This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article started as an exact copy of the information at British_Airways#Controversies. It was going into too much detail for a page about British Airways, so I have responded to the mood that a new page should be created by putting the information here. We were discussing the title - I'm not sure this one is the best, but it's all I can think of and someone can always change it. Jsteph 02:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a copy of the debate up to 3rd December 2006. I have placed it here to make it easier to discuss this issue, rather than going off-topic at the BA talk page. Jsteph 02:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the statement
as the dissenting voice was very much a lone voice, from someone who no longer speaks for his church. [1] If restored it should be qualified, however the section of the article is getting too long anyway and will need consolidating and tidying in due course.
Springnuts 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
Also I removed
as it is just not supported by the reference given - nor by BA's public statement about the affair on their web site (now removed as overtaken by the statement announcing the review)
Springnuts 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Whilst freely admitting this needs to be covered I disagree with the promience that it has been given. I propose a separate article to be created or I will dramatically reduce the article to about 3 lines. Benny45boy 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
References
Blair's comments are interesting and I have attempted to be factual and NPOV on my two recent edits. He is a true politician - great sound-bite ... now just what are the parameters of his meaning? There is something for everyone. Springnuts 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Somebody has to fill in the gaps. At the moment my latest source is vague about what happened to the Supreme Court (I'm pretty sure they said "we're not touching this with a barge pole" or words to that effect) and we're entirely missing the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) hearing, which she must have lost to be taking a case to the appeal court which was tossed out in February. -- TS 05:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the Facts section, why is Manifest linked? It looks random; that word in this particular context has no special meaning making it worth being linked. J.J. Bustamante ( talk) 12:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article started as an exact copy of the information at British_Airways#Controversies. It was going into too much detail for a page about British Airways, so I have responded to the mood that a new page should be created by putting the information here. We were discussing the title - I'm not sure this one is the best, but it's all I can think of and someone can always change it. Jsteph 02:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a copy of the debate up to 3rd December 2006. I have placed it here to make it easier to discuss this issue, rather than going off-topic at the BA talk page. Jsteph 02:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the statement
as the dissenting voice was very much a lone voice, from someone who no longer speaks for his church. [1] If restored it should be qualified, however the section of the article is getting too long anyway and will need consolidating and tidying in due course.
Springnuts 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
Also I removed
as it is just not supported by the reference given - nor by BA's public statement about the affair on their web site (now removed as overtaken by the statement announcing the review)
Springnuts 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Whilst freely admitting this needs to be covered I disagree with the promience that it has been given. I propose a separate article to be created or I will dramatically reduce the article to about 3 lines. Benny45boy 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
References
Blair's comments are interesting and I have attempted to be factual and NPOV on my two recent edits. He is a true politician - great sound-bite ... now just what are the parameters of his meaning? There is something for everyone. Springnuts 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Somebody has to fill in the gaps. At the moment my latest source is vague about what happened to the Supreme Court (I'm pretty sure they said "we're not touching this with a barge pole" or words to that effect) and we're entirely missing the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) hearing, which she must have lost to be taking a case to the appeal court which was tossed out in February. -- TS 05:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the Facts section, why is Manifest linked? It looks random; that word in this particular context has no special meaning making it worth being linked. J.J. Bustamante ( talk) 12:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)