This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Indonesia and
Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Has anyone found as to whether the tarmac was wet or not? The airport tarmac in the past has been known to have a slippery surface and also a runway that has no 'overlap' that is it is short
SatuSuro09:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Can someone find an image in public domain? I haven't edited Wikipedia for awhile so I kinda forgot all the rules and stuff. Cheers -- Imoeng09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yeah thats basically it you need to have the source of the image on the image description page and also place a fair use rationale as to why the image is being used. There also a tag requesting that the image be replaced with a free version, I'll find that and put a link here. Also one image is enough, its quality should be low so as not to diminish the photographers ability to sell it
Gnangarra09:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify policy states that images used under fair use must not be resonably replacable. Current intepration of policy is that if the image is resonably replacable it should be deleted. Of course, what's resonably replacable is of some debate. But generally, quite a number of people feel if it is a living person who appears publicly or an object or landmark in a location where it can be accessed resonably easy by the public then this is resonably replacable. The guideline on this is still in flux
Wikipedia:Replaceability of fair-use images but you might want to read the discussion for some info. I'm strongly supportive of free images and the deletion of resonably replacable fair use images but in this case, as it's a unique event I think most people would agree it's not resonably replacable so it will be okay provided it meets the other criteria
Nil Einne15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
As I remarked, I don't think there will be any debate about the replacability of the image but as I also remarked, the photo has to meet the other criteria which it apparently doesn't.
Nil Einne05:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It may be a nice photo but it doesn't appear to meet the all the criteria. There is little doubt it's not reasonably replacable but it's my understanding press photos should not be used unless they're iconic
Nil Einne05:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Bouncing
Al jazeera mentions witnesses saw the plane bounce when landing (and tyres break). This should be significant. Does it mean the plane had to land on a higher then usual speed?
Wich is what i think.(so to keep airspeed) Or is it an indication of the technicallity that caused the crash?
(i think there is no sabotage because sabotaged planes crash anywhere but usually on landing.)
80.57.243.1613:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually (s)he is correct. I saw a news mentioned that the plane bounced twice because of overspeed. But then a good citation would be useful. Imoeng19:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Imo, i dont agree with you on your somewhat pretentious statement about the use of the discussion pages. Wiki discussion pages are the apropriate place for underdocumented facts... and the bouncing "like a pingpongball" is still not in...
I dont care much, but it makes things simpler if you know the plane came down with problems. Also POV statements even, belong in the discussion page. Because i am such a controversial person in stubbornly reporting facts, even the ones only known to me
i am actually very glad with the additional means of the discussion pages in wich i not uncommonly find both the opinions and sometimes some facts, that stay hidden in the article.i hope the means of wiki discussionpages will this way help us describe a better history in the future. I also hope that the most sensible thought that in the discussionpages material hard to proof , but possibly of later interest is abundant, and Wiki saves them for future use by historians. I would like you to respect all of this. Would i find out wiki doesnt save the discussionpages to the articles , i would definetly never again contribute to an article because i would support a biased medium that deletes essential info instead of a database of knowledge. Cheers.
80.57.243.1607:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
IP user Please also read
WP:CIVIL all Indon did was point out that the talk page is not for speculation, its for improving the article, he also asked for a reliable source so that it could be included.
Gnangarra07:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Garuda
How can an airline 'known for its safety' then proceed ot be criticised for being one of the worst in terms of national carriers? Isn't this a bit of an oxymoron?
Ah yeah, my bad. The thing is, before this accident, it's known for its safety. But then some dude said Garuda is the worst in terms of national carriers. Get that? Thanks - Imoeng21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Two things - for a while Garuda had had a bad reputation - then, the others took over (Adam Air) - as Garuda had employed overseas experts to improve its practices and facilities to reduce the acident rate - so whoever the dude is - it depends on what sources you use - the proper sequence should be (1) garuda did have a problem in the 1980/1990's with regular very embarrassing crashes (2) by the 2000's with overseas help the accident rate had been reducd (3) the cut price airlines like adam started having the crashes/plane loss - but then the editors who did the info in this article can choose to use particular citations and make it look like garuda is the constant culprit. not correct. it all depends what citations you use!
SatuSuro22:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Well yeah, most Indonesians I know reckon Garuda is the safest and the most reliable one. Then an article came across that said Garuda is the worst. And it's just a bit confusing, as well as for the writer of the section, which is me. Imoeng22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I think what this section needs are citations from before this crash. Otherwise, neither the positive or negative claims should remain.
Quadpus22:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I have adjusted fatalities in info box to 21 as per the middle of the document. That might not be correct because there are two other possible numbers in the article - but I suggest we take the lowest first until deaths are confirmed.--
VStalk22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The radio news in Perth is reporting that survivors are being treated in Singapore, Darwin and
Royal Perth Hospitalref 1ref 2. Additionally its being reported that
Fiona Wood is on site assisting the treatment of the burns victims.
