Talk:Cubana de Aviación Flight 972

Are Cubans allowed to fly for Cubana-de-Aviacion?

Only non-Cubans allowed to be on this crew? Is this a racism or colorism issue? The article needs to discuss race issues. CorvetteZ51 (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The plane was leased from Mexico with a Mexican crew. No dramas. WWGB (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct. It was a Mexican owned crew. Not everything on the planet is about race. cbmeeks 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmeeks (talk • contribs)

Clarification

Hi all,

What airline actually owned the aircraft? Do we have any sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamalap (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Mercedes Vazquez, Cuba’s director of air transportation, told Cubadebate, a state-run news outlet, that the flight was operated by a Mexican company called Global Air, which subsequently confirmed that it was the owner. --Bohbye (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The 737 was operated by the state-run airline Cubana de Aviación but it had been leased from a small Mexican charter company called Damojh Aerolíneas (Global Air Mexico) (source). The website of Cubana de Aviación indicates that it operated this flight. Hadron137 (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Registration is confirmed

Matrícula: XA-UHZ --Bohbye (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Death toll

Can someone inline reference the 110 death toll, please. The BBC [1] figures for number aboard are different from those in the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

At present the text above says 5 + 2 + 105 which equals 112. Reports are still inconsistent. -- Beardo (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue seems to be with how many crew there were: reports vary between either 6 or 9. There's little disagreement of 104 passengers. --Masem (t) 14:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Figures have now become clearer, with RS sources reporting 105 passengers, 6 crew and 108 dead. The ITN item on Main page now reflects this. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Granma now has a full list with names & nationalities. Listado de pasajeros de avión accidentado. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

More info here. Granma says 113 people (58 women and 55 men). Six Mexican crew and 107 pax: 102 Cubans, three foreign tourists (2 ar & 1 mx) and two temporary foreign residents -- the Western Saharans -- which it then describes as se presume fuesen estudiantes: presumably students. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Al Jazeera reports five children: [2] and The Washington Post says one of these was under two years: [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

DMJ 0972

Many news media outlets and some of the references cited in the article refer to the flight as "DMJ 0972", not CU972, ie, Global Air's ICAO designator. So I've clarified this in the article and also created a redirect from DMJ 0972 to here.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

All depends on who was legally operating the aircraft (and picking up the air traffic bills), if it was a dry-lease then it should be CUB472, if it was a wet-leased it may have operated as DMJ792 but being marketed by Cubana as CUB972. We may have to wait to see what they were actually using as a callsign. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

What's the difference between 737-200 and 737-201?

I searched "737-201" and majority of the results are about this very accident. I didn't find much info about 201 variants on Boeing 737 either.

Any clue? Thanks.--fireattack (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The "01" is a customer code for Piedemont the first owner. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So no technical difference there. What about "Advanced" bit? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really that important after a certain line number all the 200s were "Advanced", it was to do with improvements to the wings to get a better performance. Older 200s could also get the modification. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying that, MilborneOne. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Aviation Safety Network report on Cubana 972

E-mailed Aviation Safety Network today. The current # of people on board was 104 pax + 1 infant + 6 crew reported by Cuban media, with 3 survivors, which means 108 perished. Go to the Aviation Safety Network report about this incident for verification. Info has been a little conflicting. Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

They are not necessarily the best source. Bohbye (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that ties in with current article content. A better source might be found for the infant, if that is deemed a notable detail. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like 110 is the final fatality count. Aviation Safety Network updated data from yesterday to today to 110. I know ASN is not the best source, but they are reliable and accurate in their data. Cuban media also says 110 along with other sources. Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8500:949C:92F:9B9C:48F8:D168 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Flags

Flags on the death list - yes or no? WWGB (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• No it’s not a World Cup tournament - Edit - per MOS:FLAG, and to the fact older ones have it, it's time to remove them as well. --Bohbye (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Instinctively, I'd say not (tacky). But -- as pointed out in the edit summary -- a lot of aviation accident articles have them. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• yes I've seen this used widely in other Wikipedia lists. Hadron137 (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Hadron137 (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

But what is your opinion? Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it's got to be that way. That's the whole point of a discussion! Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, for a couple of reasons. First, several articles about aviation accidents include the flags on the death list (Air India Flight 182, American Airlines Flight 587, Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Pan Am Flight 103, American Airlines Flight 191, Korean Air Flight 801, China Airlines Flight 611, and Metrojet Flight 9268, to name a few), showing an already established and respected pattern in previous similar articles where the issue of the flags was not an issue at all. I fail to see a good reason to deviate from said practice. Second, Bohbye says that this it’s not a World Cup tournament. I have problems understanding the relevance of that expression in this case, but I assume it has something to do with the fact that this is not a happy article about a sane competition between nations but a rather grim article about a disaster, and nobody wants to "compete" to get a higher number of deaths. Despite that, this is an online encyclopedia, and one of the objectives of any encyclopedia is for the people to learn. Visual depictions, such as flags, enable many people to learn more effectively. Instead of presenting a text-only template, by adding flags the reading of the article becomes easier for the user, and in no way diminishes the seriousness or quality of the information presented. Felviper (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• No per MOS:FLAG. These people were not "representing" their countries when they died. --Masem (t) 07:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I strongly consider that you are misunderstanding what MOS:FLAG says. Let's look at it: Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. The table we are discussing here has as its central purpose to portray the nationalities of the victims, if it weren't for the need to portray said information, the table wouldn't even be necessary. As such, it is relevant to include the flags in the table. Also, central to this discussion, I want to point out the very worrisome attitudes taken by some users. First, the flags in the article were eliminated by User:Rodney Baggins without considering the present discussion. I'm assuming he had no idea about it, so I see no problem in that action. However, some users that had taken part in this discussion made edits and noticed the changes in the table, and they decided to ignore the changes and carry-on despite the current discussion, or even worse, they decided to go to similar articles about aviation accidents to change the data about tables and flags, a very serious issue given that one of the reasons stated in this discussion to keep the flags is the established common practice of including them in similar articles (I consider this to be WP:DE, as the edits are being made in order to erode the points here presented). I am reverting the changes made to the articles and return to how things were when this discussion started. Feel free to apply any changes once an agreement is reached.Felviper (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm well aware of MOS:FLAG, and have been involved in discussions with it before. Flags should not be used for decorative use, which is just to happen to illustration nationality when the people are not officially representating that nationality (as it would be in the case of international sports). And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep anything. I would argue those articles are in violation of MOS:FLAG. --Masem (t) 04:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

