Talk:EgyptAir Flight 990

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Names[edit]

As a factual account of this incident, the name of the relief officer Gameel Al-Batouti is noticeably missing, except a couple references at the end using only his last name. It seems strange to conceal basic information about this even, considering that Al-Batouti even has an entry on Wikipedia. 70.76.32.210 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

NOTE: The text on this page was taken from the Egyptair article. WhisperToMe 22:27, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Balance?[edit]

Anyone noticed that the numerology and conspiracy sections are significant longer than the facts presented? --Andylkl 09:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is that Numerologic portion NPOV? It certainly doesn't seem so to me -- but that's probably because I see it as irrelevant.

Numerology[edit]

The numerology section has no citations (particularly for the Atta quote) and appears to be original research. Is there any reason to keep this section? ElBenevolente 05:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have removed most of the uncited numerology section. If anyone wishes to add, please provide source material. ElBenevolente 16:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re-adding the material. It is linked to from http://www.glgorman.com, which is a website run by one of the candidates for Governor in the California recall election of 2003. The candidate, Mr. Gorman, was also a candidate for Mayor of San Bruno, Ca in 1991 when Mr. Jack Coles of San Jose claimed that Northern California would have a major quake on or about September 11, 1991. Attempts to obtain official documentation that the information regarding Al-Qaeda numerology was in the possession of the government is likely impossible, because of Sandy Bergers either accidental or deliberate removal and destruction of documents related to threat assessments and strategies for interdiction and public policy on dislosure with respect to the millenium problem.

Lazarus666 18:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yedah, but so what? It has no clear connection to the flight. You could arguably start a page about these theories and how some people believe they apply to certain events such as this, but it doesn't belong here; what we need are more facts. --ProhibitOnions 22:03, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

I removed the whole numerology section. Some searching on Google ([1] for example) shows that almost all the pages discussing this are either copies of the Wikipedia EgyptAir_Flight_990 page (this page..) or cite Wikipedia as their source. As already said by the Prohibitited Onions in the previous comment, what we need are more facts :-) -- Pepijn Koster 21:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theories[edit]

Why is this particular conspiracy theory given space in the article? It is probably one of many associated with this crash. Stating things like "it is not known if the NTSB investigate this possibility" is equivalent to "it is not known if the NTSB checked whether there were any Martians on board" it doesn't add to the information in the article. I'm in favour of removing the section on conspiracy theories or replacing it with a more general description of the fact that there are many conspiracy theories and disputes over the cause of the accident (why give space to the conspiracy theories but not the theories of the Egyptian authorities?). --Lawrennd 10:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, fancy performing the changes? Pepijn Koster 23:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which.. why not say that there were 33 military officers and a JPL guy on the flight? Why say "more than 30"? Wiki[edia is such a lot of crank.121.44.249.76 22:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- I find very interesting that there exists also a quite valid conspiracy theory that the pilot plunging the plane was a Manchurian candidate, programmed to nose-dive the plane, in order to kill the Egyptian militaries. Furthermore, around the same time, John F. Kennedy Jr. was very strangely also killed by nose-dive crash, without any plausible reason. But, that he had a co-pilot on board, who also was a Manchurian candidate to cause the sudden nose-dive. This John F. Kennedy Jr. case story can be found in Youtube (or was there at least a year ago still). Strangely, the log-book and the other pilot seat was never found from the the crashed plane, both allegedly evidencing that there was a pilot on board, other than leg-broken John F. Kennedy Jr. He had just started to show interest for political ambission, that being the cause of his murder. His magazine name George would have indicated the name of the man that murdered his father JFK. High stakes should Jr. had started a political career. I believe it is possible to pre-program somebody's mind e.g. to nose-dive an airplane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.81.188 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stats?[edit]

The alternative theories proposed by Egyptian authorities were tested by the NTSB, and none were found to match the facts.

Would be nice for the article to list the most prominent ones, or at least give a number. This was a very controversial topic in Egypt, and probably remains so. Tempshill 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Yet the only other place I've seen on about this crash was on the Mayday series, but I remember none of the samples given there, if actually any of them has been given. But no problem! I saw they will broadcast that episode again in National Geographic Channel in Portugal (where I live) on Wednesday or Thursday. If I remember, I'll include samples of those theories. Yet, if someone notices I haven't written it yet after Thursday, please tell me. It's probably because I forgot. Sim(ã)o(n) (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is this the third deadliest crash in the Atlantic? What about TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996? That was 230 people. StatsJunkie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Checking this list, you can see it is actually the 5th deadliest in the Atlantic Ocean. You can change that. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 18:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdi Hanafi Taha[edit]

