Talk:Yeti Airlines Flight 691

A news item involving Yeti Airlines Flight 691 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 January 2023.

Wikipedia

Aviation: Accidents C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Death C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nepal C‑class High‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Flight number

Not sure why suddenly there's been 2 edits on the flight number, one to 671 and one to 677. Gonna cite the following from The Kathmandu Post article on the crash:

"An ATR 72 aircraft of Yeti Airlines with a call sign 9N-ANC that took off for Pokhara from Kathmandu at 10:30am crashed at Nayagaun."

Okay. I don't think there's anyone disagreeing that the plane involved was ANC. The problem is with the flight number.

Based on the source provided by the user who edited the flight number to 677, the flight, which was supposed to be flown by ANC, showed up as Unknown. Clicking on the flight history of ANC, on 15 Jan at 08:05am, ANC departed as flight 671. Not 10:30, so I think we can definitely rule out that. ANC next flew from PKR to KTM as 672 and it landed at 09:18. Direction doesn't match so definitely not 672. The next flight it would fly, according to the flight history page, was flight 691. It was scheduled to depart at 10:32 and arrive at 10:59, but right now it's showing up as cancelled. The next flight on the list, which is 677 (the one the user edited to), was scheduled to depart at 11:25 and arrive at 11:50. Yes, this is the flight that I mentioned earlier showed up as Unknown.

Given that we know the plane departed at around 10:30am, I'm pretty sure the closest flight we have here that matches the timing is the 10:32 Flight 691. SBS6577P (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored YT691 until the matter is resolved. WWGB (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll

Can we please add a reference confirming the death toll as I have seen a couple times it has gone from 68 to 72 to 69 to 72 Dubstar44 (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot open the reference for number of deaths, but both The Guardian and the Sydney Morning Herald both state that there are "at least 68 dead."

Ellis-Petersen, Hannah (2023-01-15). "Nepal plane crash with 72 onboard leaves at least 68 dead". The Guardian. Retrieved 2023-01-16.
Barrett, Chris (2023-01-15). "Nepal plane crash: Australian, foreign nationals, children among dozens killed in Yeti Airlines crash". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2023-01-16.

76.14.122.5 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

The lat/long in the infobox are for the old airport. The reporting is the crash was near runway 12 of new airport. 159.196.168.202 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook livestream

I’m not sure I believe the facebook livestream linked under “external videos”. It seems fake. Is there any confirmation on its legitimacy? Tankpiggy18 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks real to me, at least the initial part prior to the crash. It is the correct aircraft, identifiable by the wings/flaps of the ATR 72-500 and it is the correct city as I can identify several landmarks of Pokhara, in particular the Bhadrakali Temple visible at 0:20 and Pokhara Stadium at 0:37. The specific flight path is consistent with the crash site coordinates too as they appear to have been on a left circuit for runway 30.

If this is the case I question whether this content is too graphic/distressing for Wikipedia, even as an external link. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the policy on this. Forenti ^talk 08:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a bit too much. At the very least, we should provide a warning PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I see The Daily Mail, Times of India, Business Today and quite a number of other sources acknowledging the stream, so I suppose it is recognized as true for now. If it turns out to be fake we can remove it later. SBS6577P (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera used it in their Newsfeed. Maybe, its real. बडा काजी (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Aviation Herald here [1] suggests very very strongly that the videos are not real. The BLP issues here are real people are identifiable on the aircraft in the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maungapohatu (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maungapohatu The video appears to be real [2]. बडा काजी (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose time will tell but that reference does not look particularly Reliable to me. On the other hand we have a reliable aviation journalist saying his investigations say the video is fake. If it is fake this an issue of WP:BLP there are identifiable people in the video that we are saying have died who may not have died. We just don't know. Note I did not remove the video - but it does need some qualification as to its status. Also you deleted my reference again please do not do that. Maungapohatu (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued edits without consensus will lead to being blocked from editing. This is your final warning. 46.183.103.8 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the wording to be more neutral - this should avoid any BLP issues. And please do not delete valid RS sources from the article. Maungapohatu (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ASOF

@WWGB The entire purpose of dating temporal claims with WP:ASOF is that it will not be without qualification in the future. That is precisely why you do qualify it. Presumably you will not come back to this article when the next ATF crashes and update it. Either revert your changes or delete the sentence entirely. 46.183.103.8 (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]