Talk:Barrier Air

Fair use rationale for Image:Great Barrier Airlines logo.gif

Image:Great Barrier Airlines logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidents and Accidents

The "Incidents and Accidents" section has been deleted twice by I.P. 121.90.192.7. The edit summary given for the deletion the second time was "removed erronious information". The content removed had several references. I checked the references and they appeared to be reputable sources and to support the content of the deleted section. If this information is indeed erroneous, then verifiable sources need to be found to document that it is false. Then we can try to reach consensus on what should be included. Perhaps we will have to include the information that conflicting stories exist. If the issue is that the "Incidents and Accidents" section, though truthful, implies a poor safety record, then that could possibly be corrected by including safety statistics. Susfele (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple more thoughts ... I just realized that the information in this section is attributed to various articles, all from The New Zealand Herald. Do you have reason to believe that this is a biased source, and if so, can you offer verifiable sources to cite as to that bias? That could be information that is legitimate to include in this section or possibly be grounds for deleting this section. Also, if the airline has instituted new safety practices as a result of these accidents, that information could be included, if it is supported by reliable sources. Susfele (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Today, the majority of the Incidents and Accidents section was deleted by I.P.121.90.149.78, who I assume is the same user that has removed the entire section a few times in the last day or so. The part that was removed today [[1]] included the information that after one accident "the subsequent investigation found that the aircraft had been overdue for maintenance checks, and there had been previous issues with the airline's safety records, including a grounding of the entire fleet in 1998 due to safety issues and a poor safety attitude, with the airline only being allowed to restart operations after the institution of regular inspections by the Civil Aviation Authority" Most of this is supported by the source given, though the last clause is a bit of an extrapolation. I can see that this doesn't convey a good picture of the airline's safety practices. If there is information available from reliable sources that conveys a better picture of this airline's safety practices, then by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy it would be important to include material in the article as well as the negative material, to provide a balanced view. However, if there isn't any information available that paints a better picture, painting a better picture by deleting sourced material from the article seems itself to be a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. If the sourced material can be demonstrated to be erroneous, then of course, it should be deleted, but the editor making the cuts has not stated why they believe the information to be incorrect. I have left a warning message and a request to discuss the issue at User talk:121.90.149.78. At this point I haven't reverted the last deletion of the material -- I will wait a few days to give the editor time to respond here. Susfele (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for information the official Accident report about ZK-LOU is at http://www.taic.org.nz/ReportsandSafetyRecs/AviationReports/tabid/78/ctl/Detail/mid/482/InvNumber/2009-004/Page/0/language/en-US/Default.aspx?SkinSrc=[G]skins/taicAviation/skin_aviation .MilborneOne (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Being the person who added the material, I note that in addition to removed material about the propellor blade incident (such as the number of wounded) which still has not been restored, the edits have also removed the mention of another crash of the airline. Reporting that a plane of an airline crashed is certainly not minor enough to simply be removed. I will restore that material once I have time, but it's certainly on my list to do - sure, I understand that the people working at the airline won't like it, and may even have some negative results stemming from it (the odd person choosing another airline) but that slightly "guilty" consideration shouldn't play into it article writing here.

As for the Herald being biased - well, certainly biased in that "juicy" stories like airline crashes and incidents will get more coverage than descpriptions of all the many flights that go well. But that doesn't mean the reportage ITSELF that is being referenced to is biased. And the authority reports stating major problems with their safety culture certainly leads me to suspect that a claim of "undue weight" would be pretty shaky indeed. Ingolfson (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote up the propeller blade incident based on the official accident report. The propeller blade incident has been restored, but based on the official report, in the hopes of keeping the information in the article and still avoiding an edit war with the person who keeps deleting the material. I stumbled onto the deletions while on Recent Changes Patrol. My own interests as far as writing and editing articles lie in a different direction. Since you are interested in preserving this information in the article there's no reason for me to be involved further.Susfele (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barrier Air. 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/20111108080842/http://www.greatbarrierairlines.co.nz/contact.asp to http://www.greatbarrierairlines.co.nz/contact.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

History

In respose to a single edit that erased most of the history of the airline I suggest that [2] is a good if somewhat questionable source for such information, although as blogs go this one is particulalry reputable. The things it points to can probably be used as reliable if not secondary sources. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I have asked for page protection in response to the incommunicative IP that is continually pushing a more restrictive POV on this article. From what I can see there is a continual history of the airline since it’s founding. There is no reason to break this history to only cover the latest owners.Andrewgprout (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I have asked for page protection again. After Mr IP has come back from the last block - I left a message on their talk page to try to encourage discussion but No. Simply another rant in mainspace. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)