No mention of the Egyptian pilot who approached the UK for asylum, saying that Batouti had crashed deliberately to have his revenge, in a "if this is my last flight, it is his/theirs too" way, and no mention either of him later also saying that all EgyptAir air pilots were brought together and given the investigation results without further comment - implying that the crash had been caused by Batouti - and then being told to not talk about that, not even among each other. All that was mentioned in the Air Crash Investigation episode on this flight. --Luckz 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as far as including Taha. I could find no reference, though, that included all the detailed information you are asserting. If you have a ref, please post it so we can use it. Akradecki 22:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite stuff[edit]

A few editors have gotten together to try to bring this article up to GA status. Since some of the conversation relating to this effort took place on individual user talk pages, it's being copied here for the record.

In case you're interested, I'm going to start trying to get EgyptAir Flight 990 up to GA standards. I've enjoyed working with you on other articles, and would like to see the teamwork continue. Akradecki 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Per your comments on my talk page, I would be delighted to see Flight 990 at GA and would love to help out with that project; the controversy sorounding the disaster has allways interested me. As for air crash notability guidlines, we badly need them, and they shouldn't be too hard to draw up, either. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked in briefly, been busy the last couple of days retiling the kitchen. Your progress so far looks great! I don't think I mentioned it before, but there's a companion article, Gameel Al-Batouti that I've been expanding at the same time...two for the price of one! Anyway, when I dive back in tomorrow, I plan on continuing to cull through the couple hundred pages of NTSB reports, so if you keep going in your direction, and I keep going that way, we should get a lot done without stepping on each others' toes. Other than the 2 Cairo Times articles, I haven't come across too much on the Egyptian gov't official reactions, so you might want to keep an eye out for sources on that. BTW-I'm fine with challenging the "Accident overview" header concept. Thanks!! Akradecki 23:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's sorted, then - I'll just keep going on the new "Search and Rescue" section, and will likely expand on the reactions and media speculation bits, too (which will include what can be tracked down on the Egyptian gov.s reaction). Some time, I might see what I can do with Gameel Al-Batouti, too. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 990 times[edit]

What are your feelings about using about using Zulu/UTC time rather than local/EST times in the article? All of the aviation and accident investigation references are in Zulu. I'm not sure if or what the "standard" is for accident articles...as you've been around the project longer than me, what are your thoughts? Akradecki 00:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... A tough question. I guess we should use local times, since that's more meaningful to the context of the article - If you say 1:00 AM local time, people immediatly know it was pitch black when (fill the blank) happened. We should probably convert to UTC in brackets, though i.e. X local time (Y UTC). That way we have what I feel is more descriptive first, with the other supplied to keep people happy. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Akradecki 13:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UTC is useful for giving a consistency to timing, especially if an accident happens after a long flight (to avoid a plane taking off at 0800, flying for 7 hours and then crashing at 07:45, for example). Local (UTC) seems the sensible option for providing the most relevant, expected-by-the-reader information first, followed by the UTC for accuracy and avoiding of timezone nonsense. Audigex (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 990 NTSB animations[edit]

Hi, I thought I'd direct this at you seeing as you've been reading the NTSB stuff and are therefore more familiar with it than me (I've never looked at their material on this crash): Do the NTSB documents include, by any chance, an animation of the plane's rapid descent? Or at least a standalone CGI image? Reason I'm asking is, in this case there isn't much wreckage to photograph, and we need something good for the infobox. If not that, then any alternate ideas? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a ton of report attachments, I haven't come across an animation yet, but I'll go look specificially. I have found some images of recovered wreckage, including one of the images. Akradecki 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, couldn't find any animations. I did find one diagram which I've uploaded that shows the flight profile, though. I also just found the Egyptian final report...another 223 pages to read! Akradecki 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well... A good image with an overview of the majority of the recovered stuff should suffice, though. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for stuff at the NTSB website is a real pain. Apparently there was an animation produced (see page 6 here [2]), but I don't think it is available online. Lipsticked Pig 02:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox[edit]

For what it's worth, anyone interested in this rewrite project can view my sandbox where I'm constructing the text as I slowly read through the several hundred pages of reports. Feel free to work there as well. Akradecki 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I'm serving notice that for the EL section, I'm invoking a minor use of ignore all rules. It's generally held that you should not include an EL if that same reference is listed in the References section. However, given the rather long (and growing) references section, and the fact that it is listed in order of appearance in the article, this makes it a bit difficult for our readers to find some key links. So, with that in mind, I've set up the ELs such that some of the key NTSB and ECAA documents are listed there as well, in the interest of making the list more concise and valuable to the reader. Feel free to send flaming darts my way if you disagree. Akradecki 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Type" (cause) of crash in infobox[edit]

