Talk:Korean Air

---

"Taehan Hanggong" is the correct McCune-Reischauer spelling: "ngk" gets assimilated to "ngg" in that system. -Sewing - talk 23:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

article seperation

The current article is too long because of the Incidents and accidents list. I think that there should be made a separate article for it to clean up the lengthyness of the article.

What is the Wikipedia rule on article length and how does one determine when there is too much information in an encyclopedia? Those with short attention spans will have a different opinion than those who can digest more significant quantities of information.

The issue wasn’t actually the lengthyness (sic) of the article – the issue was that some of the information presented rubbed some of the contributors the wrong way. Those with a vested interest in the airline, or Hanjin Shipping, or those who are simply fans of the airline (or maybe those who struggle with inordinate amounts of 恨), can’t stand to have inconvenient and embarrassing issues included on this page. It is especially irritating to them when the WikiRules are followed and the facts are documented and footnoted. Stating that this airline’s Incidents and Accidents section was substantially longer than that of other airlines and therefore required reduction missed the painfully obvious point that the reason the list was so substantially (and painfully) long was that this airline has a flight safety record somewhat different than virtually all other airlines on the planet. It is, as they say, a unique situation. Airlines are not fungible. They have unique histories. Some of those histories are skewed heavily towards a substantial number of incidents and accidents; such as the history of this particular airline. However, in this politically correct environment we are not allowed to dwell on facts if those facts, documented as they may be, make somebody feel sad or gloomy. Only perky, chirpy, pithy, and concise information belongs on Wikipedia and that way we can all remain blissfully happy and ignorant of those mean, hard, cold, angry facts. Facts are inconvenient. Inconvenient is bad...especially for those with short attention spans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.79.62.18 (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

loads of crashes missed

guam 1997 when 200 people were killed

also 3 crashes in 1999.

There was another KAL-Soviet incident in April 1978 - a Korean 707 jetliner strayed over Soviet airspace near the border with Finland and was shot at - it made an emergency landing on a frozen lake and most of the passengers survived and were removed by Soviet authorities. The plane, presumably, fell through rotting spring ice and is now at the bottom of the lake along with the luggage and two passengers killed in the landing. That incident was before the better-known KAL 007 incident in 1983. GBC 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Two Korean 747s, one passenger and one freight, landed in Whitehorse, Yukon in Operation Yellow Ribbon on 9/11/2001; the passenger jet was tailed by US fighters on suspicion that it had been hijacked, but the indication was incorrect. GBC 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The incident and accident list has, over the months, been heavily bowdlerized. Why? Stating that there are too many accident citations and then appointing oneself the authority capable of determining which stays and which is cut is rather suspect… and has the distinct aroma of POV. Previously there were more than 20 events listed (with source information) and now there are fewer than ten. Why? With citations clearly written in a neutral tone (see for yourself in the history section) and sources provided for the citations, why select certain citations to chop out and allow others to remain? How does the chopper decide which event is worthy of remaining – is it death count? There is an incredible amount of drivel and swill strewn throughout this “encyclopedia” so it is amazing when someone opts to zero in on items that have been entered according to the Wikirules and remove them, when they could go get their fix by removing some of the abundant drivel and swill. There is allusion to the substantial list of accidents somehow being a slight against the airline. If someone took that stance then appointed themselves the editor worthy of righting the perceived wrong, then that editor is guilty of revisionism. A fact is a fact and no matter how painful it might be, hiding a citation so others can’t see it doesn’t alter history and doesn’t mean the accident will simply go away. Someone obviously put some effort in to compiling the information within the parameters of the rules and presented documented facts. It appears that others didn’t like those facts being shown to the general public and hid them. Too bad – rather than getting meatier and more significant, this page has been clumsily bowdlerized to the point of marginal significance.

"Korean Hangul"

What the heck is "Korean" Hangul? Why does it need "Korean" as an adjective? Are there any other sorts of hangul out there? Nigerian Hangul? Spanish Hangul? Estonian Hangul? -- 03:39, 11 January 2006 202.79.62.13

Hangul means 'Korean Dialect in Korean'. Because Korean consist of both types: Hanji (which is Chinese characters based) and Hangul (Korean characters), so that just clears out which characters are being used. ( Seong0980 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) )

Actually, Hangul does not mean “Korean dialect” in Korean. It is the Korean name for the writing system. In Korean, dialect is 방언. Hangul is to Korean what Cyrillic is to Russian. One can say that (in South Korea) written Korean consists of two scripts; Hangul, and Chinese. You actually aren’t “clearing out” which characters are being used… you are making things dramatically more opaque. Hangul does not require “Korean” as an adjective. There are no other Hanguls, so why attempt to specify which one it is as if we might be confused among all the Hanguls out there?

