Talk:Arrow Air Flight 1285R/Archive 1

Photograph Removed

The picture on the data table of the accident was incorrect. It was a MK Airlines DC-8-62CF. The one in the accident was a -63CF. Not to mention, MK Airlines has nothing to do with Arrow Air, so I removed the photograph from the table. --707 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Icing issue

I think we should approach this issue gradually, maintaining a balanced approach per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, as we do in all accident articles. The best way is to start from the final reports, majority and minority views, and then gradually get into the 'findings' and 'analysis', which have plenty of details. The important thing is to keep the article correctly balanced, and not sway it improperly. Crum375 21:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A similar issue is the possibility of a pre-impact explosion. The majority, based on the extensive findings and analysis, claim there is no evidence of such an event, while the minority disagrees. We don't want to re-open their detailed arguments, so we are better off just stating the bottom line conclusions, as we do now, and let the readers delve into the actual reports if they wish. Crum375 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

2008 Continuation

The majority report ought to be expanded on, there is a lot of information in it which a summary just doesn't explain (like how they believe ice got on the wings). The dissenting report bears further explanation as well, toward that end I've created subsections for each report. Anynobody 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see Crum375 is as interested in expanding the article as he/she is in illustrating the aircraft involved. There is far more to the majority report which merits discussion: weather, effects of ice, etc. Anynobody 04:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Crum said Rvt to real photo of real airplane, per talk; the weather findings are common, not just majority.

By all means feel free to mention under the dissenting report that they accepted the weather being the same, but the majority report explained how the weather was tied to their belief about icing. I feel bad saying this, considering what is said below, but simply giving the background, quoting the reports and not explaining them is the stuff of a poor school project or report. Not everyone knows how ice forms on airplane wings, that soldiers carry a lot of gear, and that in their baggage may have been explosive souvenirs. Please help expand the article. Anynobody 23:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image

Crum375 removed the image I added with the summary: Rvt WP:OR I'm not sure what about it is WP:OR since it comes straight from the report. According to the majority report, there was ice on the wings. Anynobody 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'd like to know, too. Why did he remove that image? That part of the report concerning ice is well known to everyone familiar with the accident. And003 (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is not real — it is a Wikipedian's imagination. Since the exact facts of what happened are in dispute, we can't take sides by creating a fictitious image that seems to favor one side. Even the side that believed icing was the cause, does not say what kind of icing it was, exactly where, or how much. So when there is this much uncertainty, our goal is not to fabricate evidence, but to faithfully present the known published facts, and balance them properly if they are in dispute. Crum375 (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

...we can't take sides by creating a fictitious image that seems to favor one side. Please take a closer look at the policy you're citing, WP:OR#Original images which says:Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries, and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role. (please note the following paragraph about original photographs doesn't apply to illustrations.)

...does not say what kind of icing it was, exactly where, or how much. It's an illustration, people generally understand that because it was drawn the image doesn't represent the exact amount of ice on the wings. However the report goes into great detail about the icing hazards.

...our goal is not to fabricate evidence,... Are you seriously suggesting that the illustration is meant to be used as "evidence" for/against either side? If so you must not have read the caption; CG render of N950JW attempting takeoff with iced wings, as described in the majority CASB report. I'd of created an image for the dissenting report, but it is pretty vague about what they thought caused the crash, thrust reversers - fire - hydraulic failure or Multiple Malfunctions (all of the above).

In short, I'm sorry you don't like it but the illustration merely depicts the aircraft based on its appearance and description in one of our sources. It also beats a generic photo of a NASA DC-8 equipped with high bypass High-bypass turbofan engines incorrectly labeled as turbojets. Anynobody 07:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody, per WP:NPOV we may not take sides in disputes, either verbally or visually, and per WP:NOR we may not invent our own interpretations of hotly disputed situations. Our goal is to faithfully and neutrally reproduce reliably published information. If we can add an illustration that does not violate the rules, that would be fine, but we may not take positions in disputes or advance our own theories. In this case, there is a dispute as to whether there was icing at all (the flight engineer reportedly checked the aircraft for icing before departure and found none), and if there was any, what type it was, where it was located, and how much there was. By including an image with "icing" based on a Wikipedian's imagination, we are not adding reliable information, which is our goal here — we are manufacturing evidence per our own fertile imagination. That is not our mission, and is not acceptable. Crum375 (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, he wasn't taking sides in any dispute, nor was he inventing his own interpretation of the incident. The image he created was based on the CASB majority report, which is a matter of public record. He even made that clear in the caption he added. If he had made an image based upon the CASB minority report, which is also a matter of public record, he would have made that clear also. How can he possibly take sides under such circumstances? And003 (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

By creating an image based on any side, we are taking a position in the dispute. Also, the CASB majority does not say where exactly the icing contamination was, what type it was, and how much of it there was. All they are saying is that they believe there likely was icing contamination, of some kind, in some way, which caused increased drag. Once we produce an image ourselves, based on our own imagination as Wikipedians, which is clearly taking sides in a dispute and goes even beyond what one side says, we are not reporting on existing, reliably published information, but producing our own evidence, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Crum375 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody, per WP:NPOV we may not take sides in disputes, either verbally or visually, and By creating an image based on any side, we are taking a position in the dispute. I don't mean to sound confrontational but do you read the links you quote? WP:NPOV says all major sides must be ...representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Like I said above I'd of created an image for the other side but their report doesn't provide enough information.

