Overleg:Japan Airlines-vlucht 123

"Er waren 21 niet-Japanners aan boord, waaronder de plaatselijk beroemde volkszanger Kyu Sakamoto, 43 jaar oud." Kyu Sakamoto was wel Japanner (in elk geval: in Japan geboren; zie de pagina over hem). Hoe zit dit? R.J.C.vanHaaften 22 jan 2009 09:28 (CET)

Link naar Japanse versie van het onderzoeksrapport

Ik heb opnieuw de link naar de japanse versie van het onderzoeksrapport verwijderd.

• de waarschijnlijkheid dat een lezer van de nederlandstalige wikipedia japans spreekt EN deze link zou willen gebruiken is kleiner dan 0,000000001%
• als we hier de oorspronkelijke versie van het rapport gaan linken zou dat op ALLE lemma moeten gebeuren van vliegtuigongelukken waar gelinkt zou moeten worden naar de anderstalige versie van het onderzoeksrapport, ik zie het nut er niet van in om te linken naar rapporten in de meest vreemde talen in denk aan chinees, russisch, arabisch etc. dat is een totaal nutteloze actie in mijn ogen aangezien de kans dat er een lezer is die dergelijke vreemde talen machtig is zeer klein is.
• linken naar de Engelstalige versie van een rapport acht ik wel nuttig omdat de meeste lezers die taal wel machtig zijn.

Vr groet Saschaporsche (overleg) 9 feb 2013 15:41 (CET)

As I have explained elsewhere (such as Overleg:Vliegramp Faro#Portuguese links) the English translations of official reports have disclaimers stating that when there is a conflict between the original language and English, the original language is to be followed, so the original language reports have value.

• JAL 123: http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/eng-air_report/JA8119.pdf - "(This is a translation of "Aircraft Accident Investigation Report on Japan Air Lines JA8119, Boeing 747 SR-100" prepared for reference only with intent to be helpful to those who may wish to read the report in translation. Therefore, it goes without saying that the original text in Japanese governs in case there is any discrepancy from the original, in usage of words, substantial content, or context in any part of this English version.)"
• AF 447: http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/f-cp090601.en.pdf "SPECIAL FOREWORD TO ENGLISH EDITION This report has been translated and published by the BEA to make its reading easier for English-speaking people. As accurate as the translation may be, the original text in French is the work or reference."

So articles on the Dutch Wikipedia should link to both the original language report and English unless the report was originally written in Dutch (Dutch Safety Board reports).

As an FYI, there have been original final reports of large aircraft crashes written in, besides English and Dutch: German (German BFU, Austria, and Swiss AAIB), French (BEA, Algeria, and co-produced with English in Canada), Spanish (Spain, Mexico, and various countries), Italian (ANSV), Russian (IAC/MAK), Portuguese (CENIPA and GPIAA), Polish, Norwegian, Swedish, Turkish, Japanese (JTSB and its predecessors), Korean (South Korean ARAIB and its predecessors), and Chinese (ASC of Taiwan only for China Airlines 611). I have not seen any agencies make any aviation accident reports in Arabic. The agencies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Indonesia, and Thailand have their final reports written in English despite not having English as official languages, and the GPIAA report on the Air Transat ditching was only written in English. The former agency of Yugoslavia also had its report on the 1970s Zagreb collision in English.

WhisperToMe (overleg) 11 feb 2013 07:46 (CET)

Even if the majority of the readers is not able to read Japanese, what's the harm in including ONE extra line in the external links section of the article? If a language indicator (ja) is present, the reader can decide for himself whether s/he wants to follow that link or not. Adding this link does not mean you can't retain a link to a translation, does it? I think you both agree on one very important point: linking to the original report should be done in ALL articles of this kind. Since you cannot edit all articles at once, you should take it one step at the time, and this article is just one step of many. Richard 11 feb 2013 10:56 (CET)

Ach een link extra is op zich niet erg, maar ik vraag me werkelijk af of iemand die link ooit gaat gebruiken. Een lezer die het Jjapans machtig is zal het hele artikel in het Japans willen lezen, en dus naar de Japanse wikipedia gaan om het hele verhaal te lezen, en evt op de link te drukken. Ik vind de link op onze wikipedia alleen maar nutteloze extra info waar niemand iets mee gaat doen (mijn stellige overtuiging) en dan is het dus "vervuilende tekst" in dit lemma. Bovendien zou je het dan inderdaad op elk lemma moeten doen, en dat gaat dus nooit lukken. Een hoop nutteloze bits/tekst in mijn ogen. Vr groet Saschaporsche (overleg) 11 feb 2013 15:53 (CET)

