This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
JetBlue flight attendant 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 was nominated for deletion on 3 July 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2010. The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | 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 review in the past. The result of the discussion was JetBlue Flight 1052 created using page history. |
This article is a joke. It's useless, and it's horribly written. There's also several exaggerations listed. Concussion? Really? People here are just trying to make their own things up to see if the media catches them. Which obviously won't work. This article is the only place I've heard "concussion" in. Like I said, this article is a joke. I support the fact it's getting deleted. CloudKade11 ( talk) 22:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
-- Marcwiki9 ( talk) 04:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)== Already seen in the JetBlue Airways article ==
There is already info on this incident within that article, and I feel that is enough to get this entry deleted. esposimi ( talk) 23:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Create event article for now. Should be covered, [1] says how. See discusssion in AfD. 24.23.198.90 ( talk) 10:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The article says he "ran to his car" after exiting the plane, however one of the passengers on the plan has gone on CNN and posted on his blog that he encountered Mr. Slater conversing with other passengers on the air-train from the terminal to the parking lot where his car was parked. Sounds more like he got out via the slide, entered a service door to the terminal, then took airport transport to the employee parking lot. -- 134.84.19.236 ( talk) 16:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
That he did not 'run to his car', as seemingly reported only in a UK tabloid, is contradicted by a detailed NY Magazine interview with Slater at https://nymag.com/news/features/70980/ Irish Melkite ( talk) 20:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This person is part of our modern culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.176.28.10 ( talk) 23:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree the article is poorly written, but that's something that can be easily fixed. Don't delete this post Steve Slater is being hailed as a hero and his actions are probably going to have a profound effect on society. Jrfoldes ( talk) 23:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This article needs to be edited and not deleted. How is this individual? Why have so many people responded? Are there similar events? What's next? What is the history? Etc.. -- Scasey1960 ( talk) 01:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I would say this article can be included in the internet phenomenon page.
User:devmanuel —Preceding (
talk)
19:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC) comment added 08:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC).
KEEP.-- Conrad Kilroy ( talk) 03:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Drmies: Regarding this edit, [2] 69.141.122.210 appears to be a new editor. We should be welcoming and helpful to this new editor. Sure, we have a reliable secondary source, but it's out of date. I am trying to save this new editor's contribution by citing a primary source which is perfectly allowable according to our verifiability policy. Please remember that we were all beginners when we first started at Wikipedia. Reverting a good faith contribution by a newbie amounts to a negative experience for them. This makes it less likely to contribute in the future. I have no interest in engaging in an edit war, so I ask that you self-revert. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I checked the source used for Slater's expletive-laden quote, and it does censor. We need to match what our sources say, even if they choose to censor perfectly good words.
I also checked to see if there was a less-censorious source we could use instead: at the time the only results on Google were this article and a couple of Facebook pages. Hopefully that'll change, because I find the "****" nonsense insulting and patronising. But for the time-being it's all we've got.