→ I whole-heartedly agree with this point – Flags should not be used for decorative use and the victims were not representing their country when they died, they were just innocents who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, God rest their souls. Quite frankly, putting their flags up on parade makes a mockery of what is supposed to be a sombre subject. Or is it meant to be some sort of bizarre salute to the dead!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Out of curiosity, shall we add an injured 🤕 emoji for an injury column, a skull ☠️ emoji for the deaths, a pilot 👨‍✈️ emoji for the crew? Also we should add a Boeing logo next to the 737-200 text? A takeoff 🛫 emoji next to the word takeoff? A airplane ✈️ and explosion 💥 emojis in the top of the infobox? All of them “help” to illustrate the article what it is about, isn’t it? The flags are equally as useless as those emojis. Bohbye (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Nationality 🏳️🗺️	Passengers 👨‍👩‍👧‍👦💼	Crew 👨‍✈️✈️	Fatalities ☠️💥	Total 😲
Cuba	102	0	99	102
Mexico	1	6	7	7
Argentina	2	0	2	2
Spain/Western Sahara	1	0	1	1
Western Sahara	1	0	1	1
Total	107	6	110	113

Just an illustration --Bohbye (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• No I don't think it's appropriate or necessary to put the flags in the list of victims, simply because I don't really think that it adds anything when the nationalities are perfectly plain to see in text form as it is. In fact, I sort of think it looks a bit gruesome/disrespectful with flags. WP:FLAGCRUFT says something about not wanting to display nationalistic pride, and that makes me think that in some bizarre way maybe it looks as if we're celebrating the nationalities of the dead by including their flags. There are some other articles that don't include flags in the victims list, MH370 being one notable example. The main thing is we just need to be consistent whatever is decided. BTW Apologies for my earlier edit to the article – I really had no idea this discussion was ongoing! Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: The reasons given for removing the flags that I've seen are WP:FLAGCRUFT and WP:INFOBOXFLAG. My reading of those guidelines is that with certain topics, people for instance, the use of flags can be problematic. The idea behind that is that the placing of a flag next to a persons name or their picture can have the effect of focusing on the nationality aspect of that person in a way that may be overtly promotional of their nationality. If, for example, an editor wished to place a flag in the infobox of an article whose subject is a person, this would generally not be allowed. The reasoning behind this would be that the placing of a flag could be seen as unnecessarily wrapping the subject in the context and viewpoint of nationalism, which I agree can be problematic. That, IMHO is the purpose of WP:FLAGCRUFT, which states "Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." (italics are mine). This is also, to a degree, the reasoning behind WP:INFOBOXFLAG, which states "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." The overriding concern of these two guidelines is that flag use not become too distracting. The nationalities table as it is used in these articles is a table, not an infobox. And the something as I italicized it in my quote from WP:FLAGCRUFT is the country itself - not a person. The flag used in the context of these tables is not being associated with any one individual, rather it's associated with a group of nameless individuals, in a manner similar to a listing of country based statistics. This is because in air crashes, the passenger's nationalities are very important to everyone involved in their investigatory aftermaths. In a nationality fatality table, no one nation is being promoted over another. The only relevant aspects in the table beyond the numerical count, are the nations themselves. Those who feel the answer should be "No" but support the use of flags in sporting articles need to explain why an attribute which is approvable when it impacts many people during circumstances of life, such as sporting events — is seemingly not approvable when it impacts many people in circumstances of death, such as accident investigations (i.e., "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason"). The disconnect in that logic has not been explained very well. As far as the Aviation WikiProject is concerned, their guidance states "In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited." .spintendo  20:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Notes

References

The above vote by user:Spintendo was a only as a result of this call by user:Felviper in violation of WP:CANVAS --Bohbye (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• NO: WP:MOSFLAGS says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams." The people who just died in a plane crash are not representing a country and it is clear falgs should not be included. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This argument was already previously presented by User:Masem, and a counter argument to it was presented too. Please, instead of repeating points already stated add new ones, reinforce the existing ones, or respond to the criticism they have received. And, again, do not make changes to the involved information until a decision is reached. Felviper (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding? Everyone can have an opinion and present it the way they feel like. Don’t dictate what others should write. You’re free to have your own and no one needs your instructions what to do. --Bohbye (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"The people who just died in a plane crash are not representing a country" But their country will represent them, during the investigation process which follows all accidents. As I stated earlier, international law dictates that the nationalities of the victims be represented through the investigatory process. In this way, those who die in a crash do so for the advancement of knowledge, in the hope that the lessons learned through the investigatory process filters down through the board that writes the report, and on through to committees that review recommendations for changes to the safetly culture through advisories, requirements, mandated reporting, policy creation and legislation of law. That is what a person who has died in a plane crash does for their fellow citizens. There is no denying that the 335 Americans who died at Tenerife died in order to bestow upon other Americans the benefits of CRM. The 48 Japanese, 44 Turkish, 25 American, 16 French, and 5 Brazilian passengers who died aboard Turkish Airlines flight 981 represented their countries, when recommendations put forth by the investigators went on to influence policy creation is each of those nations: Brazil, with Embreaer, and France and UK with Airbus, all inspired by changes which the United States alone refused to make at that time. Those changes directly affected the citizens of those countries who travel by air. Advances in safety largely come and will continue to come from the instructive hands of death. To say that these groupings of passengers based on nationality are not "representing" their countries individual advancements in knowledge is to be ignorant of the lessons their deaths provide.

On another note, they say that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, so I would like to know how @Bohbye: justifies his editing tribute paid to the Rosemary Bryant Mariner article in the form of flag and insignia-cruft placed by them in the infobox? Did they find it difficult figuring out which part of the military she was a member of without the use of the Navy flag? Would Bohbye like us to place little navy ship icons ⛵ in the article 🏊 tiny ships 🚢 like cruisers and carriers floating on water 🌊, perhaps with tiny semaphore flags 🎌? An icon of a woman flying her own plane 👩 as captain? I mean who knows, it could have been an article about an army lieutenant for all we know, without Bohbye's flags to "clarify" things for us. Such a relief they had the foresight to place that flag in the infobox to clear up the massive confusion left by the words United States Navy. .spintendo  13:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not advocating removal of nationalities; that's clearly an important stat for aviation accidents. But just because the nation's appropriate organization will get involved due to one or more of their citizens getting involved doesn't mean we need a decorative icon to identify the country, as I would suspect most people reading aviation articles will not recognize the flag, per requirement of MOS:FLAG, the country name will be more obvious. --Masem (t) 13:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that for some, flag iconography goes beyond decoration. Items which are purely decorative have no real meaning. Flags on the other hand, while they contain items of decoration such as bright colors and shapes, definately have an imbued meaning which gives them text enhancement capabilities, such that it is much quicker to visually scan a list of words combined with color coded flag icons than it would be to scan a similar list containing only text. Granted, this speed in identification would only come to those with prior knowledge of the flags in question. Suffice it to say, it's likely to be easiest for a reader to find the number of people killed in an air crash who came from their own country first, than it would be to identify those from other countries, as people invariably know their own country's flag the best. This makes the use of flags uniquely beneficial to each and every reader, as it makes the process of gathering information most relevant to them — such as how many people from their own country were involved — the quickest to peruse.  .spintendo  14:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It's five lines'. Ease of searching is not a compelling answer to keep flag icons here. --Masem (t) 14:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad you enjoy following my edits on wiki @Spintendo:. To address specifics, here you go just to name a few: Norman Schwarzkopf Jr., Colin Powell, John Shalikashvili, Peter Pace, Michael Mullen Joseph Dunford, Paul J. Selva and so many more military members have insignia, allegiance and Service/branch flags in the infoboxes. And yes, those people actually represent the service, country, and service branch, unlike people who died in an air disaster who happen to have a passport of a country, their country will not represent them during the investigation process which follows all accidents. The jurisdiction is the country where the crash occurred, and sometimes the country where the aircraft took off from. The other ones are joining based on responsibility connections like the country of the aircraft manufacturer, engine manufacturer etc. the rest are not involved. So no need to make up stuff. Cheers, Bohbye (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, so many things to say. First, Bohbye, I tried to avoid refering to your previous comment about emoticons because it shows a clear attempt to ridicule the use of flags, but you brought it back again. I would like to remind of WP:CIVIL which you are not following with such comments. Probably you are going to argue something along the lines of "I wasn't mocking, putting emoticons is a real proposal", but that's not the case, the purpose of your comment is to imply that the flags are as ridicule as the emoticons (using ones that fall into a clear mocking category such as 😲), when both are completely different as the flags are long established and associated symbols (there is a reason there are templates for them) and emojis are not. I strongly encourage you to answer not based on mocking as it adds nothing to the discussion.
Second, thank you for the completely unnecessary "civility" lesson, but no, I wasn't kidding when I told Andrewgprout, in a polite way, how to comment. The users are free to comment whatever they want, but the idea behind the discussions, and especially one akin to a "voting" such as this one, is to introduce new arguments, to reinforce the existing ones or to provide counter-arguments. Andrewgprout was doing none of it, he was simply repeating arguments already expressed by other users. If somebody comes here right now and states "Keep the flags, because other similar articles have them", you can be sure I'll be the first one to tell them the same as I said to Andrewgprout, as that argument has been presented before, adding nothing to the discussion. Funny enough you said nothing like you said to me to Rodney Baggins when he made a similar comment to the post of Hadron137, probably because it helped your argument and you decided just to turn a blind eye to it.
Third, regarding your last answer, the specifics of who participates in the investigation of an air crash are defined by the Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. Although it is truth that the investigation usually falls into the jurisdiction of the state of ocurrence, it is false that states who only had citizens on board do not have the right to participate on it, as the Annex establishes they can be part of it, something that has happened in several investigations. Also, besides the reasons exposed by Spintendo, for compensation and legal purposes, it is vital to know the nationalities of those involved in the crash.
Fourth, Rodney Baggins says that the with the flags the article "looks a bit gruesome/disrespectful." Although it is an important point, it is a subjective one. Whether it is pleasant for those involved or not, the mission of the encyclopedia is to provide the information as it is. I think that the images in the My Lai Massacre are gruesome, but I understand that they add to the article as the flags do in this case.
Fifth, many of my opinions regarding of the use of flags are the same as those presented by Spintendo, so I won't be repeating them again, however there is one which I consider so important that I have to repeat: Yes, victims were not representing their country at the time of the crash, but they will be represented by their countries once the investigation (with all that it implies) starts, and as such the importance of their nationalities is crucial. The flags here are not purely decorative, they provide information about the association between the victims and the action the governments will take regarding the implementation of safety measures or legal decisions. Felviper (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Felviper: Unfortunately the more you write the more people tend not to read it. Can you please try to write in a concise sentence why flags add something other than decoration to the death table - WP:MOSFLAG is clear on the point that flags should only be used when a person is representing a country - your reply must cover this because it hasn't so far at least not where I can find. Your replies are far from colegial - your attack on my first reply was uncalled for and simply looks like you are wanting to shut down people who do not happen to agree with you which is an unfortunate thing to portray. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: I'm sorry if you felt attacked regarding my answer to your post. My intention was to avoid a repetition of the same arguments over and over, given that what you stated was already said before by Masem, and to focus on keeping the discussion from stagnation over the same issues. Again, I'm sorry if my answer was interpreted as trying to shut down somebody, it was not.
Now, I find very unfortunate that you consider that "the more you write the more people tend not to read it" because it seems like you are implying that the issue here, which is quite complex given the divergence of interpretations regarding the use of flags, is so simple that we are, pretty much, wasting our time by posting the relevant arguments here. You ask me to reply, but with your first sentence you are telling me that either I keep my answer shorts, or they are useless, not taking into account that they might be long in order to make them clear.
Regarding the reply you can't find, I would invite you to read again my last answer (sorry if it's too long for your taste, but I'm not complying with your petition to summarize as that would be, indeed, a waste of time given that the information is already here) where I clearly state "many of my opinions regarding of the use of flags are the same as those presented by Spintendo, so I won't be repeating them again". If you read at the points presented by Spintendo, you'll find the issue with WP:MOSFLAG answered, as Masem already pointed and inquired about that guideline. Felviper (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bohbye:I'm curious why you haven't removed the flags from the nationality tables in the articles on United Airlines Flight 93, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 11 or American Airlines Flight 77. Were those people representing their countries? Although they weren't accidents, my guess is your double standard in this regard will prevent you from laying a finger on those flags. Perhaps @Masem: could step in and change them for you? Or is this entire proposal really just a show pony, without any real teeth? .spintendo  21:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be WP:POINTy behavior to do that. --Masem (t) 21:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Because I have a life and don’t live on Wikipedia. Cheers, Bohbye (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Unlike Felviper (talk · contribs) who has been trolling Wikipedia for unflagged entries and adding flags pointing to this discussion as justification - which is not really an alright thing to do when a matter is being discussed.Andrewgprout (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is getting downright catty and pointless now. We should have a vote. Poll everyone that's commented thus far and leave the discussion open for a further 7 days in case others want to cast their vote too. Let's just go for it. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• My vote is no flags. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I would think that Pointy would be going around to other articles and changing them when discussion had only just begun, which is what Rodney Baggins and Andrewgprout started doing just as soon as they could.

→ Already apologised for that earlier if you recall – "BTW Apologies for my earlier edit to the article – I really had no idea this discussion was ongoing! Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)" So I'd appreciate it if you gave me credit for that thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So I doubt that this is in any way some kind of aversion to pointy-ness. In fact, I think the point that you've just conceded here (by "you" I mean the editors Mr Baggins, Mr/s Bohbbye, Mr Prout, and Mr/s Masem) is that this is a guideline you're all happy to enforce except when you're not happy to enforce it. It reveals what your true ideas on this issue are — namely, that you all see flags as decorations that only certain deceased passengers have a right to be listed under. This goes above and beyond your stated reasonings previously in this discussion. That position was that all instances of flag use in nationality tables for victims in the crash of aircraft should be forbidden. But apparently, that is not always the case. Despite your protestations to "having a life", I think we can all safely assume that when it comes to deciding who gets flags and who doesn't, your assertions that these are pointless decorations is, by their own inaction with certain articles, false. Because they certainly don't appear to be pointless to you all. You see those flags as unique items of "positive attribute", as another editor pointed out. In your estimations, these flags are "awarded" to those you all deem worthy. A 36 year old man murdered aboard Flight 175? According to you, he's worthy, and gets a flag. A 12 year old girl who was burned alive aboard ValuJet Flight 582? No flag for her, she's not worthy. What is truly disappointing here is that you all fail to own up to this strange "merit system" that you've championed. I think it is important for other editors to know that this "award system" is your true motivation, even if you don't recognize it, because a rule that is only enforceable in certain flights but not in others is absurd, and is no rule at all, but simply an arbitrary action based on your feelings towards one article over another. If you all truly have faith and courage in your convictions that these flags should not be placed, then I urge you all to make those edits at those 4 articles I mentioned, edits that you've already been making to many other articles, many more than just 4. Please prove me wrong, by proving the wisdom of this position that you've taken. Because if you feel that you are unable to defend your own convictions across just 4 articles, why should anyone think to join you all in the defense of that conviction, a defense you apparently don't have much faith in? .spintendo  18:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

And if you feel uncomfortable making changes to those articles, then propose making those changes at those articles, just like you did here (but failed to do in any of the other articles you've edited flags out of recently). Because irregardless of whether you feel editing them is WP:POINTY or not, sooner or later the question is bound to come up at those articles, and simply kicking the can down the road while claiming "Dont want to be pointy about it" (too late) well, that doesn't seem like much of a strategy. .spintendo  20:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

→ spintendo I have to say I am a little disappointed in your recent edits here. When you spoke to me so politely on my Talk page a couple of days ago and you were well aware at the time that I had no idea this discussion had started, and neither had you as far as I can make out. Because it was ME that suggested we kick off a discussion! Like I said above, please can people stop with these long-winded sarcastic posts already and just vote? Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Any flag related edit I have made over the last few days has been to revert an article back to the stable version before this discussion started Spintendo (talk · contribs) is being disingenuous in portraying the opposite. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style it is simple and we should be following it. Here we have a bunch of editors who simply do not understand how Wikipedia works - all you guys are proving is that people editing Aviation articles are not very good at simply reading the manual. All your arguments are tortured attempts to read into the manual things it does not say. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

...Well, I tried to follow WP:DISENGAGE and stay away from this topic for a while, but after reading what has been posted the last few days and receiving another notification, I just can't. I include a small summary as this post is really long:

TL;DR: 1. Andrewgprout accusations against me in previous comments are false. 2. Bohbye says there was a violation of WP:CANVAS, and there wasn't. 3. We need an explanation from users that are not being consistent with the use of flags. 4. Although voting again might work, I recommend to go to WP:DRR.

1. I've been trying to assume good faith with the actions followed by some users, but it's really hard to do it, especially when Andrewgprout decides, after subtly mocking me by implying I have no life outside here, to go and accuse me of "trolling". This accusation is based on a lie, which is that I modified articles "adding flags" in articles that never had them before the start of this discussion. This user also claims, falsely, that "Any flag related edit I have made over the last few days has been to revert an article back to the stable version", "stable" being the version prior to the Cubana crash. Let's took, for example, Metrojet Flight 9268: This is the stable version, the version used before May 18th. Then, on May 20th, after the current discussion started, Bohbye modified the article. This was an edit that disrupted the stable version as it was done while the topic was being discussed and without any consensus reached. I reverted that edit while at the same time pointing out where the discussion about it was being held, only to have it reverted one day later by Andrewgprout, who claimed I was doing "random unexplained changes". I decided not to change it back in order to avoid an edit war. A very similar situation happened in the article Air India Flight 182, where an edit made by Rodney Baggins clearly pointed out the real stable version of the article. This kind of false accusations add nothing to the discussion, while at the same time inflame the mood of those participating in it. I strongly encourage Andrewgprout to refrain from such actions in the future.
2. Bohbye has made another accusation, specifically he says there was a violation of WP:CANVAS. Again this accusation is completely false and an attempt to smear some of the arguments here presented (the fact that this was an actual attempt to do that can inferred from the way the notice about it was posted: with 100% certainty, in bold letters, right below the argument it wanted to nullify. If the intention was to bring attention to a possible violation of WP:CANVAS, a message in plain letters at the bottom of this discussion would had been enough).
To see why this accusation is false we need to look at what "Canvassing" is, and at my edit on Spintendo talk page. According to the behavioral guideline quoted, "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion." This guideline points out that this notification can be Appropriate or Inappropriate, the latter being considered "Canvassing". The guideline establish a list of appropriate types of notifications including placing a message "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include (...) Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". A few lines after it says: "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion." It finishes the section by presenting a note: "It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." The next section deals with the inappropriate behaviors, i.e. "Canvassing", and it lists "Spamming (...) Campaigning (...) Vote-stacking (...) Stealth canvassing (and) Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages...".
Now, let's examine my post on Spintendo's talk page to see if there was any infraction of the rule. In the article American Airlines Flight 191, users Bohbye and Andrewgprout made changes on the stable version of the article (just like it was presented in the first part). User Spintendo reverted those, and invited to explain the reasons for said editions on the article's talk page, where he exposed in detail the reasoning to include the flags. Now, after I realized changes were being made in articles quoted as examples of flags being used, I started to patrol them to revert such editions. Everytime I reverted them I clearly referenced the discussion taking place here in order to let the users involved in said editions to know where to argue against the flags (I might be wrong, but I think it was one of those explained reverts the reason Rodney Baggins ended up here). One of the articles where changes were being made was the one where Spintendo made the reverts. I went to the talk page and found his arguments, which contained a few of the points I already was considering about the flags plus some additional ones that I thought were great for the discussion. Funny enough, my original intention was not to bring Spintendo into this discussion, it was simply to copy and paste his post in here, with only a reference to his author, however, I quickly came to the conclusion that posting that here without informing Spintendo would have been rude, not only out of courtesy, but because he was already debating the issue of the flags in some other not-quite-active article's talk page without knowing there was, at that very moment, an active discussion regarding the same issue in the talk page of an article that was being featured in the news section of front page, meaning it was far more likely to be more productive as there was a higher number of participants. I proceeded to inform Spintendo, and in my message it says: "...I was wondering if there is no problem to add your comment in the Cubana's talk page..." I never asked Stipendo to post that here and, honestly (and I know it sounds foolish), I was kind of expecting him to simply authorize me to use his post, I was not really considering that he was going to be the one posting the arguments himself, and it has been a real surprise (a good one) to me the level of involvement he has showed here.
Now, did I violate WP:CANVAS? Not at all, first, my intention by sending that message to Spintendo was not to influence in an inappropriate way the current discussion, inappropriate defined according to what is established in the guideline. Second, the notification I used followed one of the routes outlined by the guideline: I notified a user who participated in previous discussions on the same topic through his talk page (Spintendo said in his post that he had posted the same arguments previously in another editor's talk page, which puts him in the "previous participation" category). Third, again complying with the appropriate notification guidelines, my message to Spintendo was polite, was clear, was brief, had a neutral title, and was neutrally worded (Yes, it was neutrally worded. My message had two parts, a notification and a request. The notification part reads: "There is a discussion at Talk:Cubana de Aviación Flight 972#Flags regarding the use of flags in the Passenger nationalities table (...) in which your participation will be highly welcomed.", and the request: "...I just read your post at Talk:American Airlines Flight 191 and I think it states very clearly the reasons for said information to be included. I was wondering if there is no problem to add your comment in the Cubana's talk page, because I strongly think it will greatly increase to the discussion..." The notification part is as neutral as it gets, only the use of "highly welcomed" could be, under an extreme interpretation, seen as non-neutral, when it was nothing more than a polite way to end the message. The request part is also neutral: As explained before, it is not a request for Spintendo to join the talk, it is a request for me to use his post, and in it I simply expressed why I liked his post and why I wanted to use it, nothing more nothing less. Of course, some will consider that the whole message can not be separated in two, that it is as a whole a notification, and even in that case it is still neutral as there are no opinions presented as facts, the tone and expressions used are not biased, and the message clearly states that the presented arguments should serve to benefit the discussion -"...it will greatly increase to the discussion..."- not one of the sides taking part in said discussion.) Fourth, it is true that I didn't leave any note in this discussion regarding my message to Spintendo, however WP:CANVAS considers it to be a "good practice" but it is not mandatory or required, meaning no violation of the guideline was committed by skipping that note. Fifth, not a single one of the five listed inappropriate behaviors was perpetrated by me. I didn't spammed or send announcements to editors indiscriminately. I didn't campaigned, as the opinions of Spintendo were already clear. I didn't participate in vote-stacking as I informed users of both sides of the discussion about it (remember what I said about Rodney Baggins being here), and because vote-stacking requires various users, it is non-existent when only one single user is supposedly convinced to join the discussion. I didn't participate in stealth canvassing as my only direct communication with Spintendo is public in his talk page. And I didn't solicited any support through unconventional methods (or by conventional ones).
3. I've been unable to check the articles and editions Spintendo is referencing in which the users involved in the present discussion are supposedly not being consistent with their arguments. If this is true, I'd really love to read the reasons behind this double-standard as I find it quite irrational, and a good explanation might help me to understand it or even to accept it. To me, consistency is paramount: whatever the decision the community takes, in aircraft disaster articles either all have flags or none have them.
4. My vote is Yes for flags for the reasons previously presented. Rodney Baggins, I love (I really do) your input as it is aimed to move on and reach a consensus. I remember when I was new and I also used WP:BB to defend some proposals, only for more experienced users to shot me down with a guideline or policy... I don't want to be that guy, but remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy and conflicts are to be solved through discussion, not voting. However, as voting can be used to promote discussion, I welcome your proposal. But I also want to propose something: let's take this issue to WP:DRR. I, unfortunately, don't see the discussion going anywhere, on the contrary, opinions are getting radicalized and, as you pointed out, users here (and I am also guilty) are resorting to long-winded sarcastic posts. Therefore, dispute resolution seems like the only way out here. Felviper (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree we need to go to WP:DRR because there are very strong views here on both sides so we seem to have reached a stalemate. This discussion has turned into an argument about the process involved rather than the subject in question, i.e. to use or not to use flags in victims tables. So it's not getting us anywhere. Regardless of the whys and wherefores of who changed what and for what reason, consistency is key: whatever the decision the community takes, in aircraft disaster articles either all have flags or none have them. However, it would be unreasonable to expect that once a decision is made, all of the aviation disaster articles will be checked for compliance with the new rule overnight. Unless someone was prepared to step up and take that task on, many of the articles would just have to be checked as and when someone happens to notice a non-compliance at some point in the future. I was recently involved in a discussion about the use of (all) after the Fatalities parameter in the infobox (the consensus being to not use it) and I'm still stumbling across articles that need changing because there are so many of this type of article that you couldn't expect them all to be checked immediately. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand it is not mentioned in the project page guide because there was not a need to repeat WP:MOSFLAG (which really says you dont need both a flag and a name, the name is sufficient) but it would do no harm to get a wider project view ( I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task_force#Flag icons for victims) rather than make local article decisions on something that has acutally nothing to do with the actual accident. MilborneOne (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I’ll just add that project pages do not dictate policy. Cheers, Bohbye (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Twenty evangelical pastors

The reference was removed. The source is the stwnewspress.com article, which says Maite Quesada, a member of the Cuban Council of Churches, announced that 20 pastors from an evangelical church were among the dead. They had spent several days at a meeting in the capital and were returning to their homes and places of worship in the province of Holguin. Twenty members of a single organization travelling together: surely that makes the grade? Moscow Mule (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

How about approximately 50/50 males and females that died? How about the percentage of doctors, lawyers, unemployed, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, children, entire families? Bohbye (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really comparable. Unless there was a group of twenty provincial doctors or lawyers among the passengers returning home to Holguín together after a conference in the capital. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree that large parties may be notable, e.g. Munich air disaster. Don't think "percentage of doctors, lawyers, unemployed, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, children, entire families" would be noteworthy in the least. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So now it’s 10 only? Bohbye (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess if it was defined, it ought to be a percentage. Perhaps best discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force or similar? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

OSM location map

Tried to add {{OSM Location map}} but failed miserably so I removed it. Leaving it to more experienced editors to add a new copy. --Bohbye (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. But for some reason the {{Infobox aircraft occurrence}} is wider than the standard 255px, so the width of the OSM location map is not the same as the main infobox. I'll check it on other devices before changing. Hadron137 (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Coordinates included in the article

According to the text in the "Accident" paragraph the flight "crashed at 12:08 pm, about 10 kilometres (6 mi) from the airport." Yet, the coordinates provided in the infobox place the crash within a much closer proximity to the airport, within 2km from the terminal and 5km of the furthest edge of the airport perimeter. These seem contradictory, is there any clarification to the actual location of the crash? DragonFury (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I removed the 10 km ref, it wasn't in the cited source. As a reference, this video appears to show the crash very near the airport, in an orientation consistent with the OSM map. This is also corrobated by a Time article that says the plane crashed a short distance from the end of the runway. I admit though, that a credible source to the coordinates would be very useful; the OSM was created using an unverified source. Hadron137 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Tidy up of citations/references

Is there any objection to changing the references in the article from being inline to a list? With being in a list, it would make the back end cleaner and easier to edit.-- Mr Xaero (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that you mean moving all the citation definitions out of the text and down into a list below the References heading, no objections from me. That is always the neatest way of doing things, it's just that most articles don't develop that way. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what I did earlier [4] but I got dinged with MOS:CITE since I changed all references from inline to list. Oops. -- Mr Xaero (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. Maybe you should have waited to get consensus here before doing anything. But you've opened a discussion so that's a start. One thing I would say is if and when you do change the refs. try to stick to the <ref name= /> format rather than {{r|}} because most people are familiar with the first one and less likely to object to the change. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. -- Mr Xaero (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Total number of deaths

With the addition of the latest update (with a single non-English language source) the article is now looking very confused about total number of deaths and when the deaths occurred. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Martin. My understanding is that 4 initially survived, one died hours later in hospital, one died on May 21, one died a few hours ago (May 25), so now only one survives. Initial death toll was 109, now 112. So I would change the text in 3rd paragraph of Accident section to say:

In total, 112 people (including all crew members) were killed in the accident. Of the 113 on board, four passengers initially survived the accident, all of them with critical injuries,[14] but one of them died hours later at the hospital.[11] One died a few days later, on May 21, 2018,[15] and another on May 25, 2018,[16] bringing the death toll to 112.

It's awfully sad to be talking about these people in such cool calculated terms... Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No objections. We still need better source(s) of course. Wikipedia is objective, Wikipedia sheds no tears. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

However, this paragraph is still not right, is it:

"Of the 113 on board, two passengers initially survived the accident, both of them with serious injuries,[14] and one of them died hours later at the hospital.[11] Two more passengers who initially survived the crash died a few days later, on May 21, 2018.[15] and another on 25 May, 2018 [16][17] total, 112 people (including all crew members) were killed in the accident."

So I have adjusted it, to tally with what I think are the facts now known. But some of the original sources no longer support. I'd appreciate a second opinion. The ITN entry on the Main page has yet to be updated. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: I have also removed the figures for ("initially") next to the injuries and survivors in the infobox, as this is not defined in "Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence". I think the "initially" next to the figure for "Injuries" is particularly confusing. I think this should simply be explained in the text. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think it's accurate now. I just made a few wording changes. I also added a new ref. that I found citing New Straits Times which is a Malaysian newspaper that looks respectable (it has its own Wikipedia page) – I thought it was a "good" ref. to use because of its poignant headline: "19-year-old now sole survivor of Cuban plane crash". I am rooting for Maylén Díaz and hopefully she will pull through. Mind you being the sole survivor of such a horrific accident is likely to be a very heavy cross to bear for the rest of your life... Sorry I'm being emotive – must be cold – must not have feelings – facts are facts. One question: what's this ITN entry on the Main page you speak of? Also, thanks for removing the ("initially") bits from the infobox, I agree that's not correct use of the template. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Rodney. Since I initially posted, the ITN item has fallen off the Main page. Thanks for the NST source, which is needed over at List of sole survivors of airline accidents or incidents. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Airport name in infobox image caption

This is mostly meant for Bohbye but I'd be glad to hear anyone else's opinions too.

I do feel that a consistent mention of the place and the date in the caption is perfectly acceptable in an infobox. By your reasoning, if the photo's location is irrelevant, then surely the date on which the photo was taken is just as irrelevant? The airplane looked pretty much exactly the same no matter what date it was photographed, up until the day that it crashed! And if we removed both location and date of picture then we'd basically end up with a caption that just said "here's a picture of the plane" – a bit 1-dimensional!

Importantly, most other articles that I've come across put an airport name and a date in the infobox caption. Here are a few examples:

• 1986 Cerritos mid-air collision: plane at Miami International Airport
• 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision: 1st plane at Cologne Bonn Airport, 2nd plane at Brussels Airport
• Aeroflot Flight 593: plane at Charles de Gaulle Airport
• Aeroperú Flight 603: plane at Miami International Airport
• Air France Flight 358: plane at Charles de Gaulle Airport.
• Air France Flight 447: plane at Charles de Gaulle Airport
• Air France Flight 8969: plane at London Heathrow Airport

As you can probably guess, I'm going through my alphabetical watchlist picking out the aviation disaster articles and I haven't even got past A yet... every single one of them has an image in its infobox which is captioned "plane at X airport on date". This seems to be an established pattern, and not a case of WP:OTHER, so please can you revert the caption in this article back to the version I attempted to put in earlier, i.e. "XA-UHZ, the aircraft involved, at Juan Santamaría International Airport, San José in June 2011." Thanks.

A related question: Am I correct in interpreting the date on the image file as June rather than March? The filename has 06/03/11 and the person who originally uploaded the image obviously understood it to mean March 6, but I'm pretty sure it should be June 3, as dates that are given with forward slashes seem to be in mdy format. Please can you confirm? Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The camera meta data has the 6 March 2011. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I must admit I struggle with seeing the usefulness of the location in the caption. All airports look very much alike to me, and I think there's the danger of actually confusing the reader. But I suppose if so many existing articles use that caption format, people must think it's useful. It might be better to say "in the previous livery of XYZ Airline", or something? I have less of a problem with the date, as this helps to distance the image from the occurrence, without adding the confusion of another unconnected airport. But I see there is no advice at all at Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence where one might reasonably expect to find some. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding a photograph's location adds nothing to the reader's understanding. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never an argument for retention. WWGB (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. The question of changing livery had completely escaped my attention, whoops! So the date is useful if the image shows the plane in the livery that it had at the time of the accident. I like your idea of mentioning the previous livery if the picture was taken before a livery change and in the event of a more recent picture with latest livery not being available. OK, I'm beginning to warm a little to the idea of the airport name being less relevant, but it would still leave us with the problem of multitudinous articles that would need changing retrospectively to be consistent and I'm not sure that's something I would like to take on. So I wonder if we could nominate someone else for the task? Hmmm...

P.S. @WWGB: I've already explained above why I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here as pretty much every other article has the airport named in the caption so it appears to be something that's been decided upon in the past and has become a standard format. Again, if the standard format was to be changed, there are an awful lot of articles that would need to be updated... Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's only multiple deletion, so quite easy. But yes, might be a better task for a clever bot of some kind? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

oppose Searching through the captions of {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2018}} shows only 2 of 10 examples that include the location in the caption. The inclusion of a location is extra noise that can potentially confuse the reader. If the reader wants to dig deeper and learn about that particular photo, they can click on the image and read its full description. There are some key points at WP:CAP, such as a good caption ... establishes the picture's relevance to the article. I just don't see how the location of a photo is relevant to this crash. Hadron137 (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

At least 5 of the examples in that list show the plane in mid-air! You'll find a lot more in {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2017}} for example. Thanks for opinion anyway. Still mulling. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And if the caption said "taken in mid-air, 23,000 ft above rural Kentucky", would that add value to the caption? I think not. Hadron137 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Any caption should always be related to the subject of the article. Frankly - the place a particular plane was photographed is nearly always immaterial to an aircraft accident article and should not be included. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means exactly what it says - you can't in this case use the fact that other captions have places listed to justify inclusion. There are plenty of things that are conflicting or just plain wrong on many many articles. Andrewgprout (talk)

Final report

The final report has been published in Spanish. Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jetstreamer (talk · contribs) & Masem (talk · contribs),

I'd like to know why it's preferred to quote a paraphrasing of a blog (Havana Times) as opposed to literally translating the properly referenced official report from the investigative authority. The section I added (here) was translated from the actual section in the report (p 56) that listed the causes as deemed by them, as opposed to the current reference from HT that simply mentions what the IACC deemed to be contributing factors, NOT the actual cause of the incident.

Here's the section of the report (with the translation below each paragraph):

Causas más probables.

[Most probably causes:]

La CEIAA ha considerado que la causa más probable del accidente fue el desplome de la aeronave, como consecuencia de su entrada en posiciones anormales inmediatamente después :de la separación del tren de aterrizaje de la superficie de la pista (Lift off) durante el despegue, que condujeron a la pérdida de control de la misma debido a una cadena de errores, con preponderancia en el factor humano.

[The [investigative authority] determined that the most probable cause of the accident was "[...] the abnormal positions achieved immediately after the separation of the landing gear from the runway (lift off) during takeoff, which led to the loss of control of the aircraft due to chained errors, mostly due to human factor.]

Factores contribuyentes.

[Contributing factors:][...]

*inconsistencias en el entrenamiento de las tripulaciones;

[Inconsistencies in the crew's training]

*errores en los cálculos de peso y balance;

[Incorrect calculations of weight and balance]

*bajos estándares operacionales puestos de manifiesto en el vuelo.

[Low operational standards manifested during the flight]

As it is written now, the article is not accurate, since it's attributing the cause to the contributing factors, NOT the actual technical cause.

--Tinhog (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Translation by a Wikipedia editor is a matter of original research to a point. One or two words are okay but full sentences start to get problematic. See WP:NONENG. That's not that we can't use a Wikipedian's translation but the fact that I was able to find an English that hit the three main points (the contributing factors above) which align with what you're stating is reasonable. --Masem (t) 16:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thx for your prompt reply. However, I still disagree as the source you quoted does not mention the actual cause, only the contributing factors. If that's what's going to stick, then I suggest the wording should be changed to "[...] that the main Contributing Factors to the crash..." instead of "...that the most probable cause..."

To put it into perspective, and to use a current event, it would be analogous to saying that "Most patients who die of COVID-19 is because of obesity, hypertension, and cardiac conditions", when these are all contributing factors, that increase the likelihood of death, but not the cause itself.

I do understand your claim about a translation being original research to a (limited, I'd say) extent, but the source was clearly quoted, therefore it can be verified by any bilingual editor, and even by AI if a non-Spanish editor wants to check (with the caveat that an AI is usually not as polished as one done by a human, but at least it will give an idea of the degree of accuracy.

I still think the section with the actual cause should be included, even if leaving the reference to HT makes sense. --Tinhog (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added a second source with the English translation of that part of the report so to cover that too. --Masem (t) 16:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thx --Tinhog (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)