the story as every little fact and rumor pops up. Over the past few days, I've seen countless articles from ordinarily reputable sources like the New York Times continuing the gossip without any basis in fact. They'll attribute it to some anonymous source"), using that bullshit argument to defend the bullshit notion of "Deliberate flight into terrain". Why should consensus be blocked by wild views, far from reality and wikipedia policy? Let's stop this bullshit now. This "Deliberate flight into terrain" has been controversial from the beginning. By now so many very reliable sources, not anonymous at all, so many facts have accumulated that it is completely untenable to retain this alleged "consensus". --rtc (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Can I remind editors to respect each other and not to make personal attacks on other editors please. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rtc: Have you read what I have said above? I am the person who originally took it back to deliberate flight into terrain. not (talk/contribs) 18:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have read it, but understand it mostly as an expression of agreement with what Padenton had said in that discussion before. I disagree with everything in your statement. You claim "we do not have any qualms with regards to references and exact wording" That is clearly wrong. The "generalised description of 'Deliberate flight into terrain'" is backed even far less by references. In fact by no reference at all. This is a notion invented by some editors here, clearly OR. It is unclear what should be the difference between deliberate flight into terrain and "murder-suicide" other than not to use the latter term, for whatever reason. It's simply that same term in disguise. "we know what stage of flight the accident occurred"? I beg to differ. The phrase says nothing about that. One can deliberately fly into terrain during all stages of a flight. On the contrary, the term may suggest that the plane was descending as a matter of routine (rather than without authorization) when the co-pilot crashed it. And finally, of course the exact wording or "murder-suicide" is much less debatable than that of "Deliberate flight into terrain", the former being a idiomatic phrase and the latter being something invented by editors here. --rtc (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have warned User:Rtc for personal attacks. Now can be please have a WP:CIVIL debate here without the juvenile name-calling? - Ahunt (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't make calls on what to describe this as based on our own judgement, we need references. At this point this case seems to be predominately one involving mental health issues. No refs yet have showed that it was a planned mass-murder. - Ahunt (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course a reference has been given, by me. You reverted it. Other references have said the same thing for a long time, they were rejected by nitpicking ("even WP:RS sources are likely to have factual errors"). Whether the suicide was because of mental health issues or not makes no difference. Nobody has disputed that the co-pilot knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences were and that he acted intentionally. Heck, even the version you defend yourself contains the adjective "Deliberate"! There is now evidence that the entire thing was planned for days, and was hence definitely NOT a matter of a co-pilot spontaneously gone crazy during flight. --rtc (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Along with what Ahunt says, we could go on for hours about what choice of words to use on how to describe a deliberate flight into terrain. I have better things to do on Misplaced Pages than that, heck, I have better things to with my life than argue about labels and wording in general, especially on how to describe the actions of somebody who took the life of himself and 150 others. I think we should let the investigation go ahead a little further and see what we can come up with. Patience, padawan :) not (talk/contribs) 19:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The ref you cited supports "suicide" but does not mention "murder". It is quite possible for a person to be so mentally ill that they don't consider the effects of their actions on anyone else around them. "Murder" requires forming an "intent" and if we are going to add that to the article we need a ref that says that. - Ahunt (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@My name is not dave: There is no argument in what you say, other than you do not want to discuss. This seems not like an satisfactory response to what I said. @Ahunt: This is a German source, the term "murder-suicide" simply does not exist in German. Your claim that the pilot did not know or realize that everyone on board would be killed as the consequence of his actions, which he planned for days, is completely absurd. I already said such arguments are bullshit. It's not against you or anyone else! It's against this kind of argument. --rtc (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User:Rtc: you have been already warned for personal attacks, and now you have just made another one. The text of articles is decided by consensus here on the talk pages, as a result of rational and courteous debate. Yelling obscenities at anyone who disagrees with you will not make your case and will only get you blocked. I can see by your lack of rational rebuttal to my argument that you have no rational argument to make. By policy we require refs to support claims and no amount of insults abrogates that policy. - Ahunt (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not make any personal attack. I said your argument is absurd