Talk:2013 Luxor hot air balloon crash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Helium tube?[edit]

This has got to be a bad translation, no? What would a "helium tube" be doing on a hot air balloon, in the first place, and how would a helium tube cause a fire to start. At least no source I can find says "puncture", so I can fix that. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right. Helium is an inert gas used for children's party balloons - it's lighter than air and obviously completely safe. A hot air balloon uses propane to heat the air. It is highly inflammable. There must be some way to put that obvious fact into the article. ProfDEH (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears that the problem has been solved. The BBC article no longer makes any mention of helium, and the article has been updated to reflect that. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Is there a good reason to keep the table? I see it as needless clutter, redundantly repeating the same information that is just beside it. I am looking for an actual reason, not a statement that another article also has this. Thanks, --John (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly complements the text. The following articles also use these similar tables (name only a few): Costa Concordia disaster, In Amenas hostage crisis, 2009 Air France missing flight, Pan Am Flight 103, Iran Air Flight 655, 2004 Sinai bombings, Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
It repeats the text exactly. I did say I was not interested in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Is there any actual reason to keep this? --John (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I repeat: it complements the text. If someone is interested in the distribution of the nationality among the victims, he/she can easily have access to the information by this table. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not interested in this case. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Repeating an incorrect datum does not make it correct. It does not complement the text, it duplicates it. I am glad we agree that other articles are not especially relevant to this discussion. I am still waiting to hear a valid argument for keeping it. Let's say another 24 hours? It isn't a BLP or anything but it looks a bit silly and adds nothing but clutter. --John (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
My above arguments are valid. What you're saying is incorrect, on this basis, the infoboxes and succession boxes also duplicate the informations within the article text. This table makes easier to the readers to gather information about this incident. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it seems we disagree. Unless there is a strong consensus that it adds to the article, the protocol would be to remove it. Incidentally, information is an uncountable noun in English. --John (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
What protocol? Nonsense. You did not respond substantially to my arguments. Sorry for my grammar, I don't speak English fluently. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry, but seeing that it is completely redundant to the text, and that no cogent arguments had been advanced to keep it, I took it out again. --John (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't care if the table is there or not, but saying it adds visual interest is a valid argument. Whether it is a sufficient argument or not is up to debate... More importantly, there certainly is no "protocol" demanding its removal. You (John) have arbitrarily decided your argument is more valid and enforced your will. As I'm sure you realize, that isn't how things work here. The implied consensus is for the table to exist (multiple editors have added it, while only you have removed it.) If you feel strongly that it should not exist, I suggest seeking a third opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason to keep it? Visual interest wouldn't suffice. As an encyclopedia we deal with information, and this merely repeats the information we already have. The onus is on anyone wishing to keep it to supply an actual argument to keep it. "Other articles have something which looks similar" or "I like the way it looks" aren't arguments. --John (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It isn't up to you to single-handedly decide whether visual interest in a sufficient reason. That is up to the consensus of page editors. Saying "its redundant" is not an inherently more valid argument than "it makes information easier to find". Almost all visual information is redundant to some degree; that doesn't make it worthless. Right now, only two opinions have been offered: one for and one against. In the absence of an actual consensus, the default position is the status quo. Like I said, seek a third opinion or let it go. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It's up to the larger Wikipedia community who agree MoS guidelines like WP:ICONDECORATION, which this table currently breaches. If it adds no information, it doesn't belong; that's common sense. If you have no opinion, why are you even commenting here? --John (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Ha! I've just reread MOS:TABLES; "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain.". --John (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I am commenting because you are acting inappropriately. Prose is preferable to tables, but redundancy is acceptable (and common) because tables often DO present information in a format that is more convenient to readers. Norden's argument is not invalid just because you say it is. The fact that you refuse to get consensus and instead want to force your desired outcome is very disturbing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, a table is not an icon so I have no idea why you referred to that guideline. As far as MOS:TABLES goes, "Tables might be used for presenting mathematical data such as multiplication tables, comparative figures, or sporting results." The table in question is used to present comparative figures, so clearly the matter is up to interpretation/editorial judgment, which means the local consensus decides whether it should be included or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
So basically, you aren't able to explain what it adds, but you want to keep it anyway? --John (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw the "Area of residence" - The problem is that the Hungarian lived in England, and the RSes go by citizenship. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

