Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525

Andreas Lubitz

Guy recently made a controversial close in the middle of an AfD process. The contention and debate within this topic suggests that no consensus to merge exists. A third AfD is best way to determine this. WP:BIO1E states When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.. The phrase if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified, which is the case so the further discussion is required. I am going to unmerge pending the outcome of the third AfD. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Valoem: Read WP:NOTAVOTE. Consensus is not based on votes, but on policy. When you make votes not based on an objective evaluation of the content and the policy, your vote doesn't matter. ― Padenton|✉   16:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I found some policy based rational to retain the article. It more of a community decision the article is in a third AfD, and we should allow it to take place accordingly. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Valoem: That policy based rationale was stated in the argument several times, and its applicability was based on a subjective evaluation. As I note you have not done so yet, an unmerge would be improper. If you still feel strongly about this, the correct course of action is to leave it, and post on Guy's talk page asking him to reconsider. If he does not, there are noticeboards you can try. ― Padenton|✉   16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

AfD is still open. The request for close was to allow AfD to determine outcome, I believe editors were expecting no consensus to merge, pending AfD outcome. I have no problem with you merging as long as the AfD is closed, but we cannot speedy merge in the presence of keep votes. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I really agree with Valoem here, I've never seen any article get merged off that unbalanced of a vote, and to say some votes didn't matter because they weren't based on policy... What? All the votes are based on what should make wikipedia stronger and more complete, the policy was likely written by one person or a small group and it's not going to be perfect, as is the case here. A lot of information can go in the Lubitz article that has no real place in this one, and if Dzhokahr Tsarnaev can get an article (even if he was only known for 1 event, which is the argument here), and that guy only killed 4 people. This guy killed 150 including himself. I could be wrong, but I'd wager he's the highest known mass murderer who doesn't have his own article right now. Really embarrassing for wikipedia in my opinion, so I hope someone review this. - Paul Vincent

If that were the case, JzG would have said so, rather than saying "Merge". ― Padenton|✉   17:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah because golly gee, JzG can't *possibly* be wrong! Juneau Mike (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

As JzG suggested, go to Deletion Review. ― Padenton|✉   04:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Lubitz merged

First the AfD on Andreas artidcle is merged with the reasoning that "A clear consensus for merging", while I do not see any clear consensus for anything. Then the merging discussion here is closed as merge as well, while in fact no consensus can be seen here as well. The smell of deletionism is vivid. Wikipedia has become known to be "ruled by" deletionist and non-inclusionists and this is unfortunately another clear case of this, merging a notable article. Well, now I have said what I wanted and I leave it at that. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The only thing Andreas Lubitz is notable for is the plane crash which is the subject of this article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised you have never seen this image before http://i.imgur.com/8HmfQqH.png?1, usually used as a joke to describe our deletion process, but you can't deny consensus even if that consensus believes if we have a page on someone that means we are honoring them with a memorial! Although i do agree that oneevent as a guideline is largely incorrect as proven by doing the robot test where if we had set up a high-tech robot to follow that guideline 100% percent to a tee, it'd wipe out one hit wonders, majority of our politicians with just one political office and such, because what is exactly a "event" most people tried arguing that Justin Knapp's 1 Million wikipedia edits was an event, a bad slippery slope in my opinion. It's just a shame seeing majority of my friends go to wikia sites to get information now as most stuff is either merged or seen as fancruft, oh well. Let's get back to building a encyclopedia, full of all human knowledge! GuzzyG (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What? ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No need to be condescending but hey, let's just call it a rushed, passionate rant by someone who finds it concerning that increasingly online i am starting to see people link to a wikia and not our encyclopedia, does that not speak of our comprehension? Do you think of the roughly 107 billion people who are estimated to have lived that "ALL notable human knowledge" would leave us with only 4,856,003 articles of which 1,272,766 are covered by WikiProject:Biography. Our enecyclopedia has an unfortunate reputation of WP:ZEALOT editors who try to delete people or things they find abhorrent, which is not what a NPOV means. From my own experiences online and in public we have became known as a unreliable bureaucratic mess which i find disheartening and from which i will fight. Let's not even mention the gender and racial gap and bias. GuzzyG (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've had my fights with religionists on Wikipedia, including Jimbo Wales. The distortion of articles by religionism in this encyclopedia's articles about ancient history is a rather big problem in my view. Is that what you mean, or part of what you mean? ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Don't go there bro, the list of things people link to online goes far worse than a wikia. Wikia's the least of the worlds problems. ― Padenton|✉   17:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Cush if i had userboxes on my profile yours would match mine quite fine, religionists do come with a heavy POV so it is what apart of what i mean. I am just passionate about biographies as i am actually wanting to get into academic research on people. Of course i don't mean random people of the street, my personal opinion is that a separate bio in these type of events (mass murderers) looks better for style reason but on that point i can concede, i do find it rubbish though that not all of One Direction have articles, which is more what i was meaning and why i am not a fan of certain policies.@Padenton: I agree but i just think the traffic that reads articles on thing would be better going here then all split. I did not mean to be rude (diagnosed aspergers, even though i think it was an inaccurate diagnosis) or anything i just dislike biographies being forced into articles on events best example is Shooting of Michael Brown. Or merged into irrelevant articles like Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt is about to be. I just delved into rant territory again but that's the gist of my editing - improving the sometimes dismal biographies and as someone who is curious of unique cases like Mehran Karimi Nasseri it is just disheartening to see a merge - although i do not care if Andrea was merged except for style and size reasons. Basically sorry for what seemed to be passive aggressive comments in my rant about certain policies WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BAND, WP:ONEEVENT, it was unprofessional, my apologies but i do agree with you both generally. Just my OCD and style considerations sometimes crack, ha, sorry. GuzzyG (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well that was useful. Contribute to a page and then they trash it. Teaches me a lesson not to bother in future. Censorship is alive and well. Obviously the censors know best! 5.150.92.82 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you would be annoyed as you dont appear to have ever edited this, the Andreas Lubitz or any other article on wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything significant that was in the other article that is not in this one, so I'm at a loss to understand your claim of "censorship". It's a word we see thrown around a lot, and it's almost always by people who don't know much about Wikipedia editing principles (no offense intended). I encourage you to do some reading and learn about them, and make more contribution. We need all the good editors we can get. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate vs. intentional

