Talk:BCPA Flight 304
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BCPA Flight 304 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Aviation / Aviation accidents||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject United States||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Deletions re Kapell and death of passengers
- 3 Copypedia
- 4 Civil Aeronautics Board Accident Investigation Report
- 5 UNBELIEVABLE RED TAPE
- 6 HEADS UP RUTHS9396
- 7 NOT OPINIONS
- 8 VERIFICATION OF CO-ORDINATES
- 9 HERE WE GO AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- 10 YOU GOT ME...AGAIN !!
- 11 NO FURTHER COMMENT...at this time !!
- 12 LATEST NEWS
Shouldn't this article have an infobox on the right that is used for all airline incidents and accidents? Paris456 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Added an infobox, not yet complete. Someone should complete it. Paris456 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Resolution Man, please adhere to the advice on the page on Wikipedia:Verifiability viz all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. If you do not have a reliable, published source, please do not include the information on this page. Thank you.Ruths9396 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Resolution Man, the source that you quote is not a "reliable, published source". I am not doubting that you personally are acting in good faith, but the advice on Verifiability is there for very good reasons and it is not being followed. I have deleted the information because it is hearsay evidence and therefore not admissible. Ruths9396 (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Deletions re Kapell and death of passengers
I recently interviewed, in person, the BCPA Station Manager on duty the day of the crash of RESOLUTION and he stated .........
Resolution Man: these "facts" are not verifiable in accordance with Wikipedia's policy which reads:
"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
In fact, most of your contributions to this article are unverified, but I particuarly object to the inclusion of material naming one particular individual.
I have deleted the addition and also the statement that you quote above.
As this dispute appears unresolved between us, I would suggest that the matter is refered to Wikipedia dispute resolution, in the first instance, Third Opinion. Ruths9396 (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
MY FACTS CAN BE VERIFIED WITH LIVING INDIVIDUALS.
To verify my facts, join me on a hike to the impact point of "RESOLUTION" on October 29th. This is for a pilgrimage of one of the sons of a dead passenger and he will verify IN PERSON all that I have claimed ! WILL YOU COME ON THE HIKE ???? And William Kapell info. is verifiable with the station manager...do you want his address in New Zealand ? Besides, why are you disputing my claims, RUTH9396 ? What connection do you have with RESOLUTION ????? I have spent five (5) full years on a project revolving around VH-BPE and have appeared twice on TV touting these facts to Bay Area watchers. Whatever it takes, let us get this completed...your way is fine...what do I have to do to have my research included..??? For what reason would I have to create false info. for this historic article? It is not right that you continue to delete my contributions ! Talk with me directly by way of "firstname.lastname@example.org"Resolution Man (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolution Man (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the information from the main article and am refering this matter to dispute resolution. You may, of course, include this information on your own website if you think that it is historical important. I am certainly not implying that you are acting in anything other than good faith. However, unless you are able to refer to a reliable, published source using an inline citation, this material is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC) 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Apologies, should have signed - have now posted conflict with Third opinion.Ruths9396 (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
G'day, im responding to the request for a third opinion. This article is currently what we call "unsourced". There are a mix of reliable and authoritative sources at the bottom of the article, but there is no direct link between each sentence and the source that can be used to confirm it. We need to create those links. Where a sentence doesnt have a source, it is usually removed, or we "tag" the sentence as missing a citation. If I understand this situation correctly, Resolution Man should be able to help us find additional sources as required. If there are no "reliable sources" at all, then the information doesnt belong on Wikipedia. i.e. the information must first be published in a traditional media channel before it can appear on Wikipedia - first hand knowledge isnt acceptable. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
With regards to those finding their eyewitness accounts are rejected by the Wikipedia community, I have found the same problem previously. You must be quoting from already published sources only, anything else is regarded as original research. The plus of this is that it makes it easy for Wikipedia to ensure the information here is reasonably reliable. The minus is that it is impossible to add any new insights or information to a topic. I guess Wikipedia sticks with this policy as authenticating original research is a fairly uphill task. If you search the Wikipedia information sections you will find references to other Wikipedia like sites that do accept original research. However, in order to be reputable, they impose conditions regarding review of your material. This is normal in the academic world.