I created an image of just the plane over water as the image Crum375 insists on putting back looked almost nothing like the DC-8 involved and was deceptively labeled. (Like I said above the NASA plane has turbofan engines, meaning at the very least the word turbojet should've been removed from the caption and explained why it has antennas and equipment not on a civilian DC-8.) Anynobody 02:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a better example of a DC-8 aircraft, which would show the average reader its general body shape and engine configuration, please do so. As far as the rendered image, it does promote one view in the dispute and thereby violates NPOV. We as Wikipedians must remain as neutral as possible, and by illustrating only one view in a dispute, we appear to support it over the other. In addition, there is no indication by published sources where the ice was located, what type of ice it was, and how much of it there was. By us taking liberties with all these points and inventing them out of our fertile imagination, we are violating WP:NOR. Crum375 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Anynobody, is there a way you can modify the original image so there won't be ice on the wings? Just show it taking off in the weather conditions that took place that day? I, for one, like the image the way it is, but I hope to get this situation resolved so this article can have an image of the actual plane instead of the NASA DC-8 image currently posted. And003 (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And003 it had occured to me, but doing so would essentially be saying the dissenting report was correct. Crum375, unless a good "real" picture of N950JW in Arrow Air livery can be found it makes no sense to show a generic DC-8. You also appear to not understand the point of illustrating a specific aircraft, it minimizes the use of my fertile imagination because the aircraft looked like it did in this: non-free photo of it or this one. Plus, if I was using imagination, the plane wouldn't be a DC-8. Anynobody 02:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, Anynobody came up with a new image for the Arrow Air DC-8. You can find it here. Is this image satisfactory enough? And003 (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And003, I see no advantage to our readers to use a Wikipedian's drawing as an example of a DC-8. Our goal is to inform, based on the best available sources. In this case, we want readers to know what a DC-8 looks like, since we don't have a free image of the accident aircraft, so we choose another similar aircraft of the same type, which is virtually identical except for its paint scheme. Real photos of real aircraft always trump self drawn images, as they are more reliable sources. Crum375 (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I see no advantage to our readers to use a Wikipedian's drawing as an example of a DC-8. Crum375 It's pretty simple when one stops to think about it. The advantage is that our readers will see what the Arrow Air DC-8 involved looked like. It's not original research and there is no way it could be considered a violation of WP:NPOV. Our goal is to inform, based on the best available sources. How does illustrating the appearance of the aircraft involved not inform? Anynobody 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Our readers can click on this link and see the real aircraft before the crash. They can also see a sample free photo of a similar DC-8 aircraft. Adding a drawing made by a Wikipedian adds no additional information, and IMO it reduces the overall quality of the article by making it seem like a school project. Our goal is not to create our own information, but to provide real published sources wherever possible. There is room for self-made illustration in some complex situations, where the illustration is necessary to explain the text. This is not such a case, and all we want here is to show the non-experts what a real DC-8 looks like. Then, by clicking they can also see the accident airplane itself. Crum375 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Our readers can click on this link and see the real aircraft before the crash. I mean no offense but if this logic were a guiding principle in any way it would conflict with a couple of our policies which I'll quote directly:"Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images." "Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles."

Our goal is not to create our own information, but to provide real published sources wherever possible. You've said this more than once, and I promise I understand that you believe what you're saying is correct however there seems to be no support for it in our policies and guidelines. Lastly you appear to be mistaken on what this article is about by making statements like this:This is not such a case, and all we want here is to show the non-experts what a real DC-8 looks like. I'm sorry to be blunt but you're dead wrong, the only article which "needs" to show our readers what a DC-8 looks like is the Douglas DC-8 article. This article is about a DC-8, flown by Arrow Air, so we're not illustrating not only the type of aircraft but the airline as well. Anynobody 02:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Anynobody has a point, Crum375. Those who wish to know what a DC-8 looks like can go to the Douglas DC-8 article itself. We are dealing with a specific DC-8 ... the one that was lost in the accident. The purpose of Anynobody's image project is to provide the article with an image of the actual aircraft involved in the incident. Yes, I know such an image can be found on Airliners.Net -- I found it some years ago -- but it's copyrighted and can't be used without permission ... permission which I am uncertain the photographer would grant. Besides, I have to remind you that Anynobody has created images for other aircraft crash articles on Wikipedia, and they didn't make those articles seem like school projects, nor has anyone made complaints to that effect. And003 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And003, I am aware that this is not the DC-8 article, and that was not my point. This is an article about an accident involving a DC-8, where there is suspicion of airframe icing, engine failure, or explosion. A typical reader would like to know what a DC-8 looks like, configuration-wise. The exact livery colors are insignificant in this case, since the aircraft in the photo is otherwise identical and indistinguishable. So showing a real photo of a real DC-8 is far better than a Wikipedian's drawing of one. The drawing does look amateurish, but would have probably been acceptable if it helped explain some complex issue, described in the text and properly sourced, assuming no such free illustration had been published. But this is not the case here — we just need to explain what a DC-8 looks like — we have a free photo available, we have no reason to send the reader to a different article to find it, and also no reason to add Wikipedians' self made drawings. Crum375 (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 I'm baffled at the conclusion A typical reader would like to know what a DC-8 looks like, configuration-wise. The exact livery colors are insignificant in this case, since the aircraft in the photo is otherwise identical and indistinguishable.*

• It's been my experience that they actually appreciate (or even prefer) to know what the plane involved looked like: Singapore Airlines Flight 006, Korean Airlines Flight 007, etc. I don't just mean on the English Wikipedia either, check out how many wikis the illustration for Japan Airlines Flight 123 appears on. Last time I checked it was 8 or 9.
• The drawing does look amateurish,... I was pretty sure this boiled down to a personal dislike of the image itself, the best part about this argument is that it's entirely irrelevant so I don't have to spend time addressing your personal issues regarding the image.