Suicide by pilot describes aviation disasters in which pilots "deliberately crash or attempt to crash an aircraft..."

Deliberate is synonymous with intentional.

The Germanwings Flight 9525 crash was "intentionally caused" by the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz. ITfan1990 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@ITfan1990: For the benefit of other editors, you are referring to your edit to link to suicide by pilot. My only response is that I believe the edit is contrary to current consensus. Per the guidelines regarding disputed edits, the change needs to stay out until there is consensus for it, and I'm going to revert it again now. Please do not re-revert again, per WP:BRD. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD states to be bold and I don't see a consensus anywhere stating that these two words are defined differently. Please don't revert this change. ITfan1990 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@ITfan1990: Please read WP:BRD more carefully. You were within guidelines to be BOLD, and I was within guidelines to dispute your bold edit by reverting it. At that point, the guidelines say you leave the edit out until consensus is reached for it. That way, the article never contains a disputed edit that lacks consensus. Does that help? I hope so, because repeated re-reverts are edit warring and can result in sanctions. The guidelines regarding this are there for a good reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

In your edit summary you stated that this has been "discussed at length" and that it is "contrary to consensus" that aviation crashes caused deliberately by a pilot are Suicide by pilot. Please provide a link to to this lengthy discussion where that consensus was reached, because I cannot find it.

• Side note It appears the actual consensus on Wikipedia is that Suicide by pilot describes deliberate plane crashes resulting in deaths, such as this one. ITfan1990 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

He appears to not have reinstated the link to suicide by pilot, and "deliberate" is the word that's been used in the infobox for quite long, so this should be OK. Alakzi (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, we're cool for now, didn't mean to imply otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The editing dispute seems over, and doesn't seem to have been in bad faith. @ITfan1990: Since Andreas Lubitz is recently dead and information about his death has implications for his family/friends, he is protected by the WP:BLP policy per WP:BDP. In this case, the investigation needs to run its course. Wikipedia isn't a source, nor are we expected to be, and WP:BREAKING suggests we write these articles conservatively. It's fairly likely at this point that it was a suicide, but nothing will be lost by waiting for the investigation to run its course. ― Padenton|✉   15:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate or intentional, it certainly was not "controlled flight into terrain". Looking at the Suicide by pilot list. That descriptor is the most accurate. At the time, when the incident was still "fresh news", people were incensed by the term suicide and instead replaced it with "murder". Latest news point out, the pilot practiced the descent before. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Article ready for GA nomination?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I was thinking of nominating the article for GA assessment, but I wanted your opinion. Should we have a peer review first before nominating it as a GA article, or can I nominate it now, or do you think it's to early for GA nomination? I kind of think it's a little early to nominate it as a good article, but I want your opinion on the matter. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

GA before we've even had a preliminary report come out? The article will have changed drastically by this time next year. Alakzi (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right. We will wait until the investigation is done. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No need to create a new paragraph every time new information appears

As most of us already know, new information about this event was appearing daily in the reliable sources when the event was new. Every time new information came out that needed to be added to the article, we didn't breathlessly add it to the article into a new paragraph, beginning with the phrase "On [date]," we instead inserted it into existing paragraphs to allow the reading of the information to flow evenly. We usually avoided entering the date that the information appeared, occasionally using a date relative to the day of the crash. The current article isn't a series of short, choppy paragraphs each starting with a date.