Hi everyone, I changed the infobox from "Deliberate crash" (which is NOT what the NTSB Final Report Probable Cause reads) and added "disputed". While we shouldn't state "disputed" for every crash where there are conspiracy theories or unsubtantiated rumors, in cases where (example Arrow Air Flight 1285) several members of the safety board issue a dissenting cause adding "disputed" would be appropriate, as well as cases (such as this or Tenerife) where more than one nation involved in the investigation issues conflicting conclusions it seems appropriate. Lipsticked Pig 22:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and with regard to the crash infoboxes I think there should be a few changes which I'll propose later; "Type" should be "Cause" (its very hard to just come up with a few categories for "Type" that cover everything ...is this crash CFIT or UFIT?) and definitely a line for "Phase" (takeoff, climb, cruise, etc.) would be good. Lipsticked Pig 22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea for dealing with such infoboxes. Several of us are in the process of getting a Task Force together under the Aviation Wikiproject to deal specifically with air crash formatting issues. The initial draft material is on my Sandbox (eventually, it will be moved to become a subpage of the Aviation project). I'd like to invite you to join us, and I'll also copy your comments over to there. As to the proposal itself, since there are already categories for the different types of crashes, maybe the Type (or Cause, as it may become) should be a link to the cat so, for instance, to use the one from KAL 007 which was the fastest for me to pull up, the link would look like this: Shootdown Just a thought. Akradecki 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FfJ, I had discussed here why I changed the cause; it would be prudent of you to discuss it here further. As for your defining the crash as "deliberate", nowhere in the NTSB final report does it state that. That is your conclusion, not the NTSB's. WP:UNDUE is not relevant here; as the flag of the carrier Egypt had, by international treaty, had the right to conduct the investigation; their report is discussed at length in the article, with their differing conclusion. You are mistaking English Wikipedia for Ethnocentric Wikipedia. Lipsticked Pig 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my idea: create a sort of general-purpose category called Category:Aviation accidents and incidents with disputed or undetermined causes. Add the article to that and change the type back to "disputed". Will also fit nicely with the proposal to have the "type" (or "cause", as it may become) entry link to the category, which would certainly make it plain to people that the correct type/cause/whatever for this crash had been selected. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sounds good, and I have a desire to work on Arrow Air Flight 1285 next, so maybe I'll make that category soon. Just as a note, I'm sure most people here (including myself) believe that this crash was a deliberate one by Al-Batouti. In all likelyhood, so did the NTSB. But when I read the Final Report (the day it was released; I'm a AAR junkie) I was struck by the fact the the NTSB quite carefully went up to, but not over, that line. They were not willing to say "deliberate", even with the appendixes talking at length about his behavior in the hotel, etc. I'm not sure if that was partially due to considerations beyond what would normally be considered in an investigation, but regardless, its not our decision to make to step over that line; we need to mantain that same inference, but not overt declaration. I understand how that subtlety might be lost on some people, but I think the article right now does a good job of showing that. Lipsticked Pig 00:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a repository for the NTSB. It is not a mirror site for the NTSB. It may not say "deliberate" but it is very much inferred. As they did not say his inputs were the result of something mechanically wrong with the plane. It does not say the co-pilot made the inputs to save the plane. The NTSB whitewashed the wording of the conclusion, in order for the Egyptian media not to raise hell against them. I strongly disagree with you that WP:UNDUE does not apply. We don't have to put in the box that it is disputed. It is the conclusion of many that it was deliberate. THe people who disagree with it are in the minority. I don't dispute the Egyptians have a right to their conclusion, it is mentioned and rightly so. What I dispute is the whitewashing of the information in the box. It is unnecessary. Fighting for Justice 02:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Fighting for Justice, I re-ordered your comments to be chronological, hope that is OK. Looking at your comments above, the funny thing is we agree 100% on some things. Most of the things you said up there were spot-on. But we disagree, strongly, on the following:
  • Cause of crash: "Flight control inputs resulting in loss on control" vs. "Deliberate crash" It is not proper for us to edit in our own cause the cause of the crash because we feel that the NTSB was pulling their punches, and we think we know what they really wanted to say. That's blatantly violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. When you find a reference that deserves more weight than the NTSB or ECAA reports, and that reference states that the probable cause was a deliberate crash, by all means put it in the article and change the infobox to "Deliberate crash". I do think "Flight control inputs resulting in loss on control" is too wordy however, and would like alternative suggestions.
  • Adding "Disputed": I feel WP:UNDUE was complied to; the infobox had read "Flight control inputs resulting in loss on control (disputed)", which gives predominance to the NTSB theory (because of its general acceptance), while acknowledging (without detail) the conflicting ECAA one. It was, after all, an Egyptian-flag carrier, giving them certain rights in the investigation, and their report was included in the public docket for the crash. A suitable "proportion to the prominence of each" was acheived, which is what has been accomplished in the body of the article as well.
I admit I'm not 100% sure on the "disputed", and request other editor's comments though. While this argument may seem kind of excessive for one line in the article, there are going to be plenty of "disputed" accidents, and many of those will be disputed along national lines - Flash Airlines Flight 604 is very similar. Lipsticked Pig 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not original research. Original research refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The deliberate cause theory is not something I pulled out of a hat. It is what the Egyptians are against therefore it exist. It is more then fair to include it in wikipedia. The Egyptians let the NTSB take the lead in the investigation. Now if they don't like what they were being told that is their problem. Fighting for Justice 04:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your perspective, unfortunately, this is getting into the realm of Original Research, which is defined as "The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". Because the NTSB - nor any authoratative body - has not published this conclusion, we can't publish it, either. Unfortunately, your argument also sounds like you're getting a bit close to POV issues, as you're accusing the NTSB of whitewashing things, and then using Wikipedia as a forum to set things straight. Because we're supposed to be neutral, we really can't be going beyond what's published, even if we think its right. AKRadecki 14:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, yeah, the NTSB goes out of their way never to say "deliberate crash", but the ECAA then offers their "rebuttal" report which says "The Relief First Officer (RFO) did not deliberately dive the airplane into the ocean"...pretty telling, and another obvious sign of the 500-lb gorilla in the closet that the NTSB didn't want to admit. So I understand your argument there, but now your are skirting very close (if not over) to synthesis of a position: WP:SYN. I still don't agree with you, but the more I think about it can see it both ways. Lipsticked Pig 05:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if we simply leave it as Disputed? Nothing more, nothing less just that single word. Fighting for Justice 05:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please don't mad at me for saying this, but now at the end of the day I feel like, "sure, whatever". Again, I see your point, and I appreciate you taking the time to discuss it here in talk; you raised some valid points that other editors can now read. Cheers! Lipsticked Pig 05:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see why this needs to be left as disputed. The NTSB tried to reproduce all of the mechanical failure scenarios presented to them by the egyptian authorities, and they could not reproduce any mechanical fault that would make the plane behave in the manner that it did. The only reason the cause of this crash is disputed is due to the fact that the Egyptians, like a lot of countries heavily influenced by islamic governance cannot accept anything going against their religious beliefs, and obviously suicide and mass murder would be a pretty big no-no.

