Talk:SilkAir Flight 185

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SilkAir Flight 185 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Aviation: Accidents Start‑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

Start

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Disaster management Start‑class Low‑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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Singapore Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore 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.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Indonesia Start‑class Low‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death C‑class Mid‑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.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 19, 2012.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Fatalities

104 fatalities -- but only 3 families??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ° (talk • contribs) 21:44, August 21, 2006 (UTC)

Cause/summary

In the infobox, there are three possible causes listed: "pilot suicide" (found by the US NTSB); "inconclusive evidence to determine cause" (found by the Indonesia (NTSC); and "rudder malfunction" (found in a Los Angeles Superior Court civil trial).

An IP editor is changing this to just "pilot suicide"; first with no explanation; then with the summary "Overwhelming evidence was found in the way of pilot suicide."; and a third time with "Overwhelming evidence".

Although I certainly believe it's pilot suicide, the fact is, there were three different conflicting findings, and it's WP:OR for us to come to our own conclusion when three different documented conclusions have been delivered by government proceedings.

After the second revert, I requested the editor bring it to the talk page ("take to talk per WP:BRD; the fact is, there were three different conclusions by three different government entities; that enough is worth retaining"]]). He hasn't done so, and has reverted again (User:Acroterion reverted him this time); so I'm starting the discussion.

My position is that all three explanations should stay, and it's up to the reader to determine the weight to give each. To the extent that any particular finding has been criticized, that should be in the text.

I will point out that I did remove the text "Exact cause unknown". I think listing the three findings pretty much says that, and it doesn't add anything. TJRC (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected the article to make the IP discuss it here if they've got an actual rationale. Acroterion (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

California court: "not allowed to hear or consider the NTSB's conclusions about the accident"?

Is there any support for the statement that the jury in the civil trial was not permitted to hear as evidence the NTSB report, or the Parker Hannifan findings?

The article states " a civil lawsuit tried by jury in a California state court in Los Angeles, which was not allowed to hear or consider the NTSB's and Parker Hannifin's conclusions..."; and "a Los Angeles Superior Court jury in the United States, which was not allowed to hear or consider the NTSB's conclusions about the accident..."

The first statement's reference is a TV show, Mayday (Canadian TV series). That's a valid source, but it's pretty close to impossible to verify.

The second statement's reference is a Straits Times article with no link to the article.

The only other source related to the civil trial is a post from the OverLawyered blog, which is likely not a WP:RS anyway, but in any event does not mention any exclusion of evidence. ("overlawyered" is typoed as "oulawyered"; I'll fix that.) TJRC (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know to what extent US law is the same as UK law, but if the NTSB published its findings while the L.A. court was hearing the civil suit then the NTSB findings would come under sub judice and be inadmissible, as a result the jury would be prevented from hearing the NTSB result.