bullshit. It is! Use ratio instead of bullshit and threats to block people who refute your claims. Your claim that "It is quite possible for a person to be so mentally ill that they don't consider the effects of their actions" is clearly wrong as far as this case is concerned; it is your personal opinion and against WP:OR. I, in contrast, have provided a source that clearly says that it has been confirmed that it was suicide. --rtc (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks here. You are not making any points, just attacking anyone who disagrees with you. - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop this attempt to detract from the fact that you ignore the arguments. Your arguments are absurd bullshit, I stand by that fact. Learn to distinguish between attacks on your person and attacks on your arguments. --rtc (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in but this accident just happened and the investigation is still ongoing. It seems like there is a great deal of wanting to rush to judgment and to use value-laden terms. Isn't it that hard to stick to reliable sources and not put our own spin and interpretation on events and people? Liz 19:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If the word "murder" is going to be included in this article, the word "murder" needs to be in the sources cited. There is no hurry; the investigation is pending. User:Rtc, you are welcome to contribute but we decide what goes into the article based on consensus and reliable sources; not by who curses the loudest. It's fine to argue strongly but it's not fine to behave with incivility towards others; your first and we hope only warning has been placed on your Talk page. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Liz: I entirely agree. There seems to be far too great a rush to condemn this person with emotionally-loaded phrases before refs are available and before any official sources have made statements on the subject. It is not the role of Misplaced Pages to lead a lynching, even a postmortem lynching. Let's stick to the refs, please. - Ahunt (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Right! If the phrase "Deliberate flight into terrain" is going to be included in this article, it needs to be in the sources cited! But there is no source. I, in contrast, have provided sources, others have provided sources for the fact that it was suicide. They were rejected by nitpicking ("even WP:RS sources are likely to have factual errors"), not by rational argument. --rtc (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)@Rtc: you are welcome to read about why WP:RS are not entirely reliable per wikipedia policy at WP:RSBREAKING as I sourced above. The difference between deliberate flight and 'mass murder' is because 'murder' has a specific definiton, requiring malicious intent towards the victims, which no source has even suggested here. Just because you want to call everything involving someone's wrongful death murder, doesn't mean it is murder. The term murder is defined in German law. Yes, it is in German, but it has the same meaning as the English 'murder'. You can read more about it here: Murder (German law) ― Padenton|✉   19:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I already replied to above what you now repeat once again. It is not sufficient to claim that reliable sources may not be reliable. Everyone can claim that. Your claim that "'murder' has a specific definiton, requiring malicious intent towards the victims" is simply false. I do not know where you picked this up, it's not true. --rtc (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Rtc: It's not me claiming it, it's a wikipedia policy, and therefore consensus of many users. If you disagree with it strongly, you are welcome to propose changes to it and attempt to reach a new consensus (I think that would be at the Village Pump...not sure), though I advise you to do so calmly. The rationale for it is that many of the sources report rumors. For example, I removed a line from either this or the Lubitz article the other day where the New York Times was used as a source for "According to an acquaintance of , blahblahblah" Murder does have a specific definition, not sure what you're talking about there. ― Padenton|✉   19:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I do agree with that policy! I disagree with your claim that it allows you to keep information out of the article that you personally (for whatever reason) disagree with, even though the information is sourced by reliable sources. The policy does not say that reliable sources can be ignored at will, as you seem to assume. It says, in doubt, where the source is particularly speculative, wait a few days. The few days are long over. It has been confirmed again and again and again over many days by official sources (far from being mere rumors) that it was suicide. Again: Your claim that "'murder' has a specific definiton, requiring malicious intent towards the victims" is simply false. Murder requires malice aforethought, which is already given if there was "intent to kill". It is not necessary that this intent was "malicious". That's simply something you invented. It cannot be more clear; if it were otherwise, every murderer could claim, yes, he killed those people intentionally, but he didn't mean it in a malicious sense... He wanted them to go to heaven, didn't he! "But I did not wish them ill, I only wanted to KILL them" Yeah, right! --rtc (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Let us please stop arguing with this formerly blocked editor; who clearly wishes the argument will continue for as long as possible. Let him have the last word and do not reply, until perhaps 24 hours from now. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