(* the only ...identical and indistinguishable... aspects are the basic type of aircraft, how the heck can you compare one plane with a giant "A" on the tail and another with nothing as identical and indistinguishable?) Anynobody 03:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Any, I fail to see how the paint scheme, or an 'A' painted on the tail, has any relevance to this accident article. The logical questions in everyone's mind is how and why this accident happened, not the specific paint scheme of the aircraft. And for those few for whom paint scheme is a question, they can click through and see the real one. As I noted above, although I think the drawing appears amateurish, it could have still been used to illustrate some complex issue (otherwise properly sourced), if needed, but there is no such issue here. Crum375 (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You fail to see how the paint scheme, or an 'A' painted on the tail, has any relevance to this accident article, do you? Okay, then ... I will explain it as succinctly as I can. The paint scheme and the 'A' on the tail was the standard issue livery for aircraft owned and operated by Arrow Air in 1985. In fact, that was how the DC-8 carrying Flight 1285 actually looked at the time of the accident. Anynobody used that livery in the interest of historical accuracy. The picture of the DC-8 that carried Flight 1285 -- with the paint scheme and the 'A' on the tail -- can be found here. This livery was also found on DC-10s used by Arrow Air, but with slight differences to accommodate the different design. Such a DC-10 can be found here. And003 (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive my ignorance. If a civilian plane has an accident, and has a marking X or marking Y painted on it, how is that relevant in any way to the accident? Crum375 (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The 'A' painted on the tail is the logo that Arrow Airways used on the tails of all their aircraft and is part of the livery that they used on their aircraft at the time. This includes the DC-8 that was lost. Anynobody created the picture of the DC-8 as it looked on the day of the accident. As I said before, this was done in the interest of historical accuracy, as he has done for the pictures he created for other Wikipedia articles concerning crashed aircraft, like Japan Airlines Flight 123, Turkish Airlines Flight 981, and Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308. —Preceding unsigned comment added by And003 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Our goal here is to inform, based on reliable sources. In the case of an accident, we primarily want to answer, based on the best sources, the standard questions: what, where, when, how and why it happened. If there are complex issues involved, properly sourced in the text, then a diagram, sketch, drawing, or map drawn by a Wikipedian could be useful, if there are no freely licensed published equivalents. In this particular case, we already have a reliably published freely licensed real photo of a real DC-8 which is identical to the accident aircraft, save for the paint scheme. This will show the readers the shape of the aircraft, its engine configuration, etc., as they appear in a real aircraft. Those who would like to see the actual accident aircraft, can click once and see it. To add self-made material, produced from a Wikipedian's imagination, which does not help explain anything, for the sole purpose of showing colors or letters, would reduce the quality of the article, IMO. Crum375 (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may ask, Anynobody has created images for other air crash articles on Wikipedia, including the ones I mentioned yesterday. Those images were perfectly acceptable in the eyes of Wikipedia, not to mention you haven't expressed any complaints about them. Yes, I know Wikipedia's goal is to inform, based on reliable sources, but Wikipedia's rules allow for self-created images like the ones Anynobody created. I also point out that Anynobody's second version of the image does not reflect the views of either side of the investigation. And003 (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That there are other places in Wikipedia where things are done improperly is no reason to extend the problems elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means we provide summaries of existing reliable published sources. We don't whip up our own material except in some limited cases. If the article is about an object or a person, and a Wikipedian has photographed it, that would be acceptable if there is no free published equivalent. If we produce a map, based on existing sources, to help understand the geography, that would be generally acceptable, depending on its quality and assuming there is no free published equivalent. Same goes for diagrams to help explain complex issues, based on reliable published sources. In this case, we have a real photo of a real DC-8, which is identical (save for the paint scheme) to the accident aircraft. We also have a link, requiring one click, to a real photo of the real accident aircraft before the crash. There is no need to add our own imaginary drawings since we are not explaining any complex issue. Our goal is to be based on real published sources as much as possible and look professional — not to appear like a grade-school project livened up with our fertile imagination. Crum375 (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 this is really simple, show me where it says creating illustrations of accident aircraft is improper and I'll back off. Here's my understanding, once again:

• Image use policy on user-created images: Doesn't say anything about illustrations like this being improper, it says Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images.
• Our policy on original images: This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. This is also why your belief that my imagination is going into this makes no sense, I spent the whole time trying to duplicate an actual aircraft rather than creating one from my imagination.

Otherwise it's pretty obvious you are going to use the same arguments, in the same words even; ...produced from a Wikipedian's imagination...a real DC-8 which is identical to the accident aircraft... (BTW I apologize I didn't answer your questions about the "A" on its tail, but And003 answered it quite well. Have you even looked at pictures of the plane from the sites I previously linked? Arrow Air DC-8s at that time had a huge A on their tail, the fact you aren't familiar with this fact further illustrates why showing the actual aircraft involved accomplishes: Our goal here is to inform, based on reliable sources.) Anynobody 22:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The WP:NOR policy states that using images or drawings to advance a position is not allowed. In this case, where the accident is very controversial, and every minor detail counts, drawing an imaginary aircraft by necessity creates or supports a specific version of events, for example whether any ice was visible on the aircraft, and if so where and how much. Our goal is to remain neutral, and to rely on published sources as much as possible. In this case, we do have a freely licensed real photo of a generic DC-8, and a linked photo of the accident aircraft. Adding our own imagination into the mix would violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you even look at the images involved? The latest one includes details from witness statements in addition to what I've mentioned before. In short because the details of the plane all come from our sources the image does not advance a position in my opinion. Since you disagree, please tell me which position is advocated in the current image? Anynobody 00:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In case your cache doesn't update much, this is the current image Anynobody 00:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The details match both reports

As one example why this violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, there is a dispute about the amount and location of the icing contamination. The majority believes there was icing on the leading edges and top surfaces (significant enough to bring down the plane), while the flight engineer claimed he saw no such icing, and the minority agreed with him. By us creating an imaginary drawing, we are taking a position about the icing visibility or lack thereof. Crum375 (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As a technical correction to the above: the flight engineer (who perished in the crash along with the rest) was observed to inspect the aircraft and did not request deicing services, which presumably means he saw no icing, but we don't know that for sure. Crum375 (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As one example why this violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, there is a dispute about the amount and location of the icing contamination. Did you notice it's not visible from this perspective? Anynobody 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PS Your argument assumes this is still the version being used, it's not. Anynobody 02:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to the image you included just above. I can easily see the leading edges, and many other details that take sides in the dispute, such as the nature and location of the "orange glow", the exact angle of attack. All these points are violations of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Crum375 (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That again leaves me wondering what the problem is then, the light and shadow don't allow a viewer to see any ice thus neutralizing that issue. The "orange glow" was, according to the report(Here's some witness statements), on the right side near the fuselage. Your points seem to convey an overestimation of the importance of illustrations. Nobody, with any brains, is going use an illustration as evidence documenting the exact appearance of the plane. (They'd be stupid too even if it was a photograph because information like weight/balance can't be gleaned from a photo.) What can be illustrated is the general appearance of the aircraft. Anynobody 04:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage to the dark photo in the lead section; I would prefer to see no photo than that. I also object to a doctored photo in the lead. If someone were to use a drawing with very well documented additions to demonstrate a point, that could be acceptable, but I would be very suspect of synthesis of NOR. I think that the existing photo should be removed as an embarrassment to WP quality. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

Crum375 I assumed you were familiar with our rules on multiple reversions, but in case you aren't please check it out at the link in this heading. However you feel about the image, you're reverting sourced information. Anynobody 00:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Any, I am assuming you are familiar with the rules also. Your imaginary self-made image is not "sourced", and along with some of your other changes introduces your own interpretation and bias. Our goal is to stay neutral and rely on published sources. As I noted in my edit summary, back and forth reversion will accomplish nothing — if you'd like to make changes, discuss them here and try to gain consensus. Crum375 (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page:Please note that you are close to violating 3RR. Back and forth reversion will accomplish nothing, while a talk page discussion can. Crum375 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand what a reversion is? It's removing changes and reverting to a previous version, which is what you're doing. Anynobody 00:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The accident aircraft was estimated to have been overloaded by around 12,000lb for the take-off speed used, due to the passengers being military personnel with an average individual weight considerably above that used for the airline's normal passenger weight calculation. In conjunction with any icing that would have been sufficient to cause the crash due to the crew rotating the aircraft at a lower speed than would have been required if the weight had been calculated correctly. In effect, the aircraft spent almost the entire time in the air at an airspeed very close to the stall. This was made worse by the crew attempting to climb (an understandable thing to do when the approaching trees at the end of the runway are seen to be getting uncomfortable near) but unfortunately this just kept the airspeed down when they desperately needed it to go up. This also occurred in the similar Air Ontario Flight 1363. It doesn't matter how much a pilot wants an aircraft to climb, if the aeroplane doesn't have the airspeed, it won't. The only thing to do is to lower the nose and hope that there is enough room to increase the airspeed to a point where climbing is possible. This is the reason for having a runway overshoot area free of obstructions. With the exception of a few high-powered military aircraft, few aeroplanes can climb and accelerate rapidly at the same time. When you are near the stall it's the latter that is needed most.