Although nobody will ever agree 100% on the cause, as an unbiased observer, I believe the NTSB's version of events are more credible, and they are backed up by evidence, whereas in my opinion all the egyptians where doing was to try and deflect the blame onto boeing, and the NTSB. Sk8er boi7000 (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution or Consensus[edit]

Any sign of a consensus regarding the 'cause? KyuuA4 08:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I take the foregoing to imply "Disputed" is the closest thing to a consensus. I think I agree with using "Disputed" because this is an infobox and should not be forced into holding the large amount of text needed to adequately explain the situation without misleading the reader. -R. S. Shaw 00:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the one thing that we are 100% sure of is that control of the plane was lost, wouldn't putting the cause as "Inflight loss of control resulting in crash" be more appropriate. That IMO would give users enough information without being misleading or biased (Sk8er boi7000 (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]


Yeah, but it's not a legitimate disputation, it is not based upon scientific data, or fact. It is based upon religious dogma and a blinkered refusal to accept the indisputable - that Gameel Al-Batouti murdered 216 people by diving the plane into The Atlantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.136.206.152 (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to most that the Egyptian report was politically motivated, with no regard paid to the flight recorders. Is the cause REALLY disputed? Audigex (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use in 419 Fraud[edit]

I am a member of a site that fights 419 fraud. We have found scammers using this flight as part of their fraud. They link directly to the wiki page. I note that someone tried to edit the page to add this information and the edit was reverted back. Is there any possibility we could get a small section added about this? While not directly related to the flight information and the crash, it is factual in that scammers ARE using this to perpetrate their fraud. It would save people from being scammed. Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. The Man 419 (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been independant, third party coverage of this? Your website will probably fail either WP:OR, WP:RS or both, but if you can get some good sources that would be fine to get the information included, and I'll add it in if you're unsure of reference formating. What is your website, BTW, as scammers using this page directly may need addressed by the Wikipedia beyond simply recording it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood - our site is www.419eater.com. You can see our discussion about this at http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=148875. one of our members posted the e-mail he received from the scammer. We actively seek out these e-mails from the scammers. Any help appreciated so we can make your article more complete and get the word out so people are not scammed out of their money. The Man 419 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If someone's going to err, we should err on the side of caution and leave the link. We don't need other people being scammed. The facts being presented are true and verifiable. IANAL: By deleting the scam warnings, this could be construed as aiding and abetting. Also, could be used as proof in a lawsuit against wikipedia by scam victims. --BobCatHKSS (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC) signature relocated by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs)[reply]