Civil Aeronautics Board Accident Investigation Report
I have started a transcription project for the accident investigation report. s:Index:BCPA Flight 304 accident investigation report.djvu. It is over on a sister project, wikisource, so you will need to create an account there. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, John, and your advice on what is required. I have started proofing the investigation report over on Wikisource (I did page 2) - I wasn't sure how the category then changed to "proofed"?? Ruths9396 (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. On wikisource, there is a yellow button near the save button which permits the contributor to mark a page as proofread, or "verified" as the second pass. I have roughly verified a few, and constructed a unified text: s:BCPA Flight 304 accident investigation report which can now be used as an authoritative source.
I have now proofed read page 3 and marked it as such. I have also gone back to page 2 and inserted the missing words from the bottom of the page so that it now runs on correctly into page 3. Hope this is helpful. Ruths9396 (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- On this Wikipedia page, I have marked two sentences as being sourced to the investigation. Keep adding "<ref name="cab"/>" to the end of any sentence which comes from this source. We will then be left sentences which are based on some other source. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
UNBELIEVABLE RED TAPE
I can't be bothered anymore with this banter. I am an expert on this crash and if you don't take my word for what I KNOW to be factual contributions, then I don't have time to waste convincing "doubting Thomas' " I am not angry anymore...just tired of this tech. talk ! CASE CLOSED !Resolution Man (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolution Man (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a case of doubting Thomas - Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Dont worry with the tech talk; that will soon pass once we have touched up the technical aspects of the article. Then we will be begging for domain knowledge to assist us. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the page and external links so that it now relates more closely to the accident investigation report which is the basic evidence for the article. Then information from any other verifiable sources can be added.Ruths9396 (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
FACTUAL INFORMATION re Forensic investigation :
See newly released "Images of America" series : KINGS MOUNTAIN by Stacy Trevenon, Page 78 !Arcadia Publishing @ www.arcadiapublishing.com...........ISBN-13978-0-7385-5829-5..and...ISBN-100-7385-5829-XResolution Man (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolution Man (talk • contribs) 04:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify that the ISBN for the book by Stacy Trevenon is 073855829X. I will edit the entry in the main page to reference this book in Wikipedia style. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I have also slightly amended the last part of the article about El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve so that it now it referenced rather than having an external link. I think this ties in better with the text. I have also removed some personal opinions about the lack of a memorial to the victims - not that I disagree with the sentiment expressed, but on the basis that it is not factual.Ruths9396 (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Rmoved external links. As stated in the external links topic: "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable." In particular, personal websites should not be linked. It is open to any reader to use a search engine to find additional websites.Ruths9396 (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree! The external links provide access to numerous details not found on this webpage, not personal in nature, and are totally justifiable for inclusion. I do agree with the earlier culling of the links, but think the three remaining are kosher. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not entirely convinced about these links. However, the point is not entirely without doubt and if others think that they are valuable, I would be content for them to remain.Ruths9396 (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
HEADS UP RUTHS9396
Why are you sabotaging this site about Flight 304 ?? What is your connection with this crash ?? If you have none ,then lay off the deletes. You don't know what you are talking about and you admit "there is no basis to the fact that there is no plaque " at the impact point...HEYYY !!! Go there and you will see that there is NO marker !!FACT !!!! I do NOT understand why you remove factual, interesting, historic contributions !! The son of one of the dead passengers is coming to make a pilgrimage to the site and I ask you to stop removing true information...he would be sad that you "bash" this site !Resolution Man (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- R-Man, Ruths9396's edits are not sabotage, just a difference in opinion. The idea of Wikipedia is a nuetral point of view (NPOV), to whch Ruth is ascribing to. However, your posts demostrate a clear agenda. Please refrain from calling the kettle black, Mr. Pot.