BTW, people planting bombs on board aircraft usually time the device to ideally go-off when the aircraft is over water, that way the subsequent investigation into the crash (and the likelihood of the perpetrators being later detected) is made much more difficult. The accident aircraft flew all the way from Egypt, via Frankfurt, and then over the Atlantic, only for any alleged bomb to explode as it was taking off from Gander. That alone makes any bomb conspiracy unlikely. It's a question of timing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected

As far as I can tell Crum375 is operating under the assumption that the image implies a proPOV spin toward the majority report. I honestly don't see how, does anyone else feel this way and if so why? Anynobody 03:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyeverybody, you need to re-read my comments above. I am not saying you personally are in specific support of either side — it is the images you create that, perhaps unintentionally, produce new "evidence", such as relating to the orange glow, the angle of attack and the visibility (or lack thereof) of the icing, This is a disputed case, so any artificial evidence like this tilts the scales, while our goal is to be neutral (i.e. NPOV) and passive, relying on reliably published data (i.e. NOR). Crum375 (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Crum I assure you I've read your arguments thoroughly and the only way one could possibly be concerned about influencing anything is if someone cited this obvious illustration as "evidence". Disasters and crashes are illustrated all the time in various media, people know that they are illustrations and not the actual event depicted. Seriously stop and think about it, when you see an illustration in a book do you seriously expect the same kind of credibility as a photo of the actual event? I would hope the answer to be no, as illustrations aren't meant to be used as evidence merely to illustrate it. Anynobody 04:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-made illustrations that take sides in disputes, as yours clearly do, are unacceptable on this site, as they violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Crum375 (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

...that take sides in disputes, as yours clearly do,... help me out, whose side is it taking? Anynobody 04:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

One example (of several possible): if you show the leading edges clear of ice (as you do), then that means the flight engineer was correct in not seeing any, and the minority correct in saying there was none (significant). If you do show the icing, that means the engineer goofed, and the minority was right. Same for the other issues like angle of attack or orange glow. We can't do that. Crum375 (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again it's impossible to tell if/how much contamination there is in the image (except that any potential contamination is not major). The report, correctly, states that contamination the size of sand paper grains can reduce lift significantly.) Again, by mentioning angle of attack, do you really think people are going to take that as "fact". That someone will say, "Gosh this picture changes everything! Re-open the case! Tomorrow we'll start an investigation to make sure the T-rex drawn in my kid's science book really was green!" Anynobody 05:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(PS You do realize that AoA wasn't a "side" anyone was arguing right?) Anynobody 05:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This was a hotly disputed case, and to this day many issues are unresolved. The icing, angle of attack, orange glow, etc. are all issues that are under debate and for us as Wikipedians to draw an image out of our own fertile imagination depicting them (or not, as the case may be) is inventing evidence and taking sides in the dispute. We are not allowed to do that, per NPOV and NOR. This is a reputable encyclopedia (at least trying to be), not a children's book. Crum375 (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, an illustration isn't evidence, you're assigning too much importance to an illustration... please check out our article on the subject. Though I've now made that argument irrelevant having redone the image to a generic picture of the plane in the sky. Anynobody 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To illustrate my point and make sure I understand yours, by your logic if we included this image Image:Mortar shells found at Arrow Air Flight 1285 crash site.jpg it would somehow convey our theory that mortar rounds brought down Flight 1285 or would that not be the case because they appear in a photograph and are "real"? Anynobody 05:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My point is that any image has the potential to mislead, real or imaginary. Given the context of Wikipedia and the article's NPOV approach in documenting both majority/dissenting reports the chances of someone assuming we're favoring one side is no better/worse than any other image. It's not like we're trying to pawn off the image as a photo showing "what really happened" so scrutinizing details not in dispute like AoA is pointless. Just like assuming the "orange glow" previously depicted was supposed to be the exact phenomenon everyone saw, it's an amalgamation of eyewitness reports which are always prone to error and not assumed (at least I thought) to be authoritative when they differ so. Some thought it was fire, others thought it was reflected light from the runway. (If I had remembered to add a reflection property to the runway it would've been orange-ish too. D'oh!) Anynobody 06:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The faked image, created by a Wikipedian, makes a definitive statement on hotly contested issues. That violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Crum, please consider that using words like "faked" and "imaginary" may be inflammatory, which I trust is not your intention. These aren't words that we would normally use to describe an artist's impression of an event, so I don't think that they're appropriate here. Please stay civil. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the words "faked" and "imaginary" are inflammatory. The issue here is about trying to create, using a computerized tool, a fake version of reality, based on the imagination of the creator. This is in contrast to real photos of reality, or other real evidence, which are objective. I think these fakes may have their place in some undisputed situations, but not when the specific details of the accident are in heated dispute. Every tiny detail is critical in a crash investigation, and creating fakes out of our imagination amounts to manufacturing evidence, which violates both NPOV and NOR. This has nothing to do with civility — my points are generic, and are addressed at the principles involved. I am sure that User:Anyeverybody is well-meaning and that his goal is to help the project, like all of us here. Crum375 (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So - just to clarify - would you use the words "faked" or "imaginary" to describe this Tyrannosaurus rex, this parrot, this Neanderthal, this painting of Napoleon in triumph in Berlin, or this mosaic of Alexander the Great? --Rlandmann (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I may use the word "imaginary", perhaps. But I reserve "faked" for a fictitious realistic-appearing "historical" image when there is a serious dispute as to what exactly happened. None of your examples fits that description. Note that the specific "faked" image in this accident has changed drastically both before and after your page protection, since the wiki software allows an image on a protected page to change freely even while the page is locked, as long as the same image name is used. Crum375 (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So then, is the Tyrannosaurus picture "faked" because it conveys specific information about the posture, stance, and gait of this animal, all of which are or have been the subject of speculation and debate? Is the parrot picture "faked" because it contains a significant error in the proportions of the animal (as noted in the article it illustrates)? Is the picture of Napoleon "faked" because it specifically shows us the reaction of the crowd to their conqueror, painted by a French artist presumably for a French audience? And is the picture of Alexander "faked" because it was created centuries after the event that it depicts, and by an artist in a strongly Philhellenic culture? Finally, wouldn't you agree that the term "fake" conveys a notion of an intention to deceive or trick? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlandmann, you are missing several important points. First, your sample images are not computerized renderings and don't appear to be real or semi-real, so they can't confuse someone into thinking they may be photos or directly derived from photos. In our case, some of the original images, before your "protection" that actually allowed the editor to keep changing the images (this after violating 3RR with impunity), could be perceived by some as realistic, and thus convey an aura of unwarranted authority or authenticity. Another important point is that if we had wanted to include the Tyro Rex image (for example), assuming for a second that there was some controversy about it, we would have included in the caption the fact that this is an artist's impression of the Tyro, drawn by reliable source X. In our case, we would have had to say "this is an Anonymous Wikipedian's impression of the accident aircraft", as the "reliable" source. Yet another difference is that all those sample images you provide are not part of an article where there is a heated dispute between the parties (investigators, lawyers, families, etc.) about what the specific facts really were, where each tiny visible detail can be critical, and can support or refute one of the theories. I do agree that "fake" has a connotation of "misleading". By WP:AGF I don't think that the user aggressively promoting these images actually intends to mislead, but the result is the same, and the effective misleading is on at least two levels: one, the average reader is not aware that the image comes from a random anonymous Wikipedian's imagination and therefore gives it more respect than warranted, and two, some readers may easily be misled into thinking that the image is real, or at least closely based on a real image. The end result is that this is fakery, whether intentional or not. Crum375 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Are you therefore contending that the images created by Any "appear to be real or semi-real" (I'm not really sure what you mean by "semi-real") and could actually be mistaken for a photograph of the aircraft or incident in question? That seems to me to be an extraordinary sort of claim to make.

