Talk:One-Two-Go Airlines Flight 269

Neutrality tag

I've added a {{NPOV}} tag and this is why:

• Blocked editor InvestigateUdom (talk · contribs) has created a large amount of this article - clearly biased, and now blocked, the content should be verified and cited.
• A lot of the "Recovery" section is unreferenced. This isn't WP:BLP but it's important that we cite things that relate to incidents such as this.
• It needs work because it seems to be written as if it's still an ongoing issue, it happened four years ago.
• Most of the controversial issues link to a website called "investigateudom.com" which clearly has a conflict of interest.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, i removed some stuff a while ago that wasnt referenced. Anything referenced on investigateudom.com should be discounted as it isnt a reliable source. --JetBlast (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the tag as the issues above have been addressed. 86.4.163.59 (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on One-Two-GO Airlines Flight 269. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202175916/http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1980.pdf to http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1980.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202175916/http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1980.pdf to http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1980.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/6EATBw8JP
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927124531/http://www.aviation.go.th/doc/Interim%20Report.pdf to http://www.aviation.go.th/doc/Interim%20Report.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/6CJeGxALS
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/6CJeTYAPm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/6Fh18VZot

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) 07:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Runway discrepancy

This sections starts with an uncited statement "According to ICAO standards, the runway at an international airport must be at least 150 meters wide". The main runways at JFK, LAX, SFO are all 61m wide, and those at O'Hare just 46m, so that seems doubtful. Can someone provide a reference for what the true minimum is. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Pilots

It talks a lot about what the pilots did and didn't do, but it never mentions anywhere whether they were among the dead. I assume they were killed, but it would be nice if it confirmed this in the article. I'm also a bit skeptical about all these highly biased claims against the airline. They may be completely or partially true, but this sort of attack also seems to be considered normal industrial warfare in the region; if you can use the press, innuendo and false claims backed up by "documents" you can do great damage to a competitor. They fully recognize how much everyone loves scandal, assigning blame and jumping onto bandwagons. Makes our media scandal orgies in the US seem pretty tame in comparison. Even if it were all perfectly true, the fact that the real motivation of 2/3rds of the people in the anti-airline group is that they are hoping by making the airline responsible they can maybe make some big money...either in a courtroom once the public opinion is whipped up enough, or more likely the instigators hope to be bribed to shut up. I may be wrong, but I've heard of similar cases before.

64.223.110.149 (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you think of the nationality chart I made?

Nationality	Passengers	Crew	Dead	Total
Thailand	45	7	42	52
United Kingdom	10	0	8	10
Israel	10	0	8	10
France	10	0	9	10
United States	5	0	5	5
Germany	5	0	1	5
Ireland	4	0	1	4
Sweden	4	0	2	4
Iran	3	0	0	3
Australia	2	0	1	2
Canada	2	0	1	2
Netherlands	2	0	0	2
Austria	1	0	0	1
Italy	1	0	0	1
Total	123	7	89	130

73.87.74.115 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no sources to support it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I think his sources are the ones under the Survivors and Fatalities section which indicates how many people of said nationality died. He did the math to fill out the rest of the other boxes. I don't think you need to cite process of elimination. Tntad (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Tntad, doing your own math is original research. I could make my own chart without the original research. In addition, the article did not mention any Iranians on board. You better double-check the article again. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Are they legit? TrueLightningStriker (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

TrueLightningStriker I wouldn't say that because 73.87.74.115 did their own math which is considered original research. OR is not allowed. Tigerdude9 (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

References