Talk:2018 Algerian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 crash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JACDEC[edit]

@Abductive: - re this edit in which you state in the summary that JACDEC is a primary source and challenge its inclusion. What makes you say that JACDEC is a primary source. As far as I can tell, they have no connection with the Albanian Air Force. JACDEC is also a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: It is clearly not reliable. Look at the pictures in my earlier post and tell me where the airplane crashed. Also, a primary source is defined by its lack of editorial review. I have challenged the source. Now it is your duty to prove me wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 05:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, for future reference, I only got to bat on topics on which I cannot be beaten. You should desist from doubting my work. Abductive (reasoning) 05:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult for me to look at the pictures and a map of the area and put the two together when I don't know the area. I've never been to Algeria, and have no intention of going there. JACDEC does not meet the criteria at WP:PRIMARY. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Abductive, I had assumed you must have had a pleasant stay at the KTHotel and that you were going to recommend the panoramic views of the airport. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You all failed to notice the actual secondary source I put in the article before even responding above? The one that says, "JACOFFDEC is wrong"? Abductive (reasoning) 22:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for any other editor, but I read that source several times before I responded. I've read it again now. It doesn't tally with the JACDEC source. Neither does it wholly contradict it. Yes, it does say "at Boufarik military" and "just outside a military base in Boufarik". I guess it depends how far you think 3.9 km is. (I personally think the aircraft could have easily travelled that far with an engine on fire). But it certainly doesn't openly state that "JACDEC is wrong"? If you have really got such a big problem with "JACOFFDEK" you should certainly raise that at RS? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. if that www.usnews source is a "secondary source" on what primary source is it based? Thanks.[reply]
I'm not satisfied with Abductive's source for the crash location. It may be AP, but it also claims that "The flight was scheduled to go to Tindouf and then Bechar," which is obviously backwards if you look at a map or read other sources. --J. E. C. E. (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about this source? Abductive (reasoning) 23:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It just says "... the plane slammed into a field near the Boufarik", so less than the AP source? JACDEC seems to be out on a limb, with all other sources mentioning only Boufarik. It's unfortunate that there seem to be no eye-witness estimates of how much height the aircraft achieved before it started to descend, Hopefully all this kind of detail will appear in an interim official report. But that may not be any time soon. After 4 years+, the article for 2014 Algerian Air Force C-130 crash still says " The accident is undergoing investigation." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The caption of the photo says it landed "on Boufarik airport". You are all being willfully blind to the photos and secondary source evidence. This source is older than this debate, again showing that you are all more interested in doing battle on this talk page than your own research. Not one of you is capable of it, I guess. Abductive (reasoning) 07:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in "doing battle on this talk page", thanks. Just because it's older than this debate, doesn't mean it's necessarily right, or that anyone else has seen it before. There might also well be issues with translation from Arabic in may sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that you know I'm correct about where the aircraft crashed. Even if you refuse to look at the pictures. Abductive (reasoning) 08:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh?? Sorry, but I don't know you're correct at all. And I've refused nothing. I looked at all your pictures. But just like Mjroots, I'm not sufficiently familiar with that location, so I can't judge how much they "prove". It looked like your own bit of well-meaning WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Familiarize yourself with it. And my research into JACDEC has shown that it was nominated for deletion for being unreliable, and secondary sources have said it is unreliable. Given that you all can't even be bothered to do research, one wonders if any of your edits on Wikipedia have been worthwhile. I took one look at that blog you consider a reliable secondary source and could see it was garbage. The real question is, why can't you? Abductive (reasoning) 08:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange, because when I go to WP:RSN and type JACDEC in the search box, no results are returned. That a site may have been nominated as being unreliable does not necessarily mean that it is unreliable. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, that is strange. Because it does exist, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JACDEC, and basically proves my point about you being unable to do research even on Wikipedia. Wow. Abductive (reasoning) 09:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was 10 years ago, was under "Articles for deletion" and the result was "keep"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it was keep. The motivation of the nominator was that it was unreliable, which is not a reason to delete. But it was thought by at least some editors to be unreliable. Abductive (reasoning) 01:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Given that you all can't even be bothered to do research, one wonders if any of your edits on Wikipedia have been worthwhile." Wow, you're beginning to sound a bit like Fram now. The source you've just added says this: "180411) -- BLIDA, April 11, 2018 (Xinhua) -- Algerian soldiers clean the site of the accident in Blida province, 30 km southwest of Algiers, Algeria, April 11, 2018. The death toll of an Algerian military plane that crashed early on Wednesday in the military airport of Boufarik, 30 km south of Algiers, has risen to 257, local media reported." So you're now claiming it was at a place called "BLIDA"? And that it crashed, not in a nearby field but "in the military airport of Boufarik"? If so, you'll need to adjust the article content accordingly. Good luck with this article, User:Abductive, and with finding other editors with whom to collaborate. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the following earlier when you provided the source, but didn't post it because I gave you the benefit of the doubt and concluded that you were referring to the AFP text of the article:
I like that source, but I'm not sure what that source is supposed to prove as far as the crash site is concerned. The Xinhua caption says that the plane crashed in the airport itself, but this is contradicted by every other source I have read as well as by pictures you provided, all of which refer to a field. --J. E. C. E. (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another Xinhaunet source which is clearer; it says the perimeter of Boufarik airbase in the caption. Abductive (reasoning) 01:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saharawi victims[edit]

I'm bringing this post out of the archive since the issue has yet to be clarified--J. E. C. E. (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC):[reply]

To follow up on this, several reports from the Sahara Press Service claim that all 30 Saharawi civilians were patients returning from Algiers after time in Algerian hospitals. One report claims that family members accompanying Saharawi patients were among those 30. One report claims 33 Saharawis died, most of them patients, with 4 of these being children. One report claims that 33 Saharawi civilians died. I'm not sure what is causing all these discrepancies. I was reading the Spanish and English editions. --J. E. C. E. (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Air Algérie Flight 6289 in lede[edit]

@M.Bitton: Why did you remove the mention of Air Algérie Flight 6289 here? It has nothing to do with the following statement that @MilborneOne: removed in regards to the "green aircraft on tuesdays type scoreboard": "The crash was also the second-deadliest single-plane disaster involving an Il-76, behind the crash of a Ilyushin Il-76 in Iran in 2003.". Undescribed (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Undescribed: If it had nothing to do with the statement, MilborneOne wouldn't of have removed it in the first place. Besides, since it's described as the deadliest air crash on Algerian soil, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out that it surpasses all others. M.Bitton (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: There are numerous other articles that mention which accident was surpassed as the deadliest, including Aeroflot Flight 821. I don't see why it doesn't fit the inclusion criteria, and it is reliably sourced.Undescribed (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Undescribed: If you're after consistency across similar articles (including the ones involving military aircraft), then discussion at project level is your best option. M.Bitton (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: This is true, but don't you have to become a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation in order to have a say in anything? And don't you also need to have certain qualifications (such as a certain number of contributions towards the project) in order to be considered for membership? Undescribed (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Undescribed: No, you don't. M.Bitton (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Algerian_Air_Force_Ilyushin_Il-76_crash&oldid=1196750749"