This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Air Force One photo op incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 28 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
I won't edit this because of the editing tag, but this article gives a lot more information about the incident, [1] for example the name of the White House official who approved it, the fact that local law enforcement were notified but asked not to inform the public, the way the news spread (by youtube video), and the statements of outrage made by Bloomberg and Obama. I think we should nail down what actually happened first, and avoid undue coverage of all the recriminations - talk is cheap and politicians and news outlets do a lot of talking. But a few choice quotes might be helpful: "felony stupidity" is pretty quoteworthy. It's too early to tell but I'll guess that this story has legs, as they say, and that people will remember the incident for many years (i.e. it's pretty notable). Regarding the name, I'm guessing that the popular media will find a clever name for this within a few days. Cheers, Wikidemon ( talk) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed the title to Air Force One photo op controversy.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 08:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed it again, this time to Air Force One photo op scare. Grundle2600 ( talk) 09:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
One editor keeps deleting cost of mission, saying this is "Original Research" and not relevant.
The cost is the cost, if there is a reliable source for it, it is not original research.
Neither is it original to cite the cost as part of the controversy (this is an article with "Controversy" in the title). If it cost $10MM to fly around the Statue of Liberty it would certainly be more controversial (huge waste of taxpayer dollars during a recession etc), that if it cost $10, or than if it cost $370,000 but they were planning to fly the plane that number of hours anyway, just for practice.
Erxnmedia ( talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Speak for yourself. I am the public. I was there. I am not a teabagger, I pay my taxes. I am nevertheless concerned about the cost of the mission, it is controversial for me. It wouldn't be controversial to me if something worthy of being secret was done under the covers, but everybody insists that that is not the case. Erxnmedia ( talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Tarc, when you make a claim about "the public" and then exclude me, when I was there, and as if I am not a member of the public...it's just illogical. I think you are just WP:POV which is normal for Wikipedia articles of this nature (see for example Joe the Plumber), but such a sense of entitled self-righteousness still leaves me perplexed when I encounter it. The existential fact of the matter is this: We are both members of the public, and if we argue about whether it is controversial or not, the argument itself renders the issue under discussion controversial! In this respect we are just as much in evidence as any other written publication. Erxnmedia ( talk) 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
We know that White House and Air Force photographers shoot digital. How long before we Americans see these photos that cost us $328,000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.165.163 ( talk) 12:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
...editors. I'm sure not the only one getting tired of it as it also against WP rules (just in case you really didn't now). Thanks, -- The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 03:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the reference to "Air Farce One" to the intro. The fact that 5 different media outlets have coined the same phrase for this incident seems to make this worthy of inclusion. The existing title of the article is rather clinical (even with the proposed change), and this is probably the closest we're going to get to an "official name" for this incident. Thoughts?-- SharkxFanSJ ( talk) 18:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, it's probably worth mentioning 'Air Farce One' was used to refer to the incident, most notably by The New York Post, which in turn has been reported by numerous other news sources. For what it's worth, the Australian Nine Network was also using that term. Strikehold ( talk) 06:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story.
WP:NEO is fairly clear here. What a handful of sources, reliable and otherwise, choose to use for their screamer headlines has little relevance to the content of the article.
John McCain referred to the incident as an "Air Farce 1 photo op." Grundle2600 ( talk) 11:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It's probably relevant to note that Google groups (archive of forum posts) shows occurrences of the term "Air Farce One" going back to 1997. Some appear to be typos, one is a reference to a Canadian comedy troupe, etc. We may or may not decide that the term should be included in our article, but those 15,000 Google hits that User:Grundle2600 mentions aren't necessarily all relevant. -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 19:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The current title "Air Force One photo op incident" is inappropriate, since the plane was not Air Force One. As I have stated previously, the correct designation would be a "presidential VC-25". As suggested at the time, 2009 New York City flyover by presidential VC-25 would be a neutral and accurate title. -- Scjessey ( talk) 03:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Depending on how you read the current title (Air Force One photo op incident), it's by no means necessarily inaccurate. That is, the fact that the "mission" was a photo op for Air Force One is true, even though the plane was not designated "Air Force On"e at the time. — Matt Crypto 14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The airplane was not Air Force One because the President was not on it at the time. However, when he is on it, it is considered Air Force One, and that's why the photos were being taken in the first place. Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Sources, sure... here are a bunch of them that refer to the incident using "Air Force One" as the name of the plane... The White House, ABC, NBC, FOX, New York Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, .... shall I go on? The current title reflects the common name of the aircraft as it relates to this incident. Again.. see WP:COMMONNAME. When it comes to article titles, Wikipedia policy favors recognizability and common usage over precision accuracy.-- SharkxFanSJ ( talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Tarc and Child, discuss the issue of that here, since I don't want yet another edit war erupting during an Obama case. I'll provide a third opinion after hearing both sides if desired. Wizardman 02:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ideally there should be no citations in the lead, and the lead should simply repeat cited material in the body. Setting that aside for the moment, the first and main link provided, the Wall Street Journal article, is a solid source, and seems to support most everything in the lead. I'm not sure why it needs buttressing with five other sources, unless each source adds somehow, for example by supporting a slightly different piece of content. Doubling or even tripling citations happens sometimes, and sometimes it's good to have more than one perspective on things. But as far as I can tell none of these other cites are solid, and none add to the WSJ source. Most don't support much if anything in the paragraph to which they're appended. Running through them, two are editorials [6] [7], one is an editorial cartoon, [8] and the final is reliable but only reports on "quotes of the day" used by other press outlets - it says nothing of substance about the incident . [9] Given that the focus of all five is either "air farce one" or "scare force one", so I wonder if they all arose in the context of an earlier attempt to add relatively uncommon neologism to the article. In any event, I see no value of any of these citations to the article as written; if more sources are needed surely there are others of the caliber of the Wall Street Journal piece. Wikidemon ( talk) 03:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see what the big brouhaha is here. Those half-dozen sources were originally there because they were cherry-picked assertions of the "Air Farce One" pejorative, which has since been removed from the lead, and has been discussed above. (Note that the phrase is still a redirect to here). So, if that isn't there in the lead anymore, then there's really no need for SIX citations, is there? Tarc ( talk) 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
[15]. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems the only source we have for this info is the caption on the picture. What kind of alterations did they make? If it was for color and lighting, that's one thing. But if it was for content, that's a very different thing. Grundle2600 ( talk) 02:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I find it astounding how the president wasn't even consulted before they went ahead with this show into the city! While it does make sense that the military will keep confidentiality especially with this activity from the citizens it's incredible that all who organized it did not notify the President!
I could sort of imagine how the president suddenly is whisked away by personnel and security staff and find out it was the just the presidential plane flying around doing photoshoots... would have been absolutely funny! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.205.127 ( talk) 08:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Air Force One photo op incident. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ny1.com/Default.aspx?ArID=98785When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Air Force One photo op incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 28 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
I won't edit this because of the editing tag, but this article gives a lot more information about the incident, [1] for example the name of the White House official who approved it, the fact that local law enforcement were notified but asked not to inform the public, the way the news spread (by youtube video), and the statements of outrage made by Bloomberg and Obama. I think we should nail down what actually happened first, and avoid undue coverage of all the recriminations - talk is cheap and politicians and news outlets do a lot of talking. But a few choice quotes might be helpful: "felony stupidity" is pretty quoteworthy. It's too early to tell but I'll guess that this story has legs, as they say, and that people will remember the incident for many years (i.e. it's pretty notable). Regarding the name, I'm guessing that the popular media will find a clever name for this within a few days. Cheers, Wikidemon ( talk) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed the title to Air Force One photo op controversy.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 08:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed it again, this time to Air Force One photo op scare. Grundle2600 ( talk) 09:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
One editor keeps deleting cost of mission, saying this is "Original Research" and not relevant.
The cost is the cost, if there is a reliable source for it, it is not original research.
Neither is it original to cite the cost as part of the controversy (this is an article with "Controversy" in the title). If it cost $10MM to fly around the Statue of Liberty it would certainly be more controversial (huge waste of taxpayer dollars during a recession etc), that if it cost $10, or than if it cost $370,000 but they were planning to fly the plane that number of hours anyway, just for practice.
Erxnmedia ( talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Speak for yourself. I am the public. I was there. I am not a teabagger, I pay my taxes. I am nevertheless concerned about the cost of the mission, it is controversial for me. It wouldn't be controversial to me if something worthy of being secret was done under the covers, but everybody insists that that is not the case. Erxnmedia ( talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Tarc, when you make a claim about "the public" and then exclude me, when I was there, and as if I am not a member of the public...it's just illogical. I think you are just WP:POV which is normal for Wikipedia articles of this nature (see for example Joe the Plumber), but such a sense of entitled self-righteousness still leaves me perplexed when I encounter it. The existential fact of the matter is this: We are both members of the public, and if we argue about whether it is controversial or not, the argument itself renders the issue under discussion controversial! In this respect we are just as much in evidence as any other written publication. Erxnmedia ( talk) 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
We know that White House and Air Force photographers shoot digital. How long before we Americans see these photos that cost us $328,000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.165.163 ( talk) 12:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
...editors. I'm sure not the only one getting tired of it as it also against WP rules (just in case you really didn't now). Thanks, -- The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 03:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the reference to "Air Farce One" to the intro. The fact that 5 different media outlets have coined the same phrase for this incident seems to make this worthy of inclusion. The existing title of the article is rather clinical (even with the proposed change), and this is probably the closest we're going to get to an "official name" for this incident. Thoughts?-- SharkxFanSJ ( talk) 18:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, it's probably worth mentioning 'Air Farce One' was used to refer to the incident, most notably by The New York Post, which in turn has been reported by numerous other news sources. For what it's worth, the Australian Nine Network was also using that term. Strikehold ( talk) 06:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story.
WP:NEO is fairly clear here. What a handful of sources, reliable and otherwise, choose to use for their screamer headlines has little relevance to the content of the article.
John McCain referred to the incident as an "Air Farce 1 photo op." Grundle2600 ( talk) 11:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It's probably relevant to note that Google groups (archive of forum posts) shows occurrences of the term "Air Farce One" going back to 1997. Some appear to be typos, one is a reference to a Canadian comedy troupe, etc. We may or may not decide that the term should be included in our article, but those 15,000 Google hits that User:Grundle2600 mentions aren't necessarily all relevant. -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 19:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The current title "Air Force One photo op incident" is inappropriate, since the plane was not Air Force One. As I have stated previously, the correct designation would be a "presidential VC-25". As suggested at the time, 2009 New York City flyover by presidential VC-25 would be a neutral and accurate title. -- Scjessey ( talk) 03:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Depending on how you read the current title (Air Force One photo op incident), it's by no means necessarily inaccurate. That is, the fact that the "mission" was a photo op for Air Force One is true, even though the plane was not designated "Air Force On"e at the time. — Matt Crypto 14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The airplane was not Air Force One because the President was not on it at the time. However, when he is on it, it is considered Air Force One, and that's why the photos were being taken in the first place. Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Sources, sure... here are a bunch of them that refer to the incident using "Air Force One" as the name of the plane... The White House, ABC, NBC, FOX, New York Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, .... shall I go on? The current title reflects the common name of the aircraft as it relates to this incident. Again.. see WP:COMMONNAME. When it comes to article titles, Wikipedia policy favors recognizability and common usage over precision accuracy.-- SharkxFanSJ ( talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Tarc and Child, discuss the issue of that here, since I don't want yet another edit war erupting during an Obama case. I'll provide a third opinion after hearing both sides if desired. Wizardman 02:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ideally there should be no citations in the lead, and the lead should simply repeat cited material in the body. Setting that aside for the moment, the first and main link provided, the Wall Street Journal article, is a solid source, and seems to support most everything in the lead. I'm not sure why it needs buttressing with five other sources, unless each source adds somehow, for example by supporting a slightly different piece of content. Doubling or even tripling citations happens sometimes, and sometimes it's good to have more than one perspective on things. But as far as I can tell none of these other cites are solid, and none add to the WSJ source. Most don't support much if anything in the paragraph to which they're appended. Running through them, two are editorials [6] [7], one is an editorial cartoon, [8] and the final is reliable but only reports on "quotes of the day" used by other press outlets - it says nothing of substance about the incident . [9] Given that the focus of all five is either "air farce one" or "scare force one", so I wonder if they all arose in the context of an earlier attempt to add relatively uncommon neologism to the article. In any event, I see no value of any of these citations to the article as written; if more sources are needed surely there are others of the caliber of the Wall Street Journal piece. Wikidemon ( talk) 03:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see what the big brouhaha is here. Those half-dozen sources were originally there because they were cherry-picked assertions of the "Air Farce One" pejorative, which has since been removed from the lead, and has been discussed above. (Note that the phrase is still a redirect to here). So, if that isn't there in the lead anymore, then there's really no need for SIX citations, is there? Tarc ( talk) 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
[15]. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems the only source we have for this info is the caption on the picture. What kind of alterations did they make? If it was for color and lighting, that's one thing. But if it was for content, that's a very different thing. Grundle2600 ( talk) 02:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I find it astounding how the president wasn't even consulted before they went ahead with this show into the city! While it does make sense that the military will keep confidentiality especially with this activity from the citizens it's incredible that all who organized it did not notify the President!
I could sort of imagine how the president suddenly is whisked away by personnel and security staff and find out it was the just the presidential plane flying around doing photoshoots... would have been absolutely funny! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.205.127 ( talk) 08:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Air Force One photo op incident. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ny1.com/Default.aspx?ArID=98785When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)