TFOWR 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, interesting indeed, we could say something like...and the cabin staff responded with a string of expletives. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, guys - it's not our call. Especially if we are quoting. And I would argue that the text IS relevant to some people. Depending on exactly what was said I can make a judgment call as to whether Slater was righteously angry or just a dick. Without context the reader can't make that call. Not to say we should encourage WP:SYNTH but, as a reader it does add to the article. Padillah ( talk) 13:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Can't we all just agree this article is a work in progress. The investigation has not been concluded and as a result some information may be skewed. Right now we do have some legitimate facts, but what will happen remains to be seen. Jrfoldes ( talk) 18:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If anyone writes a Chinese page about this, Apple Action News has a video about it, complete with CGI depicting the incident (No, JetBlue doesn't have 747s!): " 空中少爺鬧爆惡乘客 跳機劈炮" WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Why can't "Steven Slater" just be redirected to the JetBlue article. I mean it was a "JetBlue incident". Slater was working at JetBlue. He was wearing the required JetBlue uniform. He did step out of a JetBlue airplane. Just because the media is calling him a "hero" doesn't mean this article has the right to stay now. Many people have been called heroes, and no such articles are listed on Wikipedia anywhere. Just last night I was watching the news about a woman bus driver working for the OCTA. She had stopped a passenger from lighting the entire bus on fire while she was driving and other passengers were present. She was called a hero afterwards for stopping the man, who is now a terrorist suspect. My point is that I don't see an article about her anywhere. She's perfectly listed in the "OCTA incidents" section. That story had to be not so different than the man from JetBlue. Article goes, redirects to JetBlue. CloudKade11 ( talk) 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP, in the section labelled WP:BLPCAT, states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." I don't know if Slater is self-identified as LGBT, but even if he is, it has nothing to do with why he is (allegedly) notable. Thus, that category does not belong. 08:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC) (this was from Qwyrxian)
Just because some articles say he's 38 years old doesn't mean he was born in 1972. Yes, it's true that 2010 minus 38 equals 1972, but that's not the whole story. What if Slater was born in September 1971? That would mean that he's currently 38, but will be 39 next month. Also, just because Slater claims to be 38 doesn't make it so. Lots of people lie about their age. I think we all know someone who is 40+ but claims to be 38 or 39. Long story short, until we have a reliable source for his DOB, it should be left out of the article. – BMRR ( talk) 20:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This article doesn't deserve to be one. Exactly Wikipedia's biggest flaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.54.237 ( talk) 00:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a name change in order here... I think it should be the renamed The Steven Slater Air Rage Incident, and then either sourced properly and/or moved to the Flight Attendant article... Michael 03:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The account of Steven Slater has not been corroborated by the passengers and other crew members of JetBlue Flight 1052 on 8/9/2010 with respect to events prior to his tirade on the public address system. Also, since first presented with these contradictory accounts, Slater has declined to offer some evidence supporting his account, or even to affirm his original account.
Use of the terms "He claimed", "He claims", and so on seem to me to be inherently pejorative language.
Something like "He said", "He says", "He stated that", and so on is better. Sugar-Baby-Love ( talk) 01:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater, an recreated as a redirect to JetBlue Airways#Incidents and accidents. -- Lear's Fool 04:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
How can an admin who was editing be the one to close the AfD. Especially in such a contentious Afd where there was no up down consensus at all, and that a 3rd way was starting to emerge of instead creating an incident specific article which would comply with wiki's Biography 1 event policies. I'd like to state this in the Deletion appeal, however wiki seems to supress IP users by prohibiing participiating there without an account. 24.23.198.90 ( talk) 06:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
why are you guys deleting it? its all over the news, is it because hes not an Arab?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.67.246 ( talk) 02:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This i9s not the deleted page. Why was not the last version of the origional page used? How is giving oterh winesses version of the events a BPL violation? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I have last night spent time removing what is rubbish, please do not replace it, if you want to add another report that may well be ok but it should be strongly cited and not attacking in nature. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Its like what you just added, is absolute valueless fluff, allegations they didn't report it for 25 mins, that is just tabloid fluff, fillers, something to add to make the story seem exciting, this is an encyclopedia. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
In one of the most polite edits the timeline was deleted here. This issue is very complex and I've found that on breaking news it's easier and less controversial to discuss developments in chronological order. The deleted material included references to events about the event having notability beyond one person's meltdown (e.g., the Republican ad, the Taiwan animation, the proposed television deal, analysis that he had become a defacto folk, and dealing both pro and con whether the story is true (this seems to be a moving target). Again I appreciate the polite comment on the deletion. Americasroof ( talk) 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This minor incident does not need a timeline at all. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
