Talk:Andreas Lubitz

Investigation is not complete

87.113.69.96 (talk). As the investigation is not complete, it is far too early to refer to the co-pilot as 'mass murderer'. That title is given only to those convicted. Per WP:BDP, given the claims have not been proven nor has investigation concluded, it is inappropriate to place that in his article. You have also reverted 5 times now in 1 hour, a violation of WP:3RR. ― Padenton|✉   00:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up Padenton. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a news for me that Wikipedia must wait for some investigation to be complete, while reliable sources (like every newspaper on the Earth!) call it mass murder. Wikipedia should report, what others are reporting, not water it down. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No, that's a clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS.― Padenton|✉   13:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What reliable sources are calling this "mass murder"? - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Simply Google "Lubitz mass murder". I got lots of hits like [1], where major newspapers use this exact phrasing or close equivalent like "mass killer". Most I have read about this disaster is in foreign language though. And the exact phrasing does not even matter, as deliberatelely crashing a plane full of people *IS* murder, by the very definition of the English language word. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No actually "murder" is a motivated act. Just killing people is not murder, it has to be intentional and the person has to be of sane mind enough to formulate it, so let's leave these determinations to the experts and not indulge in WP:SYNTHESIS here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources like Telegraph or Der Spiegel [2] call it a mass murder and Lubitz a mass murderer. Echoing what various RS say is not doing original synthesis. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

RS in normal circumstances is not the same as RS in breaking news. Read WP:RSBREAKING. ― Padenton|✉   06:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please listen to Padenton's advise. They clearly know Wikipedia polices and guidelines. S/he is right. This is WP:NOTNEWS. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:RSBREAKING tells that "It is better to wait a day or two after an event...". How many days do you propose we wait for editing the article to say, what is obviously correct by common sense and what everyone else is saying? (don't talk secrets) (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@(don't talk secrets):Calling WP:OR "common sense" doesn't mean it has a place on Wikipedia. There is no specific number of days. When WP:RS start reporting facts that have been confirmed, rather than the opinions of Lubitz's acquaintances, the opinions of prosecutors, or the opinions of the general public. WP:RS doesn't mean that everything you find in an article they've published is factual and is appropriate to include in every Wikipedia article, and for WP:BLP (including WP:BDP) we err on the side of caution. ― Padenton|✉   17:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE. By refusing to use same terminology as majority of planet's newspapers, including RS like Daily Telegraph and Der Spiegel, and whitewashing articles with mistaken cautionism we are actually giving undue weight to the tiny minority viewpoint that Lubitz did not do it, or that it is still unclear what the cause of the incident was. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually "mass killer" or "mass murderer" are emotionally loaded phrases. Yes, the incident was terrible, but Lubitz comitted a suicide as much as a mass murder. As I see, more tabloidy sites tend to use these emotional words to describe the event and him. I can understand that many people don't care about treating Lubitz in a neutral way, but we shouldn't cave in unless the official investigation is over. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"comitted [sic] a suicide as much as a mass murder". Actually he committed 1/150=0.66% parts of suicide and 149/150=99.33% parts of mass murder. I agree we must be cautious with sources like Bild, but major newspapers like Daily Telegraph and Der Spiegel call it mass murder and those are not sensationalist tabloids. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt he was a murderer. Once this is settled officially the wiki should state unambiguously that he was a murderer. 141 people constitutes a mass, so a mass murderer. A lot is made of his mental health issues, he was depressed. He could have committed suicide without murdering all the crew and passengers. The murder part was a huge part of his decision. Jazzbox (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jazzbox: According to your personal opinion, not the law, and we don't inject our personal opinions into wikipedia articles. ― Padenton|✉   16:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Give me a break. Do you work for Lufthansa or something? My opinion has nothing to do with it. My opinion he says. A man flies a plan into the Swiss Alps deliberately killing everybody? That isn't murder? It's just my opinion? Jazzbox (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jazzbox: As I have now said several times on this talk page to you and other editors, go read the definition of 'murder'. If you can't remain objective, perhaps you shouldn't be editing this article. ― Padenton|✉   18:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering what your motivation for pedantry is? It's obviously murder. I suppose in your spare time you busy yourself with how walking across a city street against the light is not jaywalking, how taking things from a store without paying might not be shoplifting. Jazzbox (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jazzbox:It's quite simple: WP:BDP. This is an encyclopedia, not your blog. We do not classify events as murder on the basis of disliking them. Murder has a specific legal definition, and when and if that is a true appraisal of the incident, we will put it in. ― Padenton|✉   22:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I find your approach quite a bit more subjective than mine. When you intentionally kill yourself along with 141 others that is a suicide-murder, as plain as the books. Jazzbox (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Jazzbox you need to keep in mind that what determines the content of articles here is not your opinion, but WP:RS. Rushing labels like "murderer" ahead of official determinations to that effect is not how we write an encyclopedia. That are a number of alternate possibilities and it is not up to us to decide which one is right, just to add it to the article when that information is made available. - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I will return once some kind of "official" label is applied. But, I think if you could somehow bring back some of the {cough} "murdered" {cough} passengers they would have a strong opinion upon the cause of their death. In my view, to say what happened is not murder is quite a bit more biased and subjective than to simply call it what it is. Jazzbox (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTBLOG - Ahunt (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jazzbox: It's not our place to speak for the dead, that's the job of a prosecutor. Our job is only to accurately describe notable events from a neutral point of view. ― Padenton|✉   00:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The evidence shows beyond any reasonable doubt that Lubitz's intentionally killed himself along with the entire crew and passengers. Not only did he reset the autopilot to like ~100 feet in the Swiss Alps, but also accelerated. He was an experienced pilot. It is impossible to think he had some other motive. There is nothing subjective, biased, or opinionated in calling that murder. Fine if you want to wait for some official proclamation of the same. But I resent your repeated accusations that I am expressing some sort of opinion that would belong in a blog somewhere. What you are engaging in is hairsplitting and pedantry. The evidence presented in the media indicates that he killed everybody intentionally. So it's murder. That is my last comment until I return when your "official" verdict is returned. Jazzbox (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There are several possibilities just as likely as something as intentional as "murder". I don't think you have worked as a psychotherapist like I have and have seen people so mired in depression that they can't even consider the existence of other people in the decisions that they make. Mental illness is like that, sometimes when they decide to end things they take other people with them, but never formulated any desire to hurt them, weren't even aware of them in their pain. Was that the case here? Perhaps, or perhaps not, but it is not our role to make that determination. That will be up to the official investigation to determine. - Ahunt (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(I know my last comment was supposed to be the last, but...) The online legal dictionary defines murder as "The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse." Well, we can rule out justification. The only recourse is then an excuse. But so far, no evidence has emerged that Lubitz was out of touch with reality. The only evidence we have seen is that he was badly depressed and suicidal. There isn't any evidence presented that suggests that he had some kind of psychosis which would put him out of touch with the reality of what he was doing. That is pure speculation. The facts are only that he was depressed and suicidal, which as far as I have ever heard is not an insanity defense. Jazzbox (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Where's the source? This is from German Law: Murder (German law) [3]

