Talk:Swiftair Flight 5960

It is premature to call this an accident

I am obligated to say that MOS are guidelines that do not override RS. It's a betrayal of common sense to label this an accident given how few facts are known about what happened. Just because MOS says we should doesn't mean that override RS or common sense. I know others disagree, but I maintain that this entry is incorrectly titled. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources calling this an accident (and even more that are quoting officials calling it an accident):

The Aviation Herald - Accident: Swift B734 at Vilnius on Nov 25th 2024, impacted building on final approach

AP - The cause of the accident is under investigation

LRT - He said the cause of the accident or the nature of the cargo was not yet clear.

Additionally, this qualifies under the definition of an accident under ICAO Annex 13. I am not copying the full definition down, but the first part of the definition is:

a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of
- being in the aircraft

This crash has a fatality and would qualify under this definition.

There are multiple reliable sources calling this an accident, and we should call it as such on this article. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 16:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It's that precise argument that has been rejected when a majority of RS call these incidents "Crashes." I maintain that it's something to be avoided. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

So basically your gripe with "accident" is that this is at the present stage of investigation something which would be called "incident" in colloquial speech (but not in the ICAO's technical terms). This is legit, but the counter-argument of the offricial ICAO definition is the prime point of reference in contemporary air-incident content is also legit. Well I note that 2024 Korochansky Ilyushin Il-76 crash uses "Crash" instead of "Accident" as a section title.

I think using "Crash" instead of "Accident", at least until we do have an official "accident report" of some sort, is advisable in the present article, too: it is unequivocally correct (the plane did crash) and it avoids the confusion of the colloquial and formal/technical definition of "accident" entirely. 2A02:8071:5BD0:D4C0:DD6B:C4DB:2DB9:A03B (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The plane crashed. That we know. Was it accidental? Time will tell. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I inserted the word accident as a reflex of mine in such instances when it was expanding what was then an unfolding event. But I have no strong opinions on whether it should be changed or otherwise. Borgenland (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Infact the word "accident" and "incident" are both used by ICAO and FAA, which I have checked their aviation safety report. And the difference is: "Accident" means an event that caused someone invloved killed or severely injuried, or the aircraft resulted in Hull loss. While "Incident" means no such above happened. Obviously in this accident, the aircraft has been completely destroyed, and someone has been killed. So it matches the meaning of "accident". Awdqmb (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You again! Can you answer my question I asked lasttime: How do you think that, FAA and ICAO use word "accident" and "incident" to reffer any aviation occurrences? Do you think FAA and ICAO are not RS in aviation industry? Awdqmb (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Adhere to aviation jargon in the face of proper English at your own peril. I've laid out my points, your disagreement is noted. Carry on. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I should point out: Wikipedia is not a news site, but a Encyclopedia. Should I give you the meaning of "Encyclopedia", or you check it by yourself? Awdqmb (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources. They prefer crash, not accident:

- DW.com: calls this a crash, only uses accident in direct quotes.

- New York Times: Refers to this is a crash exclusively, uses the word “accident” only in a quote indicating the investigation remains underway.

- DailyBeast: Avoids the use of the word accident entirely. Only uses crash.

- AP: Strongly prefers crash for this incident.

- Reuters: Uses crash 10 times, accident three times, and in those uses that term is not definitive but used to express doubt on if it was an accident.

- CBS News: Doesn’t use the word accident at all.

Please familiarize yourself with, put simply here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

So are you suggest aviation regulators, FAA and ICAO are unreliable sources, compare to those news site? Oh, I think you should also check the page Aviation accidents and incidents, which it has clearly defined the meaning of these two words. Awdqmb (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

MOS doesn't override RS. Try to understand that Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Here’s more RS calling this a crash:

ABC News- Refers to it as a crash 19 times, not once an accident.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/dhl-cargo-plane-crashes-lithuania-airport-authority/story?id=112467990

Jalopnik- Crash eight times, not once an accident:

https://jalopnik.com/dhl-cargo-plane-crashes-amid-fears-of-russian-sabotage-1851707377

The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/25/dhl-cargo-plane-crashes-near-lithuania-airport

Crash 12 times, accident three times and in the shadow of doubt

CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/25/europe/lithuania-dhl-cargo-plane-crash-vilnius-intl-hnk/index.html

Crash 17 times, accident once in a direct quote

The RS are overwhelmingly calling this a crash because nobody knows if it was an accident.

Stop ignoring reliable sources.

Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are even more RS overwhelmingly referring to this as a crash.