How is this timeline not the ultimate in fancruft? Aside from the six entries that comprise the actual incident it's comprised of publication dates. Those are usually called references and are already called out in their own section. Do we really need a chronological breakdown of the refs table? This is pure fluff to fill the article and make it look like it can't be the blurb it really is (in the Jet Blue article). This coverage timeline needs to go. It's nothing but cruft. Padillah ( talk) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Tyhe sources say that 90% of the passengers have not cooberated his story, why does the artciel only say dozens, that seems to undemine the fact. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
If non witnases opinions of the matter should be given why can't we also have what actual witnese say abuot the incident? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion originated at User_talk:E._Ripley#Opinions and User_talk:WhisperToMe#Opinions
I missed it, did this plane crash? Was it involved in some sort of hijacking incident? Why in God's green Earth is this article titled after the flight number. This is usually reserved for notable flights in which people have died violently. The article is disrespectfully titled. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events).-- Jojhutton ( talk) 22:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Now that the whole AFD process is finally over (at least for now), maybe we can think about a good title for the article. I don't really think the flight number is the ideal title. As others have pointed out, the number hasn't been retired, so there are still other flights with that number. But more importantly, I don't think it's really what most people associate with the incident. My proposal at this time is to move it to Steven Slater air rage incident (currently a redirect), but maybe someone else can think of something better...What does everyone think? - Helvetica ( talk) 09:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
(Outdent) E. Ripley, unless there's been some sort of poll conducted, there's really no way to know for certain Slater's name recognition among "regular people." One of the only tools we have for gaging this is how it's presented in the media, and there are multiple examples of articles and editorials where the author starts with the premise that his/her reader already know who Steven Slater is. For example, this one, which begins with "By now, only the dead are unaware of Steven Slater," this one, titled "How To Head Off The Steven Slater In Your Organization," and this very recent one, which focuses on Slater and analysis of the event/impact throughout, but only incidentally mentions his airline and job as flight attendant. And there's no good reason to think we'd see this if Slater had such low name-recognition as you seem to think he has. As for your OED reference, I'm thinking that must be a joke, as obviously a new phrase isn't going to be put in there within three weeks of being coined, but the fact is that it has been used in notable sources. - Helvetica ( talk) 10:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
\ talk 13:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
@E. Ripley (Re:16:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)), it still seems to me that you're not really addressing the main point that I've been making and which Propaniac made again above. This is not an AFD debate, it's about the title of the article. It seems to me that you ignored Propaniac's question about whether you think people are *more* likely to remember that the airline was JetBlue than that his name was "Steven Slater." That's the relevant topic here - the *relative* notability of one vs. the other in regards to this incident. And you haven't shown any evidence that people are more likely to associate it with JetBlue than "Steven Slater." Wikipedia guidelines for naming say that we should generally use what it's most commonly been known by, unless there's a good reason not to, and it's clear that the coverage of this incident and its aftermath have focused more on Slater himself than the airline, so his name should be included in the title. - Helvetica ( talk) 09:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, it looks like, after a month, the title is what it's supposed to be. this MSNBC article even feels they have to remind people who Slater is. Padillah ( talk) 15:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
At the moment (and in the past others were removed as BLP violations) we have a statment from one non-witness (she admits as much) backing Mr Slaters story and refuting claims that are not in the article. Either we should not have stamants from witnases or we should also include those statments thi9s person is repsonding to. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
User Johnuniq removed mention of Steven Slater from the lead paragraph [13], citing the first AFD. There are a number of problems with this. First of all, the results of the first AFD were contested, leading to a deletion review in which the result was over-turned, the article was restored, retitled, and retitled, and the 2nd AFD resulted in a consensus to keep. In any event, Slater is by, any objective standard, very central to the event, and it makes no sense not to mention him in the lead paragraph. Also, even if there were an undisputed consensus to not have a biographical article about Steven Slater, this in no way implies a consensus that his name should not be mentioned in the intro paragraph. A clear consensus has now emerged that this event is noteworthy and deserving of its own article, and since Slater played a central role in that event, there is no good reason for him not to be mentioned in the lead. - Helvetica ( talk) 09:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move to JetBlue flight attendant incident. Jojhutton ( talk) 22:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
JetBlue Flight 1052 → ? — A previous section was devoted to moving this article to another name. See Renaming, above.