A murderer is whoever kills a human being out of murderous intent, to satisfy sexual desires, out of greed or otherwise base motives, insidiously or cruelly, or with means dangerous to the public, or in order to commit or cover up another crime.

Are we done here?― Padenton|✉   02:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That definition "The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse" would make any accident involving a death murder. It is a very odd definition.

As far as whether this was a premeditated act or a mental health state, at this point we just don't know, but I think we agree that there is sufficient doubt not to to need to jump to conclusions. - Ahunt (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the point that should be taken here is that whether or not Lubitz should be labelled a murderer depends upon which definition of murder we apply. I got my definition from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Murder . Of course that is just the short form, and the article continues for several paragraphs. Thus we can all select a different definition of murder which suits what we believe (subjectively) to apply. It is as I have been saying above, my approach is no more or less biased than anyone else's here. So, I suppose it would come down to which court, if any, ever delivers such a verdict or not. Jazzbox (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Believe that"

I've used the words "believe that" in several crucial places, and some other editors keep on taking it out. Here why I've put it in. We have a WP:NPOV policy that dictates that we attribute views as beliefs or statements from named entities, unless there something is definitely, undeniably true. (Like, for example, biological evolution, or general relativity.) Now, there's overwhelming evidence that he crashed the plane intentionally, and I, along with essentially everyone else, including, informally, the investigators themselves, have no doubt that he did it. But we should wait for the definitive formal result of the official inquiry -- which will come soon enough -- before confirming it as a definitive fact. That's what official inquiries are for. Only then we can start using terms like "mass murderer", etc. without any issue of WP:NPOV violation. -- Impsswoon (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

That's probably good to be cautious. In the Germanwings Flight 9525 article we had stopped hedging this fact by reporting the statements of the French prosecutor, but the French prosecutor's statements may have been premature (see Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525#French prosecutor). Prhartcom (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Fake 'FAA Airmen Certification Database' website

I noticed the following page when Googling the name Andreas Lubitz in the days following the crash: FAA recognizes Andreas Guenter Lubitz. I haven't seen it discussed anywhere here or in the archives of this talk page or the talk page for the crash. However, a Newsweek article identified it as a rather bizarre fake, see: Article Claiming FAA Praised Germanwings Co-Pilot as ‘Positive Example’ Is Fake. Not really much more to add, except to put a note here not to use 'aviation-business-gazette.com' as a source. Might be worth blacklisting the site (see other uses on Wikipedia here - used on Bonnie Tiburzi and Kelly Chan (windsurfer) when it shouldn't be used at all). Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to section on the subject

The title currently redirects to: Germanwings Flight 9525

Please modify to redirect to: Germanwings Flight 9525#Andreas Lubitz

That section requires a brief re-introduction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review closed

Deletion review closed with no consensus to overturn the protection of the page, or to allow recreation. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 16 —Prhartcom♥ 14:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)