Any thoughts on whether any of this should be included into the article
Gnangarra03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Footage
Some amature footage has surfaced from a few minutes after the plane crashes, it was taken by a passenger. It simply shows the plane burning, people running, a medium sized explosion, a few slightly injured people (nothing gory) and rescue crews arriving. I am not sure what wikipedia's policy is on such types of videos or adding them (I know its uncensored) but I doubt few would call the site it comes from a "reliable source", in any case, here is the link to the video.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b9_1173306001 if anyone feels like adding it, be my quest, but I figured I would post it in here first to see what the general consensus is. Like I said, nothing gory, nothing truly shocking.--
Azslande04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The video was recorded by a
Seven Network reporter who was on board the flight, so it might need permission to be linked. If it was amateur footage, it could probably be added. But since it was recorded by a network, it might be a violation to add it. Since it has an ABC logo in the corner though, I'd imagine it's been released to the public for free viewing.
Orichalcon05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually it's arguable if there is ever a case when you need permission to link to something (although in some cases it is polite). However people do need permission to redistributed content. In this case, LiveLeak appears to be like YouTube and people often upload stuff they don't have permission to redistribute. It is against wikipedia policy to link to copyright violations and as such if this is a copyright violation which I suspect it is (see below) we shouldn't link to it. If a source could be found for this from the news media, whether 7 News or ABC or whatever, linking to that would be fine. Note amateur footage or not, copyright issues still need to be considered. The primary issue here is that amateurs of course often choose to release their videos to sites like LiveLeak but as I remarked it has a watermark (ABC you say?) suggesting it didn't come directly from the person who shot it and it seems unlikely the contributor is or knows the person who shot it given his contribution history
Nil Einne05:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Edit conflict- The fact it's uncensored doesn't matter. It would be fine in external links provided it's not a copyright violation. If liveleak makes an effort to verify their sources it would be fine. However if they're like YouTube and allow anyone to upload anything greater care should be taken. The fact that the contributor appears to have contributed stuff from the news media (I see stuff from Fox News and from MSNBC in his contributions) suggests to me the LiveLeak is like YouTube and the contributor often contributes stuff he probably doesn't have permission to redistribute and so we should take care. Also it appears to have a watermark which suggests to me it originated from another source. Finally are you sure it's amateur footage? I know there were news reporters on the plane and I heard a 7 News reporter started shooting after he got off the plane. If it were from a commercial reporter, this would be even more reason to be circumspect although there is no reason to assume an amateur has released the copyright for their footage either
Nil Einne05:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I really doubt that liveleak actually verifies any videos posted on its site. Also I did notice the icon in the upper right corner but I didn't recognize it. I just figured I would post the link and let everyone else decide whats best to do with it.--
Azslande06:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I think it would be best left out of the article unless Seven Network adds a link to their official website. People can view it from the link on this talk page if they wish.
Orichalcon09:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Tail of Plane
on the 19:00(UTC+9) radio news it was said that Garuda has painted the tail of the wreckage black has anyone els heard this. I'm trying to find a print source at the moment???
Gnangarra12:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, I believe it is common; it was remarked on after an Air Canada crash a few years ago and the airline was quoted as explaining that shortly after a crash, title of the wrecked craft transfers to their insurer or perhaps a salvage operator and it's normal for the new owner—not the airline itself—to efface the logos, at least symbolically. Perhaps it marks legal acceptance of ownership or something. As for removing the tail, I dunno. Sounds like something that might be done for the safety of investigators picking through the wreckage. I can hardly imagine that the airline could sneak into a crash site with the kind of equipment that would be required.
Sharkford20:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Sources
Please don't use links to news portals like Yahoo news or direct links to the websites from Asscociated Press oder Reuters, since they will work only for sixty days and then disappear. Such links are therefore useless. --
213.155.224.23217:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't see why not. Provided the link is there, we can still use it as a reference since we know what we have sourced from it before it went dead. In low-traffic articles this may constitute a problem, but since this is Main Page, I think any misinformation will be quickly noticed.
Blood Red SandmanOpen Up Your Heart-Receive My EviLove17:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I've done some Google web/news searches and can find no reports that a vehicle was on the runway during the landing. All reports on the cause that I have seen discuss speed, pilot error, flap malfunction or a downdraft. The only reference cited makes no mention of a vehicle on the runway during the landing.
The only mention of vehicles on the runway that I have seen are reports of a rescue vehicle requesting permission to enter the area after the crash had occurred:
I find it hard to believe that such a significant development, if remotely credible, could have received virtually no press coverage, so I am removing reference to it. If you want to put it back in, please provide a credible reference.
Seth ze01:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Flight 200 has been changed to 202
Just wondering if anybody can confirm this. My family and I often travel in GA200, which departs Jakarta at 6AM. However when my parents went to Yogyakarta afterneath the accident, it appeared that the flight at 6 AM, landing 7 AM, has been changed from GA 200 to GA 202.--
w_tanoto21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Found the info myself from Garuda's website by searching flight arriving to Yogyakarta/Jogjakarta. Can't add as reference.--
w_tanoto21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Garuda Indonesia Flight 200. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified one external link on
Garuda Indonesia Flight 200. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified one external link on
Garuda Indonesia Flight 200. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I am now investigating a claim in the article
Aerolinair about this crash. The claim is that the crashed aeroplane belonged to Aerolinair before it went defunct and was sold to Garuda. I have no internet access except for
Wikipedia Zero now, so someone help.
SammyMajed (
talk)
11:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
Garuda Indonesia Flight 200. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.