It cannot be used to reference the article. Forums are not reliable sources. Technically the link also fails WP:EL. I will ask at WP:ANI for what we can do on the article (after checking out the evidence at the forum for myself). BTW, although IANAL I am related to one, and there is no way the Wikimedia Foundation (which runs Wikipedia) can be sued because a fraudster linked to a page on a project they run. If you really want to check, ask Mike Godwin, Wikimedia's attorney. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 419 scammers are scum who will exploit any vulnerable group or emotional hot topic, there's no reason to single out this or any other event unless reliable independent sources point it out as a notable example. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BobCatHKSS (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC) What about this link which I added to the article: http://www.consumer.state.ny.us/pressreleases/2007/june072007.htm I disagree. If a fraudster uses this site to commit fraud , and you were warned about it, and you guys removed the fraud warnings, that does open up a can of legal problems.[reply]

That link looks kosher to me at first glance. It's certainly reliable. So a note that there's a 419 scam involving the flight should be fine. We still can't state that the specific article is used in one version of the scam, though, since we lack a source that says it. Perhaps we could put a note to that effect at the top of this talk page?
Also, please be careful in exactly what you say here. Some of what's been said could be viewed as legal threats, which are severely not cool. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are blocked for a legal threat on the strength of what you've written above, I will unblock you and yell at the blocking admin. No threat was made; rather, the possiblility of a problem came up. It may be an attempt to add pressure, but I'm inclined to assume good faith. So should other admins. As for the link, yeah that's what we're looking for, but still no reliable source to say that this specific article is being linked to. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that one scammer mentions this article in a letter (although that is not a reliable source) is not notable and I dont think is worthy of mention. This article is just a factual account of the incident like the BBC website mentioned. The name of the passenger in the scam is not mentioned in this article. A factual article in wikipedia or the BBC can not be aiding and abetting anything, so really does not need to be mentioned as this is a encyclopedia not a anti-scammer website. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why we can't include the State of NY link above and say that the flight has been used in 419 scams. I also agree that we can't mention the page directly being linked because that's unsourced. Oren0 (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other incidents found with a Google search [3] on part of this scam mail:

Two other scams I remember seeing at Wikipedia:

Should there be a guideline or suggestion about mentioning this on the talk page, for example with a template similar to {{Onlinesource}} at top? If there are no reliable sources then I don't think it should be in the article itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably WP:VPP material there. I really don't see getting consensus for putting it at the top of actual articles, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I don't read anything anyone said as a legal threat. A legal threat would be "put up x or I will sue you". Second I think some of the links provided show the use of this air crash in scams, if not a direct use of the Wiki page in the scams. Interestingly other articles on Wiki include lines about use in 419 scams. Can we just add something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soludo#419_scams ? On a different note I'd like to thank the community here for being open minded about discussing things like this with new members The Man 419 (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with above - I certainly wasn't going to hire a lawyer to sue or file a complaint with a LEO over this disagreement. I was just concerned that a victim who got scammed by one of these may take action, nothing more. I'm glad that a resolution is in place to include these links - it is always better to do good things than prevent them from happening. BobCatHKSS (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krugerrand had for a few months a section explaining how silver krugerrands looked like, and making a point of how it was not correct to call them "krugerrands" because of trademark issues[10]. The new version is more to the point: all silver krugerrands are a fraud, period[11]. I wonder how many ebay sellers pointed prospective buyers to that section to convince them that they were selling a legit coin. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

Under the section marked Crash the dialogue apparently names one of the pilots

01:48:03 Flight Captain (FC): Excuse me, Jimmy, while I take a quick trip to the toilet...

01:48:08 Relief First Officer (RFO): Go ahead please, go ahead please.

But the RFO is called Gameel Al-Batouti so is this meant to be a poor joke or an Anglicization of an Egyptian name?


