Talk:China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735

ABC News articles

I think the recent reports that have surfaced from ABC News correlating with the Wall Street Journal's report that the U.S. officials investigating the crash believe that the aircraft was intentionally crashed should be also mentioned in this article in some form. They give details that the U.S. investigators did research into the personal life of one of the pilots and noted he may have been dealing with issues. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing agaist that but you need to follow the sources more carefully. Above you said "may have been", which is in the source, but you wrote "was most likely" in the article. Also "intentionally crashed" (per source) is not the same as "intentionally crashed by the pilot" (or "deliberately put into a vertical dive by one of the pilots" as you added to the article). I hope you see the difference now. If not, please ask others to explain it here. WikiHannibal (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiHannibal, The terms "may have been" and "most likely" are near synonymous terms. All I'm doing is rewording the statement from the source article which is not an uncommon thing to do. Most likely is also an accurate term to use because there are only two major theories that are considered. One is a malfunction of the aircraft's rudder mechanics AKA a "rudder hardover" and two is an intentional crash by someone in the cockpit likely a pilot since even China Eastern Airlines themselves stated it was unlikely there was a breach in the cockpit allowing someone else to manipulate the flight inputs. A rudder malfunction and overall mechanical problems as the cause of the crash has already been ruled out by the aircraft's manufacturer Boeing and others. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

1) Regarding the terms "may have been" and "most likely" are nowhere near to synonymous terms, in fact not even near to near-synonyms. Let's wait for other editors to comment about the synonymity of "may have been" and "most likely" but most likely this issue will resolve later when more info is leaked. 2) Regarding "intentionally crashed" vs yours "deliberately put into a vertical dive by one of the pilots", I do not see how your speculation about "two theories", saying it was "likely a pilot", should explain your addition, which did not even use the word "likely" and simply claimed it was the pilot. Adding "deliberately put into a vertical dive by one of the pilots" is (or was, at the time when you first added the ABC source) clearly OR, because that claim was not in he source. Again, we shloud stick to what the unnamed officials said or better for a truly official statement before writing it was the pilot, even if everybody, including me, believes it is "most likely" - at present, it just may have happened, and that is not enough. (WP:SYNTH). WikiHannibal (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Why not simply say the aircraft was "deliberately put into a vertical dive" and leave the specualtion as to who did it out? Let's stick to known facts for now. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Press Office of the People's Republic of China

Reuters is also reporting this and not just reporting the WSJ report. The Chinese government denies this. So hiding these findings is taking sides with the People's Republic of China. That is wrong. Just be neutral. Charliestalnaker (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Charliestalnaker well said 202.43.234.64 (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

neither Reuters nor WSJ are "source" they are media that are just repeating unverified claims. Wikipedia should not be the press office of boeing which has a history of LYING about machinery failured. 101.127.8.197 (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Name an example of your assertion about Boeing lying about “machinery failured.” And then tell us about the mechanical problems revealed from this incident. Putting LYING in all caps doesn’t make it true; it just makes China to look desperate. Airline pilots get to kill Chinese citizens with impunity? 2600:6C4E:B7F:F850:A4A6:16EF:18F8:8A17 (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Related (minor) incidents

On the Chinese version of this article, there is a section discussing some minor incidents, including "misreporting that MU5735 is arrived the airport", "some wrongly reported that the black box is found", "impersonating passengers not boarded MU5735", "Marketing in advantage of the MU5735 incident" (Benefit from others' misfortune), "Bullying on victim's parents" and "Internet rumors". But there is no such discussion on the English counterpart and I want to translate this to there. After a brief discussion on the Discord, I decided to discuss this on the talk page. It is better to putting them on the primary incident sections as well as the "Reactions" section instead of opening a new section. HaydenWong (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Those sound relevant, please add them here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consensus1 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think these incidents have been added to the article. I do note that per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't simply a collection of all possible information - it's an encyclopedia, and as such, it should offer an overview of a topic. So it can be quite appropriate to omit minor details, particularly if reported by just one source. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point. --Consensus1 (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Why the whitewash of the crash? We know it was not mechanical. We know there was evidence found at the crew hotel the day of the crash. We know a Chinese military YouTube channel (Chinese Forces) reported that this crash was caused by the pilot. Wikipedia does not need to cover for Boeing. That is the job of Boeing’s Senators and lobbyists. But Wikipedia should not whitewash mass murder such as this crash to spare the feelings of the Chinese Wikipedia whitewashers 2600:6C4E:B7F:F850:A4A6:16EF:18F8:8A17 (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What crew hotel? There was no reliable source report on one, and apparently the only source for the "suicide note" is twitter, which isn't considered reliable unless the account is an expert. It also has the ridiculous claim that you pull the lever to make the plane go down. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

"Accident" vs. "incident"

The lead states that this event is an accident. This is still under investigation, and it has not been determined whether or not this was accidental or deliberate (with deliberate intent seeming likely). One distinction between accident and incident is intent:

"Accidents, by definition, are unexpected and unintended events that lead to harm, damage, injury, or loss."^[1] (emphasis added} 136.54.106.120 (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Do the Federal Aviation Administration and the Air Accidents Investigation Branch agree with that distinction? I'd be a bit surprised if the Civil Aviation Administration of China has something different to them. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

But I see that Wikipedia describes all deliberate aircraft crashes as "Incidents", e.g. Germanwings Flight 9525. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

btw, nobody knows if it’s a deliberate crash, so that’s not really applicable right now. TheAverageAviationGeek (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)