Talk:Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704

A news item involving Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 18 February 2018.

	This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Aviation: Accidents This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. project's importance scale .

	Iran Start‑class Low‑importance
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Three of the five sources at the end of lead now give the wrong number of passengers/ fatalities. I guess those sources might eventually correct their reports, or they might not. I thought it might be better to delete them from that section, if not altogether Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One's now been binned with this edit. So we're left with two. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the principle of using "named references" which are reused, possibly for information which is still accurate? Summarily deleting those references caused citation errors which is wholly undesirable in any article, let alone one featured on the main page. Differences in facts and numbers at such an early stage in a disaster like this are fully understandable. Removing named references without clearing up the mess is not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. one of them wasn't "binned", just moved, which is precisely what was required. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again, for "clearing up the mess." Yes, in fact I am aware, having added some myself. I guess five whole minutes is a long time in Wikipedia, especially when one gets distracted by other necessary corrections. And thanks also for making editing here feel such an enjoyable collaborative effort. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC) p.s. I meant "binned" from supporting 66 fatalities, although I'm still surprised that we use that source with a wrong number in its headline.[reply]

I don't know why you're "surprised". It's a fact of news reporting that these things get pushed out ASAP and then don't get remedied. But multiple sources exist in the article with 66 deaths yet have corollary information which is still true. And in actual fact, per the article, no-one knows if anyone survived so trying to claim some absolute truth is bullshit in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be surprised if there were 66 people on that plane, whether they survived or not. But you never know. We can agree the new blurb is slightly less bullshitty, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb has nothing to do with your removal of legitimate references because you didn't check where or why they were being used. Please feel free to stop doing that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry. I thought I had already stopped. But you never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to have understood the consequences of your actions. It's fine, but please don't do it again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I probably need an onerous and patronising lecture, that appears to be a petulant scolding, to instill that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just hoping you'd understand that deleting references which were used in multiple places wasn't a good idea. It's a shame that you aren't concerned by that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, as you've guessed, I just come here to make a mess for you to clear up. "Thanks again". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then please stop doing it, it's disruptive and if you're unsure what you're doing, ask someone with the experience to help you out. Removing references that are used multiple times is a real problem, especially when you do it to material that's featured on the main page. If you'd like me to explain further, feel free to ping me. But please don't do it again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"lol", can you tell us all how many times I've managed that this year? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're asking here. I've asked you to not disrupt the referencing for this article. If you're having problems understanding that, perhaps you should visit the Wikipedia:Village pump. You can ask questions there about the fundamentals of Wikipedia, including the use (and reuse) of references. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Eternally grateful. A lifesaver etc, etc. I feel quite dizzy. But I'll let you have the last word. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. By all means ask for help if you need it, it seems like you don't understand the purpose and utility of named references. Happy to help with that, but please, don't just delete references which are used in multiple places in an article. If you'd like to understand more about that, I'll happily discuss it further. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user"163.232.200.35" deleted the entire page for 4 times before getting reverted by other users. Should we report the situation to admins and take further actions, such as banning the IP?

KTT 廣九直通車 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done IP blocked for 32 hours by an admin.

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you! 廣九直通車 (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting another suspected vandal: 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:AE. Even that he was blocked, should we take more serious actions such as locking this article?

KTT 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone make a confirmation about the search and rescue agencies: did the Iranian Air Force or the Revolutionary Corps participated the search, or both of them?

KTT 廣九直通車 (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30°48′13″N 51°37′51″E is a possibility. Abductive (reasoning) 15:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This incident killed 60 passengers and 6 crew members for a total of 66 fatalities. Sources: Aviation Safety Network final report, Aircraft Crash Record Office, Planecrash.info.,Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Center(JACDEC) all have 66.Thank you.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, http://www.planecrashinfo.com/ states 65, and some sources used in the article indicate that originally the presumed number had indeed been 66 but later it was found that one passenger did not board the flight, thus making the total only 65. See these two links used as references in the article: 1, 2. However, I do think that either 65 or 66 may be true in the end - JACDEC has 66. We should wait for some official report (BTW, according to http://www.jacdec.de/2018/02/19/2018-02-18-iran-aseman-atr-72-flew-into-terrain-near-yasuj/: "On March 11th the Iranian Investigation Commission CAO published a preliminary report in persian".) BTW2, I have not found "Aviation Safety Network final report", could you add a link to it here? Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the report I linked above says 66 on page 8, so we should probably change it in the article and use the report as source. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to Aviation Safety Network website and look up this incident. It says 66. ASN is very reliable and up to date. I think you should use this for your source. Thank you for your time.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Good Day. I did get in contact with Aviation Safety Network today and the final death toll was 66.This was confirmed by Iran Aseman and the CAO Iran investigating the accident.Go to that website and read about the incident.Use this document as your source. Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article just posted to

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is a link to the most recent report. I cannot read it.

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. Open up file by CAO as noted above and although it is mostly in Persian, go to page 7 or so and it says 60 passengers and 6 crew (in English) were on the aircraft. It was not 65 as previously thought. Also Aviation Safety Network says 66 was the final fatality count. Can someone make the adjustment with that source? Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I concur, page 7 of the Preliminary Accident Investigation Report, issued 20 March 2018, does say that. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Go to Reference #7. It says 20 March 2016. Should be 20 March 2018. Thank you.2601:581:8500:949C:D9D9:2E5F:2EB3:19E6 (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for letting us know.

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]