The NTSB source says Excuse me, [nickname for relief first officer], while I take a quick trip to the toilet...before it gets crowded. While they are eating, and I'll be back to you so the name has come from another source which is not credited. The quotes should be exactly as the official source but it appears to have been edited so it may be better to delete all the CVR bit and refer readers to the NTSB report to do their own original research! MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No comments for three months so I have removed the inaccurate CVR section, it is still available from the links to the NTSB report. MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this even be a question?[edit]

Hey guys - it's seems pretty conclusive that this plane was flown into the sea by El Batuti. The only question here is motive, and that may have no significance whatsoever. His behavior in the last few years of his life shows extreme sexual perversion. Is this the the behavior of a normal man? No. His behavior becomes more and more erratic, until he plunges flight 999 into the ocean. AT ODDS WITH THE CAPTAIN who had rejoined him in the cockpit. The FDR records INPUTS, not results. He is the one who caused the shear.

sure it was terrorism by a muslim, 75.163.223.60 (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I do not seek to impugn the honor of the man. You who support your relative need to look at the mental state of your relative. Was he himself? Had he not been replaced by someone you didn't know? These are the subtle effects of mental degeneration that most call "senility", that we now know as Alzheimer's disease. I watched this disease kill my mother, as well as several people I have known since her death. It makes them do very strange things. In its early stages, it REPLACES their personalities by those who we do not know. They do odd things that are not in the character that we are familiar with.

Was there an opportunity to examine El Batuti's brain tissue? Do we know if he was suffering from this most horrible of illnesses? His actions need not impugn his honor if he was not the man he had been just a few years previously. Had he always acted this way (toward women)? Or was he always this way? If so, was he always this indiscreet? Whatever went wrong, it was El Batuti that brought this flight down. Unfortunately that much is certain.

The NTSB is one of the only institutions I trust with the word "bureau" in it. Their level of interdepartmental and scientific competence is superlative. They almost always come to the logical conclusion. The cause of this crash WAS the inputs from the copilot position. El Batuti caused the crash. The mystery is why? But that question may have no significance. He may have be suffering from an illness that robs its victims of rational thought. IOW, it wasn't really El Batuti at the controls, but some base form of his previous consciousness.

I can fault flight rules for that. Perhaps. Leaving him alone in the cockpit. But nobody knew he was not himself. He wouldn't have done this, but the monster he had become over several years would. This disease is insidious. The transformations of personality are so subtle the victim doesn't even know, much less those that know him. Do we know this is not the case? 99.93.190.137 (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Shawn Fessenden[reply]

  • The way to do things is to factually state what people on both sides say, and let readers come to their own conclusions about which side is correct. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'It is not possible that anyone who would commit suicide would also kill so many innocent people alongside him,' said Ehab William, a surgeon at Cairo's Anglo-American Hospital," reported the Cairo Times
A naive statement obviously made before the events of the last 10 years. --71.214.223.139 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A statement that was even naive and easily proven false even in 1999. It would take less than 2 years for it to be proven false in a very dramatic manner. 2001:558:6040:82:7CD6:B941:F0A2:C349 (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In 1999 it certainly wasn't without precedent, there are manifest historical instances of people committing suicide and deliberately (or uncaringly) taking others with them. The surgeon at the hospital stating such a thing, does not make it true. I don't agree with the original post by 99.93.190.137, as it becomes a personal attack, but I do agree that there is little doubt that a reasonably objective observer would take the official report as correct (or at least the best guess summary of the available facts), while the Egyptian report is clearly politically motivated. Stating both sides and allowing readers to come to their conclusions is a little too journalistic for my liking: Wikipedia is factual and should state the results of the official investigation, with perhaps a note that there was a second, unofficial investigation which disagreed. The important point being a clear emphasis on the official report Audigex (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing press release[edit]

Here are press releases:

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral?[edit]

This article leans towards the NTSB's decision, thus, this article is not nessecarily neutral. Please reply and revise.--Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the article leans toward the NTSB's decision, but that's going to happen regardless because pretty much all of the relevant worldwide agencies who have spoken on the matter, with the exception of the Egyptian authorities, support the NTSB's deliberate act conclusion. With that said, the lead is a bit overly dismissive of the Egyptian investigation and decision. As such, I will be rewriting it into a more neutral tone, and will work on the rest of the article as necessary. N419BH 18:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article CORRECTLY leans towards the NTSB's decision, as the NTSB was the official investigator. Official investigations should be given prominence over conspiracy theories and unofficial reports widely accepted as politically motivated. NPOV does not mean equal weighting should be given to every viewpoint, regardless of fact. Audigex (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore fundamental Islamist!! Watch out for these guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.83.113 (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. Audigex (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Civil Aviation Agency final report[edit]

The report at http://www.ntsb.gov/events/ea990/docket/ecaa_report.pdf has been taken down by the NTSB, and the NTSB blocked the archive of the website via robots.txt.