On the other hand, are you arguing that since the picture of Napoleon being received in Berlin is clearly a painting, this could not possibly "mislead" people into thinking that this is an accurate depiction of what actually happened that day in Berlin? Are you also claiming that there is no controversy about the stance, gait, and posture of T.rex?

I'm trying to work out what the actual problem for you here is; more specifically, what distinctions you are drawing between an image that you clearly don't like and images that neither you nor anybody else seems to have issues with. I personally think that the article would be better served by either a generic DC-8 photo or a traditional-style aviation profile illustration of a DC-8 in the markings of the ill-fated aircraft; but that's an aesthetic consideration, not one that I claim to be mandated by policy. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlandmann, perhaps part of the confusion here stems from the fact that Any is constantly changing his images, both before as well as after the page protection. As example of a semi-realistic image, see here. This was the image that was in the original protected version, while this is the current one. The original image, especially because it is very dark, is easy to mistake for a possible enhancement of a real photo. The newer version is less likely to be mistaken for that, although it's still quite possible for it to be derived from a real photo. The point is that many people are not aware of the meaning of "rendering". They may view it the same as "enhancement", which derives from a real photo. Many people are not aware that these type images are total fakes, and could easily show a DC-8's fuselage with DC-9 wings, or even an eagle's wings. The other issue is authority. When we include an image based on a reliable source, we assume that, if it's an artistic rendering, the artist has some professional qualification, and that his editor and publisher stand behind the work, having evaluated it. Here, we have an interpreted and synthesized image created by an anonymous Wikipedian, with no known credentials, and no editorial oversight. The only oversight we are allowed to exert is to prevent unsourced material from being published, and these images are unsourced. Now, we do make exclusions for non-controversial cases, but this case is a hotly disputed accident where every tiny detail can have significant impact on what happened and why, so we specifically need to steer clear of taking sides or manufacturing evidence. Crum375 (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 what is your problem? Rlandmann asked me to put back the image because you seem to feel the change was a way of skirting 3RR rules. However you spent significant time and effort to bemoan irrelevant aspects of this image, so I figured changing it to something along the lines of the suggestion below would placate you a bit. Obviously it didn't, so again I ask what is your problem? The idea of using an image of another DC-8 is unprofessional because we aren't talking about the DC-8 in this article, we're talking about Arrow Air Flight 1285 and by merely substituting a generic DC-8 it does nothing to help the reader picture the actual plane involved. You see if the substitution plan was actually a good one, using a diagram like this 3 view NASA gif. Why? Because people might get the idea the substitute has more in common with Flight 1285 than just basic type. Anynobody 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(PS The basic image of the plane in the sky couldn't possibly have had any impact on this hotly disputed accident where every tiny detail can have significant impact on what happened and why, so we specifically need to steer clear of taking sides or manufacturing evidence. It just illustrated the plane, I assumed someone would change the caption to something neutral like "Illustration of aircraft involved" and that would be the end of this.) Anynobody 04:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Any, my concern about your changing of the lead image was not that the later one was "worse" than the protected version, but that you kept changing things that were under discussion, despite the page protection, making it very confusing for people trying to understand what we were talking about. My primary goal is not to find the best rendered image for this article, but to help clarify that our NOR and NPOV rules prohibit us from creating rendered images that appear to take sides in heated disputes. Now, I agree with you that your later image is very generic, and if properly captioned, e.g. "An anonymous Wikipedian's artistic impression of a DC-8 with Arrow Air's color scheme", would probably not violate NOR and NPOV, but then we would run into other issues, like the appearance of the article, and whether using a freely licensed real photograph of a real DC-8 would be better than an imaginary drawing made by an anonymous Wikipedian, especially since we also have a good photo of the actual accident aircraft one click away. In summary, we need to focus on the most crucial policies here first: NPOV and NOR, and once those are complied with, we can discuss the other issues. Crum375 (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

...despite the page protection, making it very confusing for people trying to understand what we were talking about. But Crum375, you are the person objecting to aspects of the current image as being "new evidence". (I know a RfC was set up but face it, if we waited for every RfC to run its course it would greatly slow the editing process while we wait and hope for people to answer the RfC. In other words it behooves those in a dispute to resolve it ASAP, if they're interested in building this project.

...but to help clarify that our NOR and NPOV rules prohibit us from creating rendered images that appear to take sides in heated disputes. Fair enough, but what's your excuse for the reversions of the second version which also "took no sides"

As far as concerns over the 1) appearance of the article and 2) finding a free photo of the plane; 1) The generic image is nothing more than an amalgamation of the line art we use on other aviation articles with details taken from research and photos of the actual plane. Though I agree with the need to explain it's not a photo, simple captions like "CG render of N950JW" are a lot more professional sounding than "An anonymous Wikipedian's artistic impression of a DC-8 with Arrow Air's color scheme". 2) The reason I made the image is because no free photo could be found, I never said I was against a photo of N950JW. If a good free photo turns up I'm all for using it.