Tsja... als de vertalingen zelf al aangeven for reference only... En ik moet je zeggen, ik spreek een behoorlijk mondje Engels maar het is niet zo dat ik, als ik informatie over een vliegramp in een Engelstalig gebied wil lezen, direct naar de Engelstalige wikipedia overschakel (om maar een voorbeeld te geven). Richard 11 feb 2013 17:12 (CET)

So, should I wait and see if there is more input on this page? WhisperToMe (overleg) 19 feb 2013 07:03 (CET)

I was wondering the same thing. Richard 19 feb 2013 13:49 (CET)

Je zou een oproep kunnen doen op "overleg gewenst" om de mening van anderen te vragen, en dan verwijzen naar deze OP. Aan de andere kant klopt dat niet, want het gaat over een algemene vraag, Is het wenselijk om de link naar het originele onderzoeksrapport in een "vreemde" taal (Timboektaans,Chinees, Russisch...) op te nemen in een lemma van een vliegtuigongeluk op de nederlandstalige Wikipedia. (Die vraag zou je ook in de kroeg kunnen stellen, hoewel dat eigenlijk ook niet de juiste plek is. Peiling houden?) Mijn idee is dat het volstrekt overbodig is. Voor een overheidsdienst lijkt het me nuttig om die link ergens te bewaren, voor ons niet. vr groet Saschaporsche (overleg) 19 feb 2013 14:59 (CET)

After doing a google translate, I'd like to discuss the "primary source" consideration (AFAIK on the English Wikipedia accident reports are not considered original research as they are published by the accident investigation authority) - On the English Wikipedia there are some discussions about it:

• en:Wikipedia_talk:Use_of_primary_sources_in_Wikipedia#Status.2C_for_example.2C_of_government_reports.3F (emphasis added by me) - A user said: "The proposal also raises havoc with all the aircraft accident articles we have on Wikipedia. Quite often the ONLY reliable evidence we have giving the cause of a notable accident is the investigating authority's accident report. This is even true for accidents where over 200 people died, and especially for accidents that aren't - well, I don't want to say "popular", but perhaps "well-known to the average United States citizen in the year 2006". The accident report is a primary source, but without it not only are accident articles unwritable, they're also unverifiable."
• en:Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_191#Comments - A user said (emphasis added by me) "With aviation accidents the final accident report is usually utilized as the primary source, with news coverage providing for secondary sourcing. The technical aspects of the accident, as well as the accident sequence, are most authoritatively sourced by the final report. See United Airlines Flight 232 another GA of mine with a very similar sourcing structure, though that article benefits from the first hand accounts of the surviving crew. I will begin working on the specific bullets listed here."

I am not aware of any such discussions on the Dutch Wikipedia, and I am aware the Dutch Wikipedia is a separate project, but these rationales on the English Wikipedia should show why many there find them very valuable and important.

WhisperToMe (overleg) 20 feb 2013 06:23 (CET)

Primary source for a wikipedia article is the accident report by a respected aviation authority, no doubt about that. That said, if the original report is in a "strange language" one can expect that this is translated by an official translater. Off course in this translation there can be some slight deviations from the original report. However, usually they are very minor.Readers of the Dutch wikipedia are usually not expert on aviation nor able to read languages other than Dutch , English, German and French. There for, in my opnion it's no use of including the Japanese version of the report as source as this will most probably not lead to better understanding of the acccident. I really don't see your point of including this reference on our wikipedia. In my veiw, this reference is "clutter". Regards Saschaporsche (overleg) 20 feb 2013 09:19 (CET)

Sometimes it's the case where it's in a strange language that is not translated. For instance several Russian accidents have reports written in Russian that have not been translated into English. There is one Japanese incident (en:Japan Airlines Flight 350) which does not have an English translation for its report. There was Helios Airways-vlucht 522 and the accident report is only in Greek. The report is en:Turkish Airlines Flight 634 is only in Turkish.