Do you have a copy of the report? Do you know where a copy of it is online? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the NTSB changed their entire website around. While I have not re-found the Egyptian final report yet, I did re-find the NTSB's final report here on their new website. At then end of this report are the Egyptian comments to the draft final report, which are pretty much in line with their own final report. It looks like the NTSB is moving all of their documents to the DNS servers, but EgyptAir 990's docket returns no results. Hopefully the files simply haven't been transferred yet. N419BH 04:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest docket available online now is American Airlines Flight 587 (2001). I have my fingers crossed that they'll put the older dockets on the DNS servers. There's actually a TON of information there on all the accidents so if the NTSB puts up the older accidents we'll have a wealth of new public-domain sources to work with for a whole boatload of accidents (and not just airplane accidents either). For now though it looks like we'll have to put up with a whole lot of broken links. You might give the ECAA a call and see if they'll send you a copy of the report but I think the Egyptian government has bigger things to worry about at the moment... N419BH 04:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found a copy at http://wayback.archive.org/web/20110604061959/http://www.ntsb.gov/events/ea990/docket/ecaa_report.pdf and updated its citation in the article. Patrug (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph[edit]

The whole third paragraph is unacceptable because of language, innuendo and bias. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but am rather outraged to find this kind of style and statements on Wikipedia. Came to look for the facts and found trash... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misdt (talk • contribs) 20:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, this is the worst writing I've seen on Wikipedia. I rather have the entire paragraph deleted. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox KATHYxx (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the third paragraph which discusses the two theories or the third paragraph which attacks the ECAA? If it's the latter then the third paragraph is vandalism and should be removed. I have requested page protection in order to prevent it from being reposted. N419BH 17:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV concern[edit]

While it is fair to mention the Egyptians' attempt to whitewash the suicidal pilot, I don't think it is right to give this equal standing with the NTSB's investigation. The latter is evidence-based, and the former is not. It is easy to find sources which back this up. We should not give equal space on this article to the two theories. --John (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed cause[edit]

Who do nyou believe? Funny old thing the evidence is overwhelming in favour of the NTSB report!!! I feel that the article should reflect that and consign the Egyptian report to an also ran paragraph!!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. See section above. --John (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

remove dispute tag?[edit]

Any reason this tag is still around?William Jockusch (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People will always believe their opinions. This tag should, in my opinion, be maintained until irrefutable conclusive evidence that it was either suicide or mechanical failure exists. Personally, I believe NTSB's report for several reasons, including (in my opinion!) compelling arguments against Egyptians' supposition. But, while there's one single person with official reports believing the cause was something that the whole world refuses, this tag should be kept. Sim(ã)o(n) (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how tags should be used. We will likely never have irrefutable evidence either way. The article should cover both the ECAA position and the NTSB's position and not take a side. Right now I think it does a reasonable job of that and the tag should be removed. --Daniel 22:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OK. But others might think it doesn't. See, as English Wikipedia is mostly seen and edited by American, British and Australian people, it's quite inevitable that people will show that they support more NTSB's idea than ECAA's. Maybe you're right, maybe I overreacted in my previous comment... Well, I think you should do this, if you have enough patience: read the whole article, and check if there's any partial view point. If there is one, delete it or replace it. After you've done it... I don't know... discuss the possibility of removing the tag with some more people... Sim(ã)o(n) (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scam?[edit]

There is at least one "Nigerian Prince"-type email floating around referencing this crash to add credibility to their scam. Perhaps since this comes up on the first page of the google results we should add a section detailing the above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollybdenum (talk • contribs) 20:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a newspaper writes an article about such scams it can be included WhisperToMe (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Mollybdenum, I'm not getting it. 1) What is a "Nigerian Prince"-type email? and 2) Who are they when you say "to add credibility to their scam"? -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 16:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to the large section above Use in 419 Fraud - it has no relevance or notability relating to the actual accident so we have no need to add it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes reliable sources discuss the scams related to the accident. But in the cases where no reliable sources do this, don't include it in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone still tell me what is a "Nigerian Prince"-type email? Thanks. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 18:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes called a 419 scam have a read of Nigerian scam. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a coherent time line to the crash?[edit]

Disclaimer - I have not read the NTSB report and have no relevant personal expertise, but I have done a bit of reading around this crash and some of it does not appear to come across in the wiki. Particularly, the fact that cvr and fdr ended before the plane actually crashed. Reading the Flight Recorder Data section, the uninformed would likely assume that the point at which the cvr stops is the point of impact. But of course after this point the plane apparently rose several thousand feet before plummeting back down.