Long story short, I think the new generic image should be re-uploaded, given a simple caption thus eliminating any possible NPOV/OR concerns. Anynobody 04:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my points, Any. The first is that a caption should reflect what's actually in the image, so if it's drawn from an anonymous Wikipedian's imagination, who has no known professional qualifications, based on his own personal interpretation, it should say so in the caption. "CG render" means nothing to most people. Some people have commented to me privately that they thought it meant some kind of a professional source was responsible for the image. Second, even the image you just linked to has problems. It shows an unusual attitude in both pitch and roll, and it's unclear what phase of flight it's in. Since we have a good freely-licensed photo of a real DC-8, plus a link to the real accident aircraft for those interested in the actual color scheme, I see no need to add images from an anonymous person's imagination. And if the image in any way provides a version of the pre-accident events, it would violate NOR and NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I promise you I understand your points, it's just that they don't seem to apply anywhere on Wikipedia. Perhaps you forgot, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and nowhere else does ANY article get so specific. Check out Nuclear fission#Chain reactions and the image Image:Fission chain reaction.svg the section uses. The user who created it doesn't advertise any credentials or qualifications. (Even if he/she did I guess you didn't hear about the whole Essjay thing) .

These are the kind of problems with the neutral plane over water image, It shows an unusual attitude in both pitch and roll, and it's unclear what phase of flight it's in. you have? Crum375 it couldn't be more obvious that you just don't like the image because you're reaching for any "flaw". To be blunt, pitch/roll/phase of flight of an image meant to illustrate the general appearance of a specific aircraft is totally irrelevant. It'd be like complaining about the order of buildings/ships in Image:Building and ship comparison2.svg

Once again, I understand everything you've been saying, it's just that our policies and basic concept of mass participation don't support your new objections. Whether or not the image I reverted to at Rlandmann's request violates WP:NPOV or WP:OR is debatable, the neutral image certainly does not violate either policy.

This is how the image policy works here, we're encouraged to add them to our articles giving priority to free images. We have an article about a plane crash, ideally we need a free photo of the plane. No free photos of the aircraft involved (N950JW) have been located. Since we're talking about N950JW, images of it should logically take priority over any other image. (If no image at all existed then, lame as it may be, a picture of any old DC-8 would suffice.) Anynobody 06:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I have to ask, why do you keep insisting the plane comes from my imagination when you could've looked at links I've provided to research material on N950JW and similar Airrow Air DC-8-63CFs from the same time found at airliners.net? It's funny personally because I dislike the DC-8's appearance and found the Arrow Air livery boring and dull. Anynobody 07:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Any, I am sorry but you are still missing my points. You bring an example of an illustration of nuclear fission, which is entirely non-controversial, and is based on existing reliable drawings elsewhere, none of them a "real" photo of those events. Here, on the other hand, we have a hotly disputed accident, where there is major disagreement among the parties about what happened, with no accident photos, and with no-one really knowing for sure what happened, how or why. Once we create a drawing out of our imagination, we are taking a definitive stand on issues that are hotly disputed, and by that we provide our own opinion as Wikipedians about the matter. This violates NPOV and NOR, since we are synthesizing new information and taking sides in a dispute. I am not sure about your final "funny" point. Have I ever said that you like the DC-8's appearance? What does that have to do with this issue? In fact, nothing here is personal or related to you specifically, it is simply an issue of applying our rules. Getting back to your original point, you say that "anyone can edit this site", which is very true, but we can't just insert imaginary material — Wikipedia consists of neutrally presented material, based on published reliable sources. In other words, we don't take sides in disputes, and we don't invent stuff. Crum375 (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, while the cause of the accident may be disputed, the investigation ended 20 years ago, and to the best of my knowledge there is no current litigation involving this case. And003 (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The investigation has ended as you say, but it did not resolve the dispute. So the dispute is ongoing, with family members, investigators, politicians, and others, all having widely different views about what really happened and why. For Wikipedia editors to take sides, either in words or images, would violate NPOV and NOR. Crum375 (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Any, I am sorry but you are still missing my points. You bring an example of an illustration of nuclear fission, which is entirely non-controversial, and is based on existing reliable drawings elsewhere, Crum375 the appearance of the aircraft is not the controversy on this subject though, I'd assumed you either understood or would come to that conclusion by review of what is in dispute. Clearly you haven't done the latter because you're still saying Once we create a drawing out of our imagination, we are taking a definitive stand on issues that are hotly disputed, and by that we provide our own opinion as Wikipedians about the matter.

I was really hoping I could avoid doing this but you've left me no other option;

Rebutting your relevant arguments
Argument	Rebuttal	To prove me wrong
Including an illustration of the aircraft would be to take sides in disputes	There is no controversy about what the plane looked like in our sources, thus no side to take. The simple image I want to re-upload doesn't "take a side" on whether icing/an explosion was the cause of Flight 1285's demise, it just shows what the plane looked like.	Show me where there is a dispute about the planes appearance in the report/elsewhere in our sources.
Including an illustration of the aircraft would be to invent stuff.	WP:OR addresses images like this specifically under its original images section and I'm highlighting the really important parts:Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. In other words, it isn't original if its been published elsewhere. (More on where it's been published is below)	You really can't here, if I was fighting for the pre-crash orange glow image maybe we'd have something to discuss. If you find another non-free photo showing the plane somehow looked different at the time of the accident, I'll happily correct the image.
Including an illustration of the aircraft would be to include a drawing out of our imagination,	The image was created from info including; plans/scale drawings of the DC-8-63CF like this, manufacturer documentation, and the photos I've been begging you to look at. There couldn't possibly be any less imagination in the simple drawing regarding the object being illustrated, N950JW. (That's why it's funny to imagine someone else thinking I imagined things like the compressor ducts in the nose, big A on the tail, etc.)	Seriously, you really can't argue the plane's appearance is a product of my imagination (if I had been using my imagination I'd of drawn a plane I liked lol)

I get the impression people both stop reading other's complete posts and assume others aren't reading theirs after an extended debate. The table serves to cut through that and simplify disputes. Anynobody 06:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Any, here are my responses to your above points:

1. Your "image" is a moving target. It has changed several times, which makes addressing its problems confusing. I have mostly addressed the images that seem to show the accident aircraft prior to its crash, which seem to depict various parameters that are in heated dispute. If you'd like to just include an image of the aircraft independent of the accident, we have to justify that option vs. a real photo of a real aircraft of the same type, when coupled with a link to an image of the accident aircraft itself. Editor-created content is for cases where there is no reliably published free equivalent, this is not such a case.
2. Re "inventing stuff": yes, there is an exclusion in NOR for home-brewed content when it is non-controversial and otherwise reasonable. There is a specific prohibition against an editor producing an image to support his own interpretation of the facts, such as a drawing of an atom with disputed particles or geometry. When you produce an image in a disputed case, you are effectively supporting or downplaying some theory, thereby becoming a party in the dispute. This is equivalent to your creating your own interpretation of an atom, and is unacceptable and violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.
3. Re "imagination": for me, any image that does not directly depict a single original object, like a synthesis of several source images, is "imaginary". It doesn't necessarily mean you are re-inventing the wheel or replacing the Wright brothers — just that your image is not a direct one-to-one representation of a single, real, reliably published object or image, and includes artistic, interpretive human input.
   