Some editors preferred Steven Slater Air Rage Incident, while some broached that the new name should be some form of Jet Blue Flight Attendant Incident, or anything to that effect.
No one seemed to be in favor of the current name of the article.
Are there any objections to actually changing the anme of the article at all? If not, then please state your preferance from the above or create a new one. This should be interesting.--
Jojhutton (
talk)
21:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Jet Blue Flight Attendant Incident Slatersteven ( talk) 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
As a point of process, I would like to note that there has been extensive discussion about the article's title in other sections of the talk page, with a number of arguments made by a number of different editors. So I would ask that whoever closes this requested-move discussion take those into consideration as well, when trying to determine consensus, even if they don't re-state them in this section. - Helvetica ( talk) 10:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Steven Slater air rage hoax would correctly identify his claim to have been in a confrontation with a passenger to be a hoax. No passenger or other crew member corroborated his initial story. patsw ( talk) 18:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
@Patsw (Re post at 13:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)), you say that there's a wide consensus, but you haven't shown any evidence to support this claim. Some coverage has suggested that it *might* have been a hoax, and there may be a small number who assert certainty that there was no confrontation, but this is certainly not the majority, let alone anything approaching any sort of consensus. As for what I'm claiming, my opinion about what happened isn't the most relevant, though I do think there probably was some sort of confrontation on board. I wasn't there, so I don't know what exactly happened. I don't know if there were any surveillance video cameras on-board that would have captured an incident or lack there of. If there are, then JetBlue could release them in clear up the mystery. This account from one passenger sheds a bit of insight: [14]. She didn't witness the confrontation itself, but saw Slater both before and after he was bleeding, so deduces that something must have happened to cause his head to bleed. In any event (to get back on track here), for the purposes of this Wikipedia article, it would violate policies like NPOV, no original research, and no novel synthesis for Wikipedia to assert that it was in fact a hoax, unless almost all of the mainstream media (and other reliable sources) were unequivocally presenting it as a purely contrived fraud, which they aren't - at least not at this point. - Helvetica ( talk) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It is known with certainty from the disclosures made by investigators, and the statements made on the record by passengers to reporters that Slater's statement was false. There is no might about it. There are no accounts taking into account these disclosures and statements which give credulity to Slater's initial account. In fact, later statements by Slater have avoided mentioning the passenger. So, it has morphed from these original accounts:
“ | Reports claim that as the Embraer ERJ-190 taxied to the gate after landing, a passenger stood up and began pulling his luggage from the overhead bin. When Slater asked the man to be seated, the man refused. Slater approached, and as the man continued removing his bags, one of them inadvertently struck Slater in the head. A "heated exchange" ensued in which the passenger called Slater a "motherfucker." To the passenger who just called me a motherfucker, fuck you. I've been in this business 28 years and I've had it. (August 9, 2010) | ” |
“ | It all began when he was hit in the head by an overhead locker door as a passenger collected luggage after their plane landed in New York. The same passenger swore at Slater when he told her to get back in her seat as the plane taxied to the gate at JFK airport. (August 11, 2010) | ” |
to this
“ | A number of passengers were competing for overhead carry-on luggage area. (September 7, 2010) | ” |
So where is the evidence that Slater's initial statement was truthful? Or that any of the actions of passengers on this flight were justification for Slater's actions on that aircraft on August 9? patsw ( talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