1000 feet?[edit]

Every description of the crash says the ballon rose to 1000 feet/300m before plunging to the ground. The video of the crash clearly shows it took no more than eight seconds between the collapse of the envelope and impact, and only about four seconds from the point where the top of the envelope passed the initial height of the basket. From the images the fall appears to be some three-four times the height of the balloon. Allowing for the drag of teh envelope slowing the fall, this suggests fall of nearer to 400 feet. The Yowser (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources? --John (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


I just did a quick crop and brightness/contrast adjust. If it needs better work then the graphics lab at commons may be able to help. Are all ok with it for now?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

How can one tell that SU-283 is in the picture? Neither in the image itself nor in the description I can find any reference for this claim. Am I missing something? The image previously used also claimed to depict the balloon involved in the accident, again without a proof. I would like to note that that image was alot nicer than the current one, and if it cannot be proven that SU-283 is in any picture, that one should be used as a general visualization of "hot air balloons at Luxor". --FoxyOrange (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
All the balloons are registered and we went by this image that clearly shows the registration number. I emailed the photographer of this one and he confirmed that SU-283 is the one that we have an image of at commons. Alas that he won't allow use of his photo because he is a commercial photograher in the area and it would lose value if he uploaded it. There aren't many of those balloons in the area and this is the only one with that colour pattern. commons:Category:Hot air balloons of Egypt has a few of the others in categories.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Crash location wrong?[edit]

Someone wrote "As an encyclopedia we deal with information, and this merely repeats the information we already have." I am concerned that Associated Press have quoted that the balloon landed in a sugar cane field near the village of "Al Dhabaa." I cannot find mention ANYWHERE on the internet of such a village, or on Google Maps of the south-western part of Luxor. The place just-does-not-exist, apart from in all of the articles copied from the original and incorrect AP article, which is being quoted and requoted verbatim, as in here. I've tried to pinpoint the crash zone based on the usual flights, and Ad Dabiyyah is most likely the phantom Al Dhabaa, but not a small village as has been quoted. Or there's El Dabiya which IS a small village, but it's on the Eastern side of the Nile - too far for a balloon to travel in 2 minutes. My point is, if we can't provide the correct and accurate information, what's the point of citing incorrect sources, just because they're Associated Press? Like AP have never got anything wrong. Would've been far better to cite the crash site as South-West of Luxor, rather than giving misleading information out. I, for one, would one day like to visit the site and pay my respects, but it's impossible when inaccuracies like this are left on the web. NicM99 (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC) NickM99

See WP:OR - it is not Wikipedia's job to do original research, but rather we only report the facts as determined by others. As for the correct village name, it is quite common for towns whose real name is in Arabic to have multiple (very different) English renderings, so it is quite possible the AP report is not wrong at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so if we're supposed to merely support the facts, then here's some we should be quoting: 1. The crash took place in the vicinity of the Al Moudira Hotel ( as quoted by the blog of a British Expatriate living there, who witnessed the crash. 1a. ... which places the crash between the villages of Nagaa El Zanaty and Nagaa Arab Al Ababdah 2. Location of crash: 3. Taken from: 4. Map of the crash site from The Guardian:,32.617035&spn=0.108264,0.157928&z=12&source=embed 5. Taken from: Or are you going to tell me the statement of a witness, and a map of the crash from two respected publications don't count against a vague, mysterious location quoted by AP? NicM99 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC) NicM99

I have removed the village name from the article, as per your suggestion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks ThaddeusB. It would've been nice to quote the name of the actual village, but no one's pinpointed it with any accuracy, and no other article has corroborated AP. At least this way we're not misleading readers. NicM99 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC) NicM99
The final accident report may state which village(s) it was/they were. The Turkish Airlines Flight 981 report identifies the exact French communes where the bulk of the plane, and the ejected passengers, went. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)