Crum375 (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Point 1 part 1:Your "image" is a moving target. It has changed several times, which makes addressing its problems confusing. A) This is awkward, as an admin I kinda assumed you knew how to look at various versions of previous images. Here's the proposed image B) Indeed my images are subject to revision based on either new information or increased technical capability.

Point 1 part 2:I have mostly addressed the images that seem to show the accident aircraft prior to its crash, which seem to depict various parameters that are in heated dispute. A) Despite your "concerns" expressed above about not knowing what phase of flight the image depicted, I'll WP:AGF and assume you forgot what you said before. However this means you haven't been paying attention or are intentionally being obtuse, I'll summarize: On June 7th an uninvolved editor suggested changing to something like the proposed image. I created the image and uploaded it the same day as it seemed like a good compromise. You complained, Rlandmann asked me to re-upload the current image in response to your complaint which I did. Meaning the only reason the current dark image is in the infobox is because you (for some reason) insisted on putting it back

Point 2:The proposed image is non-controversial and otherwise reasonable (Like I said in the table, it doesn't depict the event at all and thus avoids the whole icing/whatever controversy.) such as a drawing of an atom with disputed particles or geometry. You're a funny person, after dismissing the example of fission diagrams you're using them. Anyway I agree with this point in that one wouldn't/shouldn't draw a square or triangular atom, translating that to an airplane means drawing a plane supposed to have four engines in an overhead view and depicting an overhead view showing two. That really isn't the case here.

Point 3:...for me, any image that does not directly depict a single original object, like a synthesis of several source images, is "imaginary". I don't mean this to sound sarcastic, but does the sky somehow distract you from the airplane? Also please take a moment to note this point is based solely on your opinion (...for me...) which I disagree with for several reasons I've already mentioned but also this flawed logic: Editor-created content is for cases where there is no reliably published free equivalent, this is not such a case. You're still assuming any old DC-8 will suffice to illustrate DC-8-63CF N950JW. Have you read the rule on non free content use? It says Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. We want to illustrate DC-8-63CF N950JW because it's the plane involved with this article, non-free images do exist so it would actually make more sense to use one of those under a NFC rationale than it would to simply put in any free picture of a DC-8 because in an encyclopedic article it would advance people's knowledge about Flight 1285 more than the any free picture of a DC-8 proposal IF we weren't trying to replace such non-free content with user created GNU images. In short to give people a good idea of what the plane itself looked like we either need a free photo or an illustration of it. Anynobody 04:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "image" is a moving target. It has changed several times, which makes addressing its problems confusing. Crum375, the only reason he kept changing his image was to address the complaints you had about it. The first image was fine the way it was, and it was never intended as evidence of any kind. And003 (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Any, I do know how to use this site, and can access any version of any image, even those that have been deleted. But that was not my point — I was referring to the fact that as this issue was being debated, you kept changing the image in question, while leaving the same file name. This created confusion for other editors trying to understand our discussion and evaluate the issues. At least you could have used a different name for different images, to reduce the confusion. And you are right, some versions of your images were less problematic than others, but the mere fact that they were changing while we were talking about them created a problem in addressing the various issues that each presented.

And003, I have never asked for any change of any version of any image. I simply criticized the concept of creating imaginary images by wikipedians in controversial circumstances, as I still do. If the image was changed while we were discussing it, while keeping the same file name, that only created more confusion and made the discussion more difficult.

Crum375 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected

Ok I see the page has been unprotected, and Crum375 has gone right back to removing the image AND reverting additional information I've been adding from the CASB reports. To respond to his latest "point" ("his" is so much easier than his/hers if you're actually a woman and offended I can use just "hers"): At least you could have used a different name for different images, to reduce the confusion. You must be joking, since you do know how to use this site I'm sure you realize that updated images use the same file name (that's why we have the feature :).

I simply criticized the concept of creating imaginary images by wikipedians in controversial circumstances, as I still do... Yeah, except you still haven't been able to show where the appearance of the plane is in controversy. (I assume you have not because you can't since there isn't.) I've done another version, removing the sky and showing two views of the plane showing its left/right/front/back from slightly above on a simple plain white background. Since you are the minority*, without valid arguments related to policy**, and arguing for an image which violates the basic concepts of who, what, when, where, etc. specifically the "what".*** I'd suggest accepting that a model of the plane beats a generic image of "a" plane.

*Throughout this discussion And003, myself, and then an outside editor have been in support or suggested compromises for the image. **There's no WP:NPOV or WP:OR arguments to be made against just the plane itself. ***What: Arrow Air DC-8-63CF N950JW 05:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Any, there is no consensus to change our basic policies such as NOR and NPOV. I agree that a random drawing of a DC-8-like image, unlike the realistic-appearing "pre-accident" images you inserted before, is not in violation of those policies. However, we still want to supply the best possible information to readers, and a real image of a real DC-8, especially when coupled with a link to the real accident aircraft, trumps a Wikipedian-made drawing of a DC-8, even if the latter appears to have the "correct" color scheme. Crum375 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, Crum375, there is still one question: How do we give this article a picture of the DC-8 that became Flight 1285? I tried contacting the photographer of one picture but have been unable to reach him, and until I do, I will not use that picture without his permission. Anynobody's picture was designed to take care of that problem, but now, thanks to you, no one can use it. I was thinking of asking him to do a picture for an air disaster article I created for Wikipedia a while back, but now, even though Anynobody has said he will continue to make air disaster pictures, I'm afraid to do so for fear you'll remove it. How am I supposed to ask him for an air disaster picture after this? Even though the facts about Flight 1285 may be disputed, is there anything you can say to me that will convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that you won't try to remove one of his pictures from an air disaster article that contains facts that are NOT in dispute? And003 (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And003, you seem to be focused on me as a person, instead of on the issues at hand. Wikipedia's goal is to present existing reliably published knowledge, not to be an online forum for users to publish their own content. We do allow some self-made images in limited circumstances, usually when they are non-controversial and help explain otherwise reliably sourced text. In an accident article, where the specific circumstances are often controversial, we must carefully avoid taking sides, and almost any imaginary self-made rendering of the accident sequence is likely to violate NPOV and NOR. In this specific case we happen to have a good free image of a DC-8, albeit with another color scheme, as well as a good photo of the accident DC-8 (with the correct colors) which is linked into (but not embedded in) the article. I see no problem with this situation. Crum375 (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And003, you seem to be focused on me as a person, instead of on the issues at hand.