How about simply admitting that you are wrong? ---rtc (talk)

(edit conflict)@Rtc:It's a WP:BDP, we don't put prejudicial claims in the article that are not factual and reliably sourced. "Few days" is a broad guideline intended to cover all articles on Misplaced Pages. The important point is that you wait until information is reliable, confirmed, and factual. No one here is disputing it was suicide. We are disputing your characterization of it as 'murder'. It does not matter if multiple sources have confirmed it as suicide, because no one cares about that, we have moved on from that. Look up the definition on 'malice aforethought' and 'malicious intent'. They're identical. Where is the source for that quote? ― Padenton|✉   20:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No it's not a WP:BDP. The person is "confirmed dead by reliable sources". There is no doubt he's dead. The suicide is factual, confirmed and reliably sourced, in contrast to the WP:OR phrase "Deliberate flight into terrain". If you say "No one here is disputing it was suicide", then let's at least change it into "suicide by co-pilot"! And yes, malice aforethought is already given if there is "intent to kill". That's quoted literatlly from the article murder and malice aforethought. There is no such thing as "malicious intent" when it comes to murder. That was at best a very old understanding. "the term has been abandoned, or substantially revised. The four states of mind that are now recognized as constituting "malice aforethought" in murder prosecutions are as follows: i. Intent to kill, ii. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death, iii. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life ..., or iv. Intent to commit a dangerous felony" see also "The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of ... true malice" Did you actually read those articles? --rtc (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rtc: WP:BDP refers to recently deceased people being protected under the WP:BLP policy, it doesn't matter that sources confirm he's dead. For the thirtieth or so time I've said it, "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." Suicide by copilot is incorrect because we are supposed to do our best to match the phrasing to already existing pages, in this case, there is a category for it. Also for the thirtieth time, there is no evidence that there was "intent to kill". There's no evidence that he even thought about any of the passengers before he committed suicide. The murder article also says "This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter." and in this case, we are talking about German and French law, as the jurisdiction is between them. ― Padenton|✉   20:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BDP literally begins with a simple and clear statement: "Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death" (my emphasis). Other than that it discusses "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime" But we are not talking about "contentious or questionable material". This is a high profile case, with high profile authorities involved with evidence-based investigation (flight recorder, the co-pilot's personnel and medical records, search of his tablet PC, etc.) and covered on the front pages of mainstream press. The policy clearly does not refer to this, but to smaller cases where rumors or questionable information are spread. "Suicide by copilot is incorrect" No, it's correct. It's what happened, it's what the sources say. And other articles have similar reasons given. "Also for the thirtieth time, there is no evidence that there was "intent to kill"." oh yes there is, nobody disputes that, not even you. You claimed true malice was necessary in addition, which I clearly refuted. But not even intent to kill is necessary, as I already have shown! It is perfectly sufficient to have "Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life". We are not talking aobut German or French law, we are talking about the exact term "murder-suicide", the German translation of which would be "erweiterter Suizid", which does not require first degree murder. But even if you want to debate that, according to German law, it would clearly be first degree murder, "Mörder ist, wer ... mit gemeingefährlichen Mitteln ... einen Menschen tötet." http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/211.html" Crashing a plane into the mountains is very obviously such an uncontrollably-dangerous means (gemeingefährliches Mittel). When do you admit that you are simply wrong? --rtc (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