Recently, relatively "not earth-shattering" new information has appeared that Lubitz practised setting the auto-pilot controls in an earlier flight. An editor keeps reverting my attempt to combine this information into the previous paragraph to allow it to read better, even though the new paragraph that he prefers contains only a single sentence and has a phrase that is nearly identical to a phrase in a sentence in the previous paragraph (Lubitz set the auto-pilot to 100 feet.) Prhartcom (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In your first reversion of my addition your edit summary was this: "Remove redundant (and poorly spelled and punctuated) sentence, keeping reference"? My apologies for poor spelling, which another editor has kindly corrected. I'm still unsure why you thought it was poorly punctuated and, more importantly, why you thought it was "redundant". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Poorly punctuated because you have one too many commas. Commas are not inserted when a reader pauses or takes a breath, they are inserted according to grammatical rules of writing. Redundant because the article already mentions that Lubitz set the autopilot to 100 feet; that is a phrase that should not be deliberately repeated. We say it once, then say it was practised earlier, without saying "set the autopilot to 100 feet" again. Prhartcom (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how the sentence "breaks the rules of grammar". It's not redundant, it's news, as revelled by the interim report whuch has just been published. The fact that Lubitz "practiced" the setting seems quite significant to me, and to the BBC whose source I used. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have explained; please re-read my explanation. See below for my answer to your question about "news". Prhartcom (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The BEA interim report has been published - with the practising bit in. There may be additional material. I don't have time to go through it now. But it may deserve a new section of its own.Mattojgb (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It is mildly gratifying to have my suspicion that the plane was descending in OPEN DES mode (p. 8) confirmed, and my having resisted a vigorous attempt to insert WP:OR in the article having paid off. Alakzi (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If information is new, this does not mean it requires its own paragraph or section. A new paragraph or section is warranted when a new topic is being presented. Please consider how this article will read next year or next decade. By then, we won't care when the information was revealed to the world. To make it easier to read, facts of information should flow well for the reader, without redundancies or choppy, one-sentence paragraphs each beginning with "On [date] it was revealed". Prhartcom (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not alone in my view that it deserves prominence. You are editing against consensus here. We can't guess how an article will look in a year's time, we edit as events unfold. Many things may change over time. And you came to my Talk Page with a question about "ego"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this is significant enough to have its own para. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

To be convincing, you may wish to give reasons why you think so. As you do, please consider trying to refute my main point that, just because something is new, it doesn't deserve it's own paragraph. (Otherwise, this article would be filled with one-sentence paragraphs like, "On May 29 it was revealed that the students were on their way home from a student exchange with the Giola Institute ..." etc.) Prhartcom (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have not argued that the format of this sentence is in some way sacrosanct. I merely thought that a date gave context. I’m also not claiming that it must stay as a single sentence paragraph. As Mattojgb has suggested there may be other significant material in the interim report. I’m arguing that it is significant insofar as it shows Lubitz active planning of this event. It wasn’t a “one off spur-of-the-moment reaction to something”. I think it’s the sort of evidnce that would be deemed significant in a criminal trial. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As I noted, I think this should be presented separately due to its significance. It is not just part of the description of what he did, but what he planed and practised. It goes beyond what happened and shows motivation. - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That motivation is unmistakably evident in the succinct text, "a manoeuvre he had practised".

I have a suggestion: As the two of you are apparently unaware, we have two separate discussions here: 1) Adding new information into the article but into its own paragraph and insisting on including the date it was revealed to the world, and 2) the release of the new preliminary report by the BEA. No, these are not the same thing. No, the edit you have both argued to keep made no mention of the report. Why not move on from discussion number 1, and focus on discussion number 2? Let's leave this discussion number 1 alone. You both may be right that discussion number 2 deserves its own section elsewhere in the article. Prhartcom (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm "apparently unaware". wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Err... this new tidbit comes from the preliminary report (p. 23). Alakzi (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct. And the fact that the report was released is not in the article. That is a separate fact than one item that was in the report, which we have been discussing here. Prhartcom (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