I think the problem is that currently this section on the cvr is separated from the discussion of the flight profile in the ATC Tracking section. The reader isn't given the information to put them together. Perhaps someone who is knowledgeable of the NTSB report could do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl weathers bicep (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking again at the page there seems no discussion at all of the changes in altitude suggested by military radar after the cvr switched off. Seems an odd omission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl weathers bicep (talk • contribs) 09:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on EgyptAir Flight 990. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EgyptAir Flight 990. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of the top paragraphs[edit]

The paragraphs at the beginning section of the article need clarification (I don't know how to do maintenance tags yet, sorry). I can't come up with a clearer version at the moment. Please give me your ideas and I can pick which one is most clear. Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be specific, an you shouldn't ask other editors to make random suggestions. What's unclear? That's the lead paragraph, for future reference. Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph does not use the term "not determined" like the others. I could find a way to insert it in. Plus, it bascially sounds like a repeat of the other two paragraphs at the top. Tigerdude9 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The line; "While the NTSB's report did not determine a specific reason for the relief first officer's alleged actions, their report stated the impact was "a result of the relief first officer's flight control inputs".[1]" is only partially quoting the entire probable cause conclusion and is taking the source report out of context to read as a deliberate crash. The NTSB report conclusion states actions before determination. There is no logical reason to change the order or context of the actual source. Please refrain from an editing battle. If you want to edit this line to differ from the source then please state your reasons for doing so. The order in which the information of actions and determination should remain the same as it is in the source report.

Flight 990. Context matters.[edit]

The line; "While the NTSB's report did not determine a specific reason for the relief first officer's alleged actions, their report stated the impact was "a result of the relief first officer's flight control inputs".[1]" is taking the source report out of context to read as a deliberate crash. The NTSB report conclusion states actions before determination. There is no logical reason to change the order or context of the actual source. Please refrain from an editing battle. If you want to edit this line to differ from the source then please state your reasons for doing so. 71.56.169.162 (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the reverse introduces what kind of change to the facts ... ? I'm not seeing any material difference, ut that's really not the important matter. I'm chiefly concerned with your inappropriate assertions that anybody who disagrees with you is acting from personal motives. Perhaps you can address that? Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no logical reason to take the source report out of order, it changes the context. I cannot determine any reason for doing so, so I concluded that it must be personal reasons. My apologies, please disregard my earlier ignorant assertions.71.56.169.162 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, OK, I still don't get it, but it's really not important. Please keep in mind that it's best to simply state that you feel that rewording is better, rather than making loaded claims in edit summaries. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will do that. Thank you for consenting, I know it may not seem like a big deal but if we are more exacting then there will be less misconceptions among the readers. I apologize for my missteps. 71.56.169.162 (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yo I think we should add this[edit]

https://www.spytalk.co/p/getting-inside-bin-ladens-head?r=cp26q&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Basically this substack article has a pretty neat quote

Bin Laden did come up with the original idea for flying planes into the World Trade Center Towers, Lahoud told SpyTalk podcast co-host Jeanne Meserve in a wide-ranging interview. Analysts have generally credited bin Laden deputy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the brilliant architect of the 9/11 attacks. But Lahoud found the germ of the idea in a bin Laden note.

“The idea came to him when he was listening to the news back on the 31st of October, 1999,” Lahoud told Meserve, when the pilot of an EgyptAir flight from New York to Cairo deliberately drove the plane into the sea off Nantucket Island in Massachusetts. “So bin Laden writes on this sheet of paper, he says that, ‘upon hearing the news, I turned to the brothers who were with me at the time and I told them why didn't he crash it into one of the financial towers?’”

Lahoud says the EgyptAir pilot “had some vengeful motives that had nothing to do with bin Laden or Al Qaeda, but this is where the idea came from for bin Laden.” The leader’s sinister imagination is also on display in papers “in which he planned attacks against the United States…in letters that he composed in 2004 and subsequently later on in 2010,” Lahoud says. “So from that respect, I don't think we gave him enough credit for his planning before.” ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.241.29 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Change the cause to deliberated crash[edit]

The egyptians investiation agencies LIE A LOT, we see on FLash airlnes 604 which they siad that was a "Mechinical failure" while it was clear that it was pilot error, they just try to protect their repuation so change the cause to Delibarated crash caused by co pilot Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the current infobox does not give an appropriate summary of the situation. It treats both conclusion with equal weight, when in reality the Egyptians’ conclusion was merely a theory which was proven not to be corroborated by techical evidence and which was not widely accepted by the community. The infobox should therefore be changed. Tvx1 16:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:EgyptAir_Flight_990&oldid=1196551102"