- And one more thing, Wikipedia is NOT a place for original research. If you want to post your research to another website (your own perhaps), and then link/reference that here, that's cool by Wiki standards. But the posting of original research without external sourcing is frowned on. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
My aim in contributing to this site is to provide a factual article within the Wikipedia principles. This crash is not the personal property of anyone nor is Wikipedia the place to publish personal opinions or promote causes such as the placing of memorial plaques. Will there any press coverage of the visit which could be referenced to this site? Ruths9396 (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not toss off 'opinions'....I post facts. No other person here, commenting, has a connection to RESOLUTION...so why would you even question what I contribute ?? You folk seem bent on spoiling readers interest ! I cannot fathom your motives ! I mean that !! I cannot understand why you would foil me at every turn....but I will say you have worn me down ! It is hardly worth my time anymore...and for those to whom I could have imparted "loads of info" on this crash, forgive me...I am tired....very tired !Resolution Man (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
VERIFICATION OF CO-ORDINATES
Do not remove this info. RUTHS : Call the FAA at SFO airport. These figures were released by rep. from that location. It is also a Geo-Cache position...use your Garmin, Ruths.Resolution Man (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolution Man (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- ResolutionMan, pleas read up on proper formating of posts on Wikipedia before your further use. Ruths9396, I can vertify the crash site coords as I have been been there as well in the last month or so. The placement of the geocache does not warrant placement on this webpage as it has nothing to do with the actual event. Post it on geocaching.com, not Wikipedia. Check-Six (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
HERE WE GO AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why do you two CONTINUE to spoil my posts of interesting information ?? Have you some reason I do not know about that you CONTINUE this vandalism ?? This site is intersting to those interested...why hold back info. that NEITHER of YOU really care about ??? And a geocache has "nothing" to do with the crash...??? Get off it, this is WHERE it happened...reason enough to post the info. Where can I report your deleting ???....bet you won't give me THAT info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolution Man (talk • contribs) 21:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
ResolutionMan - Please do some research as to what Wikipedia IS and IS NOT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not). Just because something is interesting does not make it an item for Wikipedia to have posted. Now, if you truly have a problem with what Ruths9396 and I have been editing in and out of the article, you can direct your comments to any administrator on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators). I strongly encourage working within this structure. Now, as an aside, I too am an expert of this mishap, have visited and documented the site, and have shared its story with the world as well. My edits are NOT vandalism, although I can see how you would precieve it as such. Check-Six (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
YOU GOT ME...AGAIN !!
Every time I think that readers would like a post from me, you "folk" delete and then tell me some complicated section to go to to complain...'tis true after all : Ya can't beat 'city hall'! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolution Man (talk • contribs) 00:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a "gotcha" game - this is a simple system that you, good sir, seem unwilling to learn about, and thus your edits are modified. If you'll note, my latest edits to the article retain your coordinates - but converted them into the standard format and placement used on Wikipedia. The geocache mention was eliminated because it is not encyclopedic. You post to Wikipedia, having no idea what it is about and how it operates, and then scream "Victim!" when those who do attempt to clean your edits and teach you how to use and post properly. Wikipedia is by no means complicated to the literate and open-minded set, and I fail to see why you are so narrow-minded and myoptic.
- Now, instead of knocking the system, why don't you work from within, read a little more about Wikipedia, and contribute. I have been to your website, seen you on TV, and know you have a lot to add to this article. All I ask is that you use the right format, and add items of valid, cite-able, encyclopedic use, not undocumented trivia. Is that argeeable? Check-Six (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
NO FURTHER COMMENT...at this time !!
...."not undocumented trivia" :):)....Not from me....I am the source, so nothing has been written down before this so I am the origin of the info. Chicken or the egg....it has to begin somewhere !! Enjoy the holidays, lads ! (talk • contribs)
- Which Wikipedia expressly forbades - as previously discussed. Check-Six (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a gentle reminder that posts should be signed by typing four tildes at the end of the comment so that we can see who is making the comment and when it was made. Thanks. Ruths9396 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just granted permission to place an official plaque to the passengers and crew "on the mountain" and it will be erected within six months of this date! A great Christmas present for me and all those who have helped me reach my goal !Resolution Man (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Congrats - but please refrain from redacting the 'discussion' page. They are a matter of record for Wikipedia sake. Check-Six (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
In June of 2010, Phil Watt, grandson of passenger Cyril McDonald, sought out the impact point of RESOLUTION during his return to Australia after a pilgrimage to the "killing fields" of WW1 Australian troops in Europe and the beaches of Turkey ! Emerging from the canyon on Resolution Trail, he "stumbled" upon the plaque to VH-BPE and placed a small Australian flag at the base of the monument, a nod of rememberance to his relative and the others killed aboard the airliner in October 1953. As of 7/14/'10 that flag still flew, as I saw it on a hike to said memorial. I placed a smaller USA flag at the same place that day !Resolution Man (talk)16.40 July 17, 2010