Incidents and accidents

There appears to be a concerted effort to remove all trace of the incidents and accidents from the article. One day such a deletion may get missed so for the record, the list is in the editing history here. Please put it back if you ever notice it missing. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Put accidents in a separate article

The accident list totally dominates this article (which doesn't happen in any other airline article I've looked at). So can some clever person please make a separate article for them? Otherwise it will be necessary to massively cut down the length of those reports to restore balance to the article - Adrian Pingstone 06:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I say trim it and only include major accidents. Dbinder (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the definition of a “major” accident? Are you suggesting to also change the title to “Major” Incidents and “Major” Accidents?

I noticed Korean Air's accidents list is long and "distinguish" and thus there is a seperate page for it, but the major accidents should be mentioned as a part of teh airline's history. In my humble opinion, "major" should be the ones that involve casualties. p.s. deliberate covering up of facts just worsen the airline's reputation. En51cm 06:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole exercise of “cutting down to restore balance” and moving the incidents and accidents to a different location smacks very much of point of view. It appears that something is being hidden or covered up.

Agreed – the sordid year-long exercise of pulling the information on accidents out of this page and sending it off to be hidden on a different page needs to be reversed. That information does not belong on a separate page; it belongs here. I propose a vote to reinstate the information here and override the ham-fisted revisionists. All in favor?163.1.236.22 10:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote to reinstate incidents and accidents to this page

yes -- it belongs here. The pattern used on other airline pages is to include that information on the main page, not a stand alone page. The fact that Korean Air has a significantly higher number of deadly crash statistics to report is not a reason to hide that information on a different page.163.1.236.22 16:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC) This article is clearly being wikispammed by KAL PR legions, as the text is all virtually copied from various press releases and promotional websites. This is why the Wiki model is doomed to imperfection and manipulation by the determined (and those well paid to do it). 210.13.91.131 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it has been turned into an advert for the airlines and has been sanitized. I call shinanigans. 70.174.178.210 06:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

YES - like other airline pages, the crash history belongs here on this main page -- not hidden away. Keep the entire list of KAL crashes right here where it belongs! Those folks who have a problem with the number of crashes need to take that up with the management of KAL rather than attempt to erase the airline's dubious history on this page.58.8.13.162 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

STRONG YES -- it belongs on this page and not hidden away203.150.206.82 05:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

YES by all means stop sucking up to the PR man at Korean Air and allow the facts to be seen.202.79.62.19 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

STRONG NO I don't have a vested interest in Korean Air; however, the list detracts from the article text and previous editors have stated that this is for formatting purposes. If it wasn't as lengthy, then there would be no problem placing it. Placing the list back into the main article detracts from the flow of the article itself.

In addition, unless you have any productive contributions--it's not very courteous, nor is it polite to accuse contributors of "sucking up to the PR man" and give contributors the benefit of the doubt. After all, this is why Wiki exists. If you have issues, then you should create your own sn here rather than making anonymous comments from your IP addresses, if you have something to say. Undoubtedly, all of you have consciously (and for some of you, unconsciously) created adverts and inserted your own biases in editing the subjects of articles that you like (and similarly, made nasty comments and edits for other articles and causes that you don't like), but in essence that is what Wiki by nature does for each user. Please refrain from making such broad assumptions with no proof. Azntokki 01:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Azntokki

It is always amusing to see contributors who go along with the identification request on Wiipedia explain how it is discourteous or disingenuous to not play the game and use the four tildes. I have never seen any of those contributors explain the difference in degree of anonymity among not bothering to sign (and thus leaving an IP address tucked away in the records) or signing with nothing but an IP address (thus doing little more than not signing) , or signing with a pseudonym that is registered in the Wikistsyem. Ultimately… how does it make any difference if someone plays the game and signs with their pseudonym or doesn’t sign at all? If it is such an important issue then why does the Wiki system allow for participation without confirmed real identification? Why demand identification while hiding behind a pseudonym? This is all stridently hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.16 (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is also amusing to see anonymous contributors accuse others of being hypocritical, without addressing what is the real issue is at all--whether the section should be included or not. Azntokki 18:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Azntokki

Fleet source

Can we please get a clear source for the fleet information? As things stand, it is impossible to know whether changes to that section by anonymous users are vandalism or simply corrections. -- Visviva 06:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)