Many readers at the English Wikipedia also are not experts on aviation, but several editors on the English Wikipedia tunderstand that for the technical aspects (scientific things that may be inaccurately rendered by the media) it is important to have the accident report on hand so one can fully understand what happened to the aircraft. There are some aspects that have nothing to do with the accident report (cultural, political, and social issues) and so can easily be sourced by secondary sources. But newspapers often get technical scientific things wrong. Newspapers can be used to help summarize what the reports say, and to compare and contrast differing reports, but you want to have the reports themselves in case the media articles do not explain the concepts well enough. WhisperToMe (overleg) 21 feb 2013 01:44 (CET)

However strange that may seem, I don't think the official accident report was directly used as a primary source for this article. I think it was based on one or more articles which in turn were based on the official report (but that does not make that report the primary source for this article).

And, as I have said before (see #Including Japanese names within the article below): we don't have to do things the way they are done on other Wikipedias. You can quote all talk pages you want, but doing so will not change that. Even if we would eliminate all sources and external links (mind you, I'm not saying I would really suggest such a thing), that would be our decision. Richard 20 feb 2013 09:54 (CET)

Don't worry, I am aware that the Dutch Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia and therefore has different policies and procedures. But it also fair to include perspectives and arguments that are brought up elsewhere. They illustrate practices that are useful in developing aviation articles and may be adopted here.

English is the primary language of aviation. Practices that are successful in developing quality aviation articles may appear first on the English Wikipedia before appearing elsewhere because the English Wikipedia has a large editor base dealing in aviation, and that English is the primary language in terms of aviation affairs.

As for the sourcing, currently the article may not rely on the report at all, but the best practice may be to use the report in technical matters, i.e. in things that may be oversimplified or rendered inaccurate in secondary source media coverage. That involves very precise language, and a slight change in meaning can make a conclusion different.

So while you do not have to do things the same way as in on another Wikipedia, it is fair to consider what the other Wikipedias do or do not do and explain how it relates to the Dutch Wikipedia's audience.

WhisperToMe (overleg) 21 feb 2013 01:34 (CET)

Including Japanese names within the article

About "Japanse namen van crewleden en overlevenden verwijderd. Dit is de nederlandstalige wikipedia" When mentioning a person who has a name written in a different language, from what I believe it is customary to mention the name as written in the native language except if the person already has a Wikipedia article of his/her own (then one goes to the article to see the name). There are Japanese pilots and survivors, so it would be helpful for a Dutch person to know how the names are written in Japanese - On the English Wikipedia that principle is used, with names of Japanese people shown written in their native language within English articles. WhisperToMe (overleg) 12 feb 2013 07:36 (CET) 07:36 (CET)

as far as i know this is not a practise on the Nederlandstalige Wikipedia, that's why i removed the Japanese version of the names. Can you please indicate where you find that such a rule is indicated here. You're introducing 2 practices which are not common on this Wikipedia. Saschaporsche (overleg) 12 feb 2013 10:55 (CET)

In this case I have to agree with Saschaporsche - this is not the way we usually do it in the Dutch wikipedia, and it serves no useful purpose. Richard 12 feb 2013 11:14 (CET)

Ok. On the English Wikipedia the practice is very common. To answer Sascha, I don't think there are guidelines that encourage it, but it's a common practice. An example of Japanese text on the English Wikipedia: the article en:Flag_of_Japan#Use and customs has "the phrases "Certain Victory" (必勝 Hisshō) or "Seven Lives" was written on the hachimaki " and "known as a mourning flag (弔旗 Chō-ki)." which are instances where Japanese text is used to explain terms - and that is in a featured article. For one with names I'll try to find a featured article with names. WhisperToMe (overleg) 14 feb 2013 05:12 (CET)

en:Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville_collision has one instance: "Kazumitsu Joko (上甲一光 Jōkō Kazumitsu), read a message from Moriyuki Kato," - But I do not remember if I added it in or not. WhisperToMe (overleg) 14 feb 2013 05:19 (CET)

I believe we only mention the name in Japanese characters in the introduction of an article. Velocitas(↑) 14 feb 2013 05:47 (CET)

The fact that a practice is common on one wikipedia does not mean it has to be followed elsewhere. Richard 14 feb 2013 11:32 (CET)