ABC News- Refers to it as a crash 19 times, not once an accident.

Jalopnik- Crash eight times, not once an accident:

The Guardian- Crash 12 times, accident three times and in the shadow of doubt

CNN

Crash 17 times, accident once in a direct quote

The RS are overwhelmingly calling this a crash because nobody knows if it was an accident.

Stop ignoring reliable sources.

Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Please show the editing policy which support your opinion. And please directly answer my question: Do laws from those aviation authorities is not reliable compare to your so-called RS? I have wait for so long for a direct answer. Awdqmb (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Read more closely WP:RS. I can't explain that to you again. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I have checked the whole page of WP:RS, and I haven't seen any single word about "We should use simple word from 'RS', instead of 'jargon' from professional ones". Can you directly show it for me? Awdqmb (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

And instead, I found somethink that clearly oppose your opinion: "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics." And obviously, "the denefintion of aviation occurrence" is a scholarly matter, since we have solid files to define it. Unless you simply repeat "The formal files published by those authorities manage this, is not more reliable than news media words". Awdqmb (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but ultimately, we prefer secondary sources.

_{"Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere."}

The ICAO and FAA are primary, government sources. The dozen or more reputable news outlets that overwhelmingly prefer crash instead of accident are secondary sources. We use RS, not MOS, not the FAA. Does that help? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

But our policy is only mainly use secondary resources, but not banned to use primary ones. And, infact I don't sure if regulations from official authorites can be described as "primary source", because if we determind this, then all laws will become primary resource and unable directly to use. Awdqmb (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I explained the policy to you. If you disagree with it take it up elsewhere, but RS call this overwhelmingly a crash, not an accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

And, I haven't seen any policy to suggest your opinion of "MOS doesn't override RS". And I found opposite: "In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy." So, please give the exact policy to support this. Awdqmb (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:Verifiability which says the following.

_{Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.}

I mistakenly referred to WP:RS as a policy. This is actually policy, and you are mistaken for relying on sources like the FAA (primary) over RS (secondary) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

But you still don't explain anything about "MOS doesn't override RS", your description only says about secondary and primary sources. And I'm afraid it's not first time you discussed about this, but none of them passed. At least I think you should add one on WP:Aviation first to have a overall consensus. Awdqmb (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to explain plainly written policy to you that is linked at the top of the talk page you are editing. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. They are linked right at the top of this page under "Article policies".

If you have trouble with those I don't know what to tell you. We don't follow WP:Aviation over either of those policies, so I don't need any kind of consensus there. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

But then such pattern will raise more problem: Most news mefia will not describe an aviation occurrence as a format of "XXX Airlines Flight 1234", instead they only use the IATA flight number, or even words like "a flight of XXX Airlines…" to describe. So should we also abondon these consensus (which also they negotiated), and change all page name into something, like "QY5960 crash"? Infact I'm very exhausted on such endless talk, I'm afraid to launch a talk about overall description on these pages. Awdqmb (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I have checked, even very few of them mentioned the flight number "5960". So I'm afraid, in such pattern we have to call it "2024 Swiftair crash". Awdqmb (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The title Swiftair Flight 5960 makes no sense because QY is European Air Transport. The only way you can call it that way if Swift would have been operating under their own flight number WT5960, but it is not the case. It is a CMI lease for EAT. So writing in brackets European Air Transport Leipzig Flight 18D is also inaccurate and confusing, it is just the callsign. For example today the same flight QY5960 (BCS18D) was operated by Compass Air. That does not make it Compass Air Flight 5960. So as you said 2024 Swiftair crash would be more appropiate FlightDeckFocus (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

But if we break the precedent here (I don't mean we shouldn't), then I'm afraid (at least) nearly half of the aviation occurrence pages should be reconsidered its naming. This single move may infect way more. So, I'm afraid we should launch a overall policy discussion about this (Infact I have proposed this during last argument on Voepass one). Awdqmb (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

There are no policies or guidelines that state that we must use the more commonly used word in sources. The fact that reliable sources even use the word accident already suggests that the word is acceptable to use. Yes, it is clear that crash is mostly used but I don't find that to be compelling enough of a reason to "deprecate" the word:

• Whilst this news article discusses the possibility of foul play, they state that, in their own voice (meaning no quotations), [...] As Lithuania investigates the Vilnius crash, the world awaits to know the root cause of the accident.
• This article states (using both crash and accident), [...] The cause of the accident is unknown, and an investigation is underway. [...] While it remains unclear what caused the accident, the crash comes at a time when Western security officials have previously told Reuters they suspect Russian intelligence of conducting test runs for acts of sabotage on cargo flights to the United States.
• This article states, According to LRT RADIO, the Lithuanian crew member got off the plane after the accident and consciously spoke about the circumstances of the accident. [...] The surrounding people were not injured in the accident. [...] Around 12 o'clock LRT journalist Vaidotas Burokas, who was near the accident site, said that the special forces are still working here. [...] Donatas Gurevičius, Chief of Civil Protection of the Vilnius Fire Rescue Board, told LRT RADIO that the circumstances of the accident will continue to be investigated. [...] All possible causes of the accident are being investigated. [...] At the moment, the cause of the accident is not yet clear, he emphasized.
• This article states, A fire broke and 12 residents were evacuated. A spokesperson for the government crisis team said that all the building's residents survived the accident, meaning the casualties were on the plane. [...] Footage from the accident site shows a large plume of smoke.
• [1] This article states, ... although the cause of the accident remains unknown. [...] Swiftair confirmed the plane involved in the accident was an older Boeing 737-400, and four people were onboard.

Even articles that discuss the possibility of foul play use the word accident. As already stated in before, the term accident in aviation does not have the same meaning as "accident" meant in accidental. Quoting from the ICAO, Annex 13 defines an accident as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft: in which a person is fatally or seriously injured; in which an aircraft sustains damage or structural failure requiring repairs; after which the aircraft in question is classified as being missing. [2] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Should we simply launch a RfC about this (and similar) problem? Infact I have seen he argues about this problem for mutiple times. I have exhausted from these meaningless argument, since no any consensus will be negotiated finally. Awdqmb (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I am asking you not to use 'he' to refer to me. If you are exhausted, you don't have to engage. I have explained numerous times to you why we follow RS and not aviation jargon. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I just say only one word more: Trying to persuade anyone who have different opinion have no help on final consensus to solve the problem. If you really want to solve this overall problem, then a better idea is: Opening a RfC to let more people rollout their opinions, and finally have a overall consensus over the whole community. I can help you to set on if you don't know about this. Awdqmb (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The ICAO is a primary source and reliable secondary sources overwhelmingly prefer crash. There is a reason that they overwhelmingly use that word in place of accident. 'Accident' violates NPOV. We should follow reliable sources and not cherrypick those that conform with the style desired by WP:aviation. Don't you want to be more careful, since this is obviously a crash but not obviously an accident? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As already stated multiple times, there simply exists no guideline or policy that says that we have to use the more commonly used word in sources. Above, you pointed out that accident was rarely, if not only used in direct quotations. Here are even more sources that use accident in their own voices:

• This source that provided analysis of the accident stated: The aircraft was carrying out flight QY5960 from Leipzig to Vilnius and the accident took place while… [...] Lithuania’s National Crisis Management Centre deployed experts to the site to investigate the accident soon after it happened. [...] A potential loss of control or pilot error could both be possible contenders for the primary cause of the accident. [...] Seeming to support this theory, on the day of the accident, the Lithuanian authorities brought in a Polish Air Navigation Services Agency Beech King Air 350 aircraft equipped with specialist calibration equipment onboard...
• This source that uses both crash and accident, The cause of the crash remains unclear. Lithuanian authorities are investigating the accident. The most likely cause is technical or human error, police told LRT.
• This source states, A 55-year-old German citizen and a 34-year-old Lithuanian citizen who were flying with them were injured during the accident. [...] The site of the accident was visited on Monday by embassies of foreign countries whose citizens were affected by the 'accident'.
• This source states, According to preliminary data, the pilot who died in the accident is a Spanish citizen. [...] ... 13 people were evacuated from the buildings near the accident site. Vilnius City Municipality will continue to take care of them. According to the fire protection and rescue department, the aircraft is completely destroyed. When the plane fell near the house, nearby storerooms and a car caught fire. The fire is already under control. According to Vilmantas Vitkauskas, head of the National Crisis Management Center, according to preliminary data, the plane crash was an accident. Police Commissioner General Arūnas Paulauskas mentions that it should not be ruled out that this accident could be a terrorist act.

Even though the possibility of foul play is considered, the sources presented above still use the word accident. When used appropriately, the term accident is acceptable since the "jargonistic" term has a different meaning in this context and multiple sources have demonstrably used it. Unless sources clearly state that this occurrence wasn't an accident, there is no reason to remove the word. For now, this is both a crash and an accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems obvious, but as I haven't seen it stated before;

the term 'crash' is preferred by news sources because it catches the readers eye.

Conversely, the term 'accident' is preferred by regulatory bodies precisely because it is less dramatic.

Some news sources are WP:RS, others less reliable, but all are primarily interested in making money somehow.

As there are way more news outlets than regulatory bodies, 'crash' wins in terms of simple math.

According to one poster back in 2022,

{accident} it's a loaded, political word used to dismiss deaths and injury as unavoidable and/or unpredictable. We need to stop using the word "accident" throughout Wikipedia regarding transportation deaths. It's already being phased out in news publishing best practices.

https://crashnotaccident.com/ is one site pushing this agenda, possibly an anti-automobile advocacy site (whatever that is).

And there are at least two different editors pedalling this agenda here. (pedalling - did you see what I did there?)

As to which way Wikipedia should lean.... that might be another matter.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As to which way Wikipedia should lean.... that might be another matter.

Luckily we can rely upon policy rather than your personal musings about the motivations of mass media. As I cited above:

"Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere."

RS are mainly using the word crash and strongly avoided the use of the word accident, despite the careful Wikipedia:Cherrypicking by @Aviationwikiflight to fit their preference about what word we should be using here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe it was just over a year ago that Steelpillow offered you the following advice;

If you do not stop your headlong rush, I would warn you that you risk running foul of WP:DISRUPTION.

And it was two years ago that BilCat added the following comment in yet another long-winded discussion pushing this same agenda;

I'm concerned that the OP is (inadvertently) violating WP:SOAPBOX by bringing this up. Wikipedia isn't the place to push for social change, neologistic usage, etc

You are clearly capable of making great and valued contributions to Wikipedia, but please desist from this particular agenda. Or is your approach simply designed to wear us down month-by-month? It was you who posted "If you are exhausted, you don't have to engage".

Isn't that WP:TROLLING?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no agenda here other than asking that we follow reliable sources which overwhelmingly refer to this incident as a crash. A headlong rush would be edit-warring and mass changes to such incidents following reliable sources. Please check out the policy documents I've shared which explain this. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking sources. RS on this event strongly prefer the use of the word crash over accident, and by policy we should follow RS. Your preference for the use of one word because it follows MOS in a niche part of the project that you prefer doesn't override policy on this matter. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you’re hoping to achieve every single time you open a discussion on this matter. Like previous discussions, we’re going absolutely nowhere and just turning in circles. Your comments make up nearly half of this discussion, with you repeating and reiterating the same argument over and over again with it being clear that there isn’t enough support for now in favour of such a change. I suggest like before that you just drop the stick. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This is what you often suggest when you are confronted with Wikipedia policy which contradicts your personal preference about language that we use here. That's fine. But you do not have to engage either. Part of this project is polite but strong disagreement. I am not restricted in raising this issue and you are not restrained in disagreeing, but please stop calling foul when the policy presented disagrees with you. Suggesting, as you have, that I be sanctioned for raising these issues is unreasonable. The reliable sources disagree with your preference for this word. I am and will continue to politely raise that when the case presents itself. Why are you cherrypicking sources to support your arguement?.Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

{quote} Part of this project is polite but strong disagreement

Ah-ha; we are a project. That explains a lot.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

CCTV footage copyright?

In the external links is the CCTV footage published by LTR. In the EU (where the camera was), CCTV is likely not copyrightable, Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices. However, there are simple LTR assets over the footage.

Does anyone know if it could be used on Commons or is it technically under some copyright? Chew (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

"and landed on its courtyard"

This is misleading, probably lost-in-translation. The house in question is on a large property, half woodland and half a huge garden. There is no "courtyard" anywhere, let alone a courtyard of a the size necessary to land a 737 "on" (that would be basically an airport-runway-sized "courtyard").

It should be corrected to "and landed on its property"; this is a factually correct and sourced statement, regardless the precise details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:5BD0:D4C0:DD6B:C4DB:2DB9:A03B (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say the same thing. It'd likely be a machine translation from Lithuanian. Aydoh8^[contribs] 00:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

In this instance, the Lithuanian word kiemas is probably better translated simply as "yard" (in North American English) or the suggestion above, "property". "Courtyard" refers to an enclosed area, which this is not. I've gone ahead and changed it to "property" for now; as the original poster mentioned, this is a good catchall term that can be made more specific later if desired. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I was basing it on what Lithuanian National Radio and Television stated on its English website. Borgenland (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)