WHAT? So you fly an airplane to the ground to kill yourself and take a hundred people with you and that's not being malicious???? Are you guys for real? The pilot obviously commited murder-suicide 179.153.241.50 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right and it's good to have someone agree. It's so obvious. I don't know why those users are disputing that, wasting their time with involved attempts to argue for the absurd opposite. --rtc (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's see: Several sources (pretty much every single source out there) point to evidence suggesting that the co-pilot deliberately committed suicide. Not only he looked for suicide up in the Internet before the fatal crash, but he intentionally closed the cockpit door, turned off the autopilot and flew the plane into the mountains, killing himself and all other people with him. He could have committed suicide in a way not to harm anyone else, but he chose to take everybody with him to their death. He obviously wasn't THAT weak, if he planned the thing beforehand. I seriously cannot understand why the editors are sooo opposed to calling that murder-suicide a murder-suicide -179.153.241.50 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that his Internet searches included cockpit door security. --rtc (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to add to the content debate. Firstly, I don't feel competent to do so; and I don't care that much about the specific words. More important to me is the abuse of process here. I see one editor arguing endlessly against the opposition of multiple others, including several with some experience. We are way past drop the stick here, and close to an ANI complaint for disruption. Rtc, you made your case clearly enough, it was debated, you lost. You have the option of starting an RfC to get more opinions, but please cease this particular tack. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I Certainly did not "lose"; the others stopped discussing when their arguments were so clearly refuted by me that any reply by them would have meant either embarassment or conceding defeat. If any editor has ignored WP:STICK, it is you by this very contribution of yours. That is always the solution people have if I have defeated them by argument, get me blocked for "disruption", just because a majority of editors fails to respect to the rule of argument and to admit that they were wrong. That's ridiculous and only shows what an intellectually poor place Misplaced Pages has become. What apparently counts is not the abundance of reliable source saying highly suspected to be murder-suicide, what seems rather to count is the ability of some users to enforce their WP:OR phrase of "Deliberate flight into terrain" in the article at will, by cooperative edit-warring. And when it comes to experience, I don't see you have any authority to use it as an argument against me. --rtc (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is a bedrock principle around here. I couldn't count the times I have deferred to a consensus that I felt was clearly wrong, and I don't lose any sleep over it. But good luck with your approach. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rtc: It is pretty simple, you have not gained consensus here to make these proposed changes. - Ahunt (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not that simple, because you have not given a convincing answer (in fact no answer at all) to some crucial arguments. Your claims have been refuted. Therefore, we are in a situation where you objectively have lost the debate, but refuse to admit it, instead using the subjective views of the majority of editors (the "consensus") as an excuse for not accepting the necessary change to the article. That is not what WP:CONSENSUS is intended for, rather, it can be considered an abuse of that rule. WP:CONSENSUS can only work if people change their opinion once they have been shown to be wrong. "Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". It does not even remotely say that it is sufficient to declare one's opinion to be X or Y and look for whether X or Y enjoys majority support. --rtc (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We've all seen it before, but it's usually from people with less experience. The idea that it's on others to convince you, to show that you're wrong to your satisfaction. In other words, the debate is over when you say it's over. If you can't escape that fundamental misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages works, you might consider the possibility that you're just too smart to participate in a collaborative environment such as Misplaced Pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding on my part. Your analysis is simply logically incorrect. It is true that it is on others to convince me, to show that I am wrong to my satisfaction. It is a non sequitur, however, to conclude that under this assumption the debate is over when I say it's over. The other possibility is that you simply do not reply. You complained above that "We are way past drop the stick here", which is a performative self-contradiction, suggesting the incorrect idea on your part that it is on others to drop the stick, not on you. In other words, that the debate should be over not by you stopping it (by not replying), but by coercing others to stop, either by showing them to be wrong to your, but not their satisfaction (a faulty idea), or simply by blocking (an idea that may work for various reasons rooted in the imperfection of wikipedia's system, but clearly should not). If you wish the discussion to cease, simply do not reply. But if you reply, do not complain when I respond and point out the errors in your reasoning. --rtc (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated list of BEA documents

Here is an updated BEA document list:

French pages:

• Index: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.gwi18g/vol.gwi18g.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6XL7xu3nb
• Press release #1: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.gwi18g/info24mars2015.fr.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6XL7zyafV
• Press release #2: http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.gwi18g/info31mars2015.fr.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6XV65Lkkl
• Photos: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.gwi18g/mediatheque.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6XL7uvHXZ

English Pages:

• Index: http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.gwi18g/flight.gwi18g.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6XL7sQXo3
• Press release #1: http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.gwi18g/info24mars2015.en.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6XL8GP5Zj
• Press release #2: http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.gwi18g/info31mars2015.en.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6XV68pgeG
• Photos: http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.gwi18g/mediatheque.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6XL81r7qT

Spanish pages:

• http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.gwi18g/info24mars2015.es.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6XL83fmtK
• http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.gwi18g/info31mars2015.es.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6XV6WyH0z

German pages:

• http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.gwi18g/info24mars2015.de.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6XL85X1Vd
• http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.gwi18g/info31mars2015.de.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6XV6DOIVy

CVR Photos:

• http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.gwi18g/images/photo.cvr.1.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6XLAgfROQ
• http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.gwi18g/images/photo.cvr.2.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6XLAtMzLa
• http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.gwi18g/images/photo.cvr.3.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6XLAvyX18

Crash site photo: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.gwi18g/images/photo.site.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6XLB2CFtW WhisperToMe (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class aviation articles
• C-Class Aviation accident articles
• Aviation accident task force articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Low-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class France articles
• Low-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• C-Class Germany articles
• Mid-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• C-Class Spain articles
• Low-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages