Talk:Bomb threat delayed an Air France flight to Paris days before Flight 447 crashed

Sky News

I took a screen shot of the result I got for Sky News. I get an internal server error when I try to click the link. I also get one for the momento24 link, unless I use the cache version. The Sky News result is mentioned in the sources, but that will not be in that position for much longer, so here is the screenshot I took: http://img199.imageshack.us/i/skynewsmay27airfrancebo.gif/ DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Revision 828489 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Staleness concerns are allayed by the fact that other English-language media are running this. Killing Vector (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 828489 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Staleness concerns are allayed by the fact that other English-language media are running this. Killing Vector (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Huh?

What's with the "Wikinews has learned" intro? How is this article different from other synthesis articles? --SVTCobra 11:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it means that we've only just become aware of what the Argentine press reported at the time. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So it is a way to get around stale? --SVTCobra 13:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The incident is being reported in light of the recent crash, so arguably the stale factor only comes in from the day of the then-disappearence. It just gets by on the 2-3 days rule. Also, see Killing Vector's comment above. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, May 27 is six days ago. --SVTCobra 13:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

But the crash was only three. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

<unindent> This has become 'potentially significant' since the crash was effectively confirmed; at the time the Argentinian sources were published it was a bit parochial and we don't have people from that part of the world to dig it up. In this case it does get round {{stale}} but only because of the crash.

As long as we continue to go with crash investigator likely theories and weave them into stories like this then they do no more than introduce uncertainty to the cause and more details to look at. Given the prevailing weather at the location the likely issue was a lightning strike damaging electrical systems. It could have been weather systems which prevented the plane avoiding some of the dangerous air currents in the area. A plane hitting a 50m wide strong up/down-draught could be tipped or even have a wing ripped off. Some of those currents are around 200mph. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess the whole idea I tried to establish was that no one really knows what happened to this plane. It may end up being that we may never really know. I did do quite a bit of research on this, and I found it odd that all that remains of any report of this incident, happens to be 1 cached report, and a few deleted ones. I tried to search Sky News for the report with no success, though I am limited in the access they allow me to the site, being in the US. I think that in itself is news, which is why I took the screen shot. If we want to try to debunk stale, a quick search in Google earlier this AM had Wikinews, along with Gawker, FOX News and a few others as reporting this only today, granted its all based off the momento24 report, and no one mentions that a major media network picked it up and then deleted it. I just had a thought, I will e-mail Sky news and see what they have to say about this. It's also worth noting the chain of coincidences this incident creates. Though the accept theory is a lightning strike, I have seen at least one video of a plane being struck and having little to no damage. I am not trying to draw any conclusions as to either possible causes, merely to point out that one cannot necessarily be ruled out over the other at this time. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is veering fast into commentary page territory, but I can somehow still remember writing this way back as a newcomer in 2007, so lightning does occasional mess electrics around, although normally the Faraday cage thingy keeps things from harm. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pilot: 447 was blown out of the sky by terrorists

According to the Daily Mail: Investigators are examining a bomb threat called in on a flight from Buenos Aires to Paris just days before Flight 447 disappeared over the Atlantic ocean, it has been revealed. Aviation authorities are examining the possibility of a link between the threat to the Buenos Aires flight and the mysterious disappearance of Flight 447 with 228 people on board, a source has claimed. Meanwhile an Air France pilot said it was 'highly likely' the jet was blown out of the sky by a bomb. Worth noting that there is an investigation? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

With a better source than the Daily Mail, yes. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not worthy of note. The investigation into the AF crash will be consider a huge range of possibilities of which a bomb, and the relevance of a recent bomb threat, will of course be considered. As BRS alludes to, the Daily Mail isn't a particularly respected newspaper. Adambro (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I see DF has gone ahead and added it anyway but I would note that the sentence added isn't completely backed up by the source. Specifically, the DM article doesn't specify which authorities are supposed to be investigating. Adambro (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy discussion

Is wikinews doomed to reporting on every speculation and theory which some local newspaper somewhere reports on, and which then gets picked up by the tabloids? Just like the text-message thing we had earlier, no real newspaper would waste a column inch on this kind of stuff: "Authorities say the incident was unrelated". How many threats like these are made each year? Yet we are 'forced' to report each and every story like this because the wikinews policy allows no editorial or other consideration: no caution clause, no wait and see approach, no analysis - just plain synthesis of whatever happens to be flying around the net. And synthesis of what? Single source reports 'an event' or 'fact' and speculates on it - other 'media sources' then pick it up and parrot it around - then someone submits an article on it here with all those as sources - and bang! we have another one of these articles which really doesn't raise the level wikinews as a credible and worthwhile news source - but rather goes down the sink of the various blog websites around - and we cannot get rid of it untill multible credible news sources debunk it for us first (which almost never happens, cause they have better things to do). I'm just saying this thing will get worse and out of hand eventually with the way 'news' is generated and replicated on the net these days - and eventually wikinews has to put a line somewhere when it comes to stories like these. Discuss. --Ransu (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually this was not a single report. This was several, on May 27, as shown in the screenshot I took at the beginning of the page. This threat was made, but turned out to be nothing. Not to mention it was since picked up by the AP, FOX, CNN et al. Also the article never says there was a bomb or an attack, it doesn't speculate as to what it was. It merely points out the fact that a threat was phoned in, on the same airline, going to the same city, just 4 days before the Air France flight from Rio crashed. I think that those factors, including the discrepancy in the time it took to search the aircraft, are news in itself. I can go on with what things might be, or I can write the facts, which is exactly what I did. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Picked up! Which is exactly what I described. News flooding channels, picking up human interest stories of dubious value to fill their infinite 24hours news cycles - while we here have 1 front page with 4 top stories that often stay up there for days. So my question remains: how do we raise raise the bar above having to parrot every dailymail/newsoftheworld type story when we have no effective editorial policy? This air crash and everything related to it is notable news, I give you that. But is there a line to the speculation and incremental 'updates' we submit on the front page on it - and for how long? Investigations on accidents like these take years to draw conclusions. Other things are happening around the world meanwhile: Obama's 'historic' speech, Tiananmen anniversary... etc. I must admit I'm relatively new to wikinews world - how is the order of stories on the front page created? --Ransu (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with an account can change the leads at anytime, to replace them with something more up to date. As to what is or is not published, that is up to you, me and anyone else. Want to see a story? Write one. Whether you have personal issues with a subject or its material is something that you might want to consider.m If a story follows policy, is adequately sourced and properly formatted for style, then there is no reason it should not be published. There is no limit as to what we can or cannot report on. We don't have topic banning. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a comment to make. #1 this is not the place for a policy discussion. #2 our articles are written by contributors (in case you missed that little bit about "From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!". #3 as we're all digital, we can waste all the space we want on what ever we want. #4 as we're not a paid group and we make zero from advertising, we can write what ever we want. #5 wikinews does collect info from other sources and does repeat news, but we make a point to do it differently - IE NPOV for a start.

So... With those points in mind. If you want to see specific quality or type of articles being written - instead of complaining - go write them. I've been around here a while and frankly I have no interest in the australian football/soccer/whatever article, nor do I give a damn about whats happening on EuroVision - but you know what? Someone cares enough to write it - so thats fine with me. In the mean time I write about Maker Faire & Fanime - which I can assure you more than a few people around here are looking at saying "why the fuck does anyone care about 'FanimeCon'?" but they let it go because I'm interested in it and I'm writing it. No skin off my nose, no skin off their nose.

Oh, and so far that I can tell, we've got no credibility problems what so ever, except for the misc person that wanders in here complaining that we're writing something they don't like because they are all talk and no action. Welcome to the wiki way. You want it, you gotta do it. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)