Crum375, what do you expect? You are the one that raised these objections in the first place, even removing Anynobody's first image after it was posted ... nevermind the fact that other Wikipedians, myself included, had no objections. Yes, I know that Wikipedia's goal is to present existing reliably published knowledge, just like I know that we should avoid taking sides in any issue, but it may surprise you that some of us would like to see pictures of the actual aircraft in these air disaster articles, and unless the photographers are willing to share such pictures, 3D images are all we have. I also have to point out that there are some Wikipedians who believe you deliberately baited Anynobody into an editing war. Do you have any idea how much that worries me, knowing that someone could remove an image I requested for an article I wrote just because they don't like it? I just hope Anynobody doesn't change his mind about continuing to make aircraft images in case I need one. I wouldn't blame him if he refused to make one for me after all this.

In this specific case we happen to have a good free image of a DC-8, albeit with another color scheme, as well as a good photo of the accident DC-8 (with the correct colors) which is linked into (but not embedded in) the article. I see no problem with this situation.

You may not see a problem, and you may be right on that score, but that doesn't exactly alleviate my worries.

And003 (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And003, I understand you are worried, but I think you should read and understand WP:AGF. It explains how to focus on the merits of situations, without becoming "worried" that your fellow Wikipedians are plotting some evil schemes. Try to think what is best for Wikipedia, and how to achieve it. If you disagree with some substantive issue, point out the rule that is being violated, and pursue the issue to the best of your ability. Crum375 (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Commonscat

commons:Category:Arrow Air Flight 1285 has been created. Someone might want to add {{commonscat}} to this article and maybe some of the images once protection has ended. www.defenseimagery.mil has wreckage and memorial photos, search keyword Gander. There might be more, and I would upload more, but the new commons upload dialog pisses me off as does the new slower than dirt DoD images search tool. My $0.02 on the current image is that it is too dark to be of use in the infobox, CG or not. I don't want to get involved in the current situation, but I'd prefer no image to a 90% black image in the infobox. Maybe a well lighted generic DC-8 with Arrow Air livery CGI image against a blue sky would be better if a representation of the aircraft is needed here. Beyond that I have no further comment. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That was indeed an earlier image which I can revert to . Anynobody 04:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-rendered a new version of the above linked image. I prefer daylight too, nighttime illustrations tend to moot a lot of work. Anynobody 05:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Whack-a-doodle

This outfit has zero credibility on aviation accident investigation. There is zero controversy regarding level of involvement. On the day of the crash, responsibility was claimed by Islamic Jihad, a wing of Hezbollah, and to this date there exists controversy regarding their level of involvement . This is a false issue, dismissed by authorities in US and Canada, who remarked after investigating that the anonymous callers were attention seekers. This comment should be removed unless and until qualified air accident investigators and non WP:fringe sources back it up.Skywriter (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The source cited, besides being unqualified, also doesn't back up the statement that there is controversy today. He quotes Freeh, but Freeh is talking about Khobar, not Gander. Crum375 (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

re this-- (diff) (hist) . . Arrow Air Flight 1285‎; 04:12 . . (+149) . . Fuzbaby (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 299435792 by Crum375 (talk) you can't remove a source because you disagree/dont like; its a credible source)

I call on Fuzbaby to establish the credibility of this source in the area of air accident investigation sufficient to establish that the NTSB, FBI and Canadian Air Safety Board wrongly dismissed this phone call as having nothing to do with this disaster, and to show also that "to this date there exists controversy" concerning this claim. Skywriter (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Photograph Removed

The picture on the data table of the accident was incorrect. It was a MK Airlines DC-8-62CF. The one in the accident was a -63CF. Not to mention, MK Airlines has nothing to do with Arrow Air, so I removed the photograph from the table. --707 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The image you removed is "similar" to the accident aircraft. We don't need to have the exact same model, as long as there is general similarity. And the focus is on the aircraft, not its paint scheme or logos (which in this case we show in the link). Crum375 (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Cockpit technology, Structure, and Wings, that is true. However, the Fuselage is way shorter, it has the same engines as the DC-8-50, and the 62CF has nothing to do with Arrow Air Flight 1285. There are too many differences, in which I believe the picture has the right to be removed or replaced.--707 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mortar shells

The article includes a photograph of "mortar shells found at the crash site", but their relationship, if any, to the incident is not mentioned at all and is perplexing at best, misleading at worst. If the shells are important enough to be included they should be explained, otherwise removed. 80.225.130.76 (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have therefore removed the image. I see no clear source for the image. The accident investigation reports don't include the image or mention any mortar shells, and there is no URL or clear reference for it. Crum375 (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Distance from the runway -- error in the article?

"Witnesses driving on the highway said a bright glow emanated from the aircraft before it struck terrain just short of Gander Lake, and crashed approximately 900 feet (270 m) feet beyond the departure end of the runway."

Based on the Google Earth ruler, the distance from the runway end to the TCH (Trans-Canada Highway) is correct as stated, at about 900 feet/275 meters.

However, the distance from the runway end to the crash site appears to range from about 3000 feet/914 meters [start of the tree damage] to about 4200 feet/1280 meters [end of tree damage], or to 3700 feet/1127 meters [Silent Witness Memorial], and not 900 feet/270 meters as stated.

Therefore, the article appears to be in error, as to the distance from the runway end to the crash site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.170.179 (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Estey Report?

Does anyone have a link to the Estey report itself? I haven't been able to find it in a Google search. I did manage to find several newspaper articles from mainstream media (LA Times, Chicago Tribune) which indicated that report found no evidence to support either of the two conflicting theories about the crash. The wiki article didn't mention that Estey found both theories unsupportable, only the icing one; I've corrected this as an NPOV issue.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Arrow Air Flight 1285R/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The picture features a plane from MK Airlines, not Arrow.

Last edited at 00:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)