My original point was that the two issues are linked. I could possibly be persuaded that if this was the only significant finding in the interim report that it should just be incorporated into the existing text. If not then a separate paragraph would certainly be justified. For now I've amended the article to include a separate paragraph linking the publication of the interim report and this new information, which would be my preference. Mattojgb (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. And that may have been your original point, but no one ever stated it. I had to be the one to point out that no one had inserted the fact that the report had been released. You subsequently added this fact to the article, in a new paragraph, but I agree it looks fine. When this new paragraph mentions the only significant fact that the report reveals, it does not do so redundantly; it does not repeat the phrase about 100 feet, which is good. It does mention the date, but that is fine also, as I have added "a month later" to give such a date context for our readers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think what we saw today was: People were whining, but were failing to clearly state what they were objecting to, and were failing to objectively realise what their edit was clearly missing. But it seems to be somewhat resolved now. Prhartcom (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that's what we saw. Thanks for the revealing explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Lubitz is NOT "practiced" suicide maneuver...If there was such evidence, they suggest only that this person has tried to commit suicide earlier but he did not have the courage to do it. There is no need to practice this maneuver because it is much more elementary from "landing maneuver" and each pilot can perform it without any effort. These investigators are exclusive nonprofessionals and against them was lodged complaint in EU Commission under reference number CHAP(2015)01014. Do not write anything rash in the wiki like "practiced" because it will soon become "tried".Enchev EG (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree we're speculating on his motives a bit - although this is what is being reported.Mattojgb (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, it's the media spin on it. The report concludes, "several altitude selections towards 100 ft were recorded during descent on the flight that preceded the accident flight, while the co-pilot was alone in the cockpit." If they were certain about the purpose of these, they would have said. Alakzi (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

UNPRODUCTIVE SUICIDE ATTEMPTS or why the word "PRACTISED" is not the case of Lubitz's earlier actions. Very often people who intend to commit suicide have had many interrupted attempts to do it when "suicidal impulse" is not strong enough to overcome "natural fear" and "resistance of rational thought". For example, people trying to commit suicide with a gun often put the weapon to their head and then they interrupt this action moments before they pull the trigger. Viewed from the side, those unsuccessful suicide attempts are like theatrical act but this is just an illusion because every such attempt has the potential to end tragically. In the case of Lubitz - in the situation in which he intended to carry out his suicide there are several circumstances that limit his freedom of choice to interrupt the suicidal attempt - such as "returning of the Captain" or "what you are doing in the cabin?!". These circumstances can force his unproductive suicide attempts to became productive one in any moment and he knows that after them he will have no choice to turn back. For this reason it is "normal" he to do first timid attempts - which were unsuccessful in the first flight "Duesseldorf to Barcelona" because time is not limited. On his return back "Barcelona to Duesseldorf" the end destination is forcing him. As I said he has not "PRACTISED" but was "TRYING" to commit suicide or in other words - he had unproductive suicide attempt. This information speaks only that the decision of Lubitz to commit suicide is not impulsive one, but pre-planned - i.e. - that he even before the flights (Duesseldorf-Barcelona and Barcelona-Duesseldorf) has decided that he will not return to Duesseldorf alive. To tell that this unproductive suicide attempt in the flight "Duesseldorf to Barcelona" is something like "general rehearsal" for Lubitz - is so absurd that I just do not understand how anyone would say that. There is no more simple thing to break this plane for one pilot, and he is realy don't need from "testing" his actions in advance.Enchev EG (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Did he lock the door first time round? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

May be not. As I said, he was afraid that is not yet ready for do it, and locking the door would put him in an awkward situation if the captain is back and tried to enter. So first he is rotating knob on the autopilot to start descent and when plane is gettin noticeable reaction for him he put knob for increase altitude trying to compensate this "descent". "Now (knob to 100 ft) - no, no, I can't do it(knob to 49000ft, next to normal flight altitude)!". http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/82793000/png/_82793411_german_wings_altitude_624_v2.png Every suicide goes through this phase of uncertainty. After last actions to commit suicide, when suicide person taken a final decision - comes next phase "Mental Stupor" whose characteristics resemble the deep depression. He became just passenger of his destiny and do not try to do nothing to stop what comes. Probably in this phase he locked the door, next flight (when everything has already been decided). I also do not understand why everyone is wondering how he breathe "calmly". This is typical behavior of a man who has surrendered. Such "mental stupor" and "piece" you can see it on people's faces when ISIS execute them. It is an extreme form of reconciliation before death. Enchev EG (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for my rhetorical question. I think maybe we are straying way beyond the available evidence here? A WP:RS, quoting some kind of "expert", discussing such things, might be approriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)