@Patsw (re: post at 02:21, 8 September 2010), I'm not trying to be condescending, but what you're suggesting does violate Wikipedia policy. I think WP:V is not the most relevant here, but rather WP:NOR and WP:SYN, and maybe also WP:NPOV. If, for example, the New York Times says that "no passenger or crew member has corroborated Slater's initial account," then Wikipedia can say something like "according to the New York Times, no passenger or crew member has corroborated Slater's initial account." But if a Wikipedia editor goes through a bunch of different witness accounts and decides that that none of them verify Slater's initial account and writes that, then this sort of thing violates NOR and/or SYN. For example, the first sentence of SYN states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Also, if there's some subjectivity and judgment call involved, then it's likely to violate NPOV as well. I hope this clarifies things. - Helvetica ( talk) 12:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we are looking at this from the wrong perspective. If you view what he did as a crime then there are tons of precedents where the events are summarized in a biography of a perpetrator or in some cases the victim. There are not separate articles on the crimes. Some examples include Ronald DeFeo, Jr.. Bernhard Goetz, Ken McElroy. There are not stand alone articles on the crimes of Jesse James or Bonnie and Clyde. By that logic the name of the article should go back to Steven Slater. Of course this is all pointless because of redirects. Americasroof ( talk) 02:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
User Mkativerata removed the AFD and DRV history table, saying that it was for a different article. But this is not true. The title was changed, but that doesn't mean it's a different article. Both the article and the talk page have an intact history from before the "Steven Slater" AFD, and that article was restored following the DRV and edited until it became what it is now. And the "Steven Slater" article was more of an event article than a bio article before the first AFD anyway. In any event, please do not remove this relevant history from the talk page. Thank you! - Helvetica ( talk) 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
@ Mkativerata, IMO you have a bit of a conflict of interest here, as you were the closer of the disputed "Steven Slater" AFD. As for this article being totally new and re-written I don't completely agree, though there has been an evolution since it was restored and retitled. If you look here, this version of the "Steven Slater" article from shortly before it was deleted was really much more an event than a bio article. I only see one sentence - "Slater's career as a flight attendant began in 1994, starting with Business Express Airlines, and later working for Trans World Airlines and Delta Air Lines." - that's actually biographical. The rest is about the event and aftermath, so it's really more just bio in name only. It doesn't take much of a re-write to turn something like this into a non-bio event article - just re-titling, re-wording of the intro, and removal of that one sentence. Anyway, I'm generally ok with your summary, but I've just changed it so it doesn't say "new article" as that's more opinion than fact. - Helvetica ( talk) 12:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Everyone is talking of the hit to the head and there should be a link or section on what can happen with head trauma. For instance if it can be shown that a head blow can cause temporary irrational behavior then all the criminal hype over his actions will be just a work injury and nothing more. Did not the man who sold Oxyclean die a few days after being hit in the head by carry on luggage? Septagram ( talk) 05:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Can we group together the undisputed parts of the narrative into the "Incident" section which commence with his address over the aircraft public address system, and break out the variants of Slater's accounts into a new section so that its clear to the reader this is something which has changed from August 9 (and probably has not yet seen its last new disclosure). I'm not an advocate for "Slater's version" as the current heading has it, I suggest "Conflicting accounts of the background to the incident" or something similar. patsw ( talk) 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I just moved a statement from the lead which said that no passenger had corroborated Slater's account. This is a subjective matter, and I posted a link in a section above to an account from a passenger which does at least partially corroborate his account. I feel it's important to maintain NPOV here, especially while the charges against Slater are still pending. I think it's fine for Wikipedia to present, with attribution, what a police officer or prosecutor or whoever says, but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to assert it as fact. It was presented as fact in the lead, with a citation, but the citation was to a Wall Street Journal article where an anonymous Port Authority officer was quoted as saying that. But this citation does not make the assertion a verified fact. It only verifies the fact that an anonymous Port Authority officer was quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying that. Please maintain NPOV and proper attribution. Thank you! - Helvetica ( talk) 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | The point is, the fact that I and most other passengers did not see or hear a confrontation does not mean it did not happen. | ” |
I have removed these two as this is supposed to be an article about an incident not a person. Spartaz Humbug! 11:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Somebody removed the category, but I restored it. The incident has receieved significant coveraged which referenced Slater's orientation, and much of the anti-Slater backlash was homophobic in nature. Slater was also in bed with his boyfriend when the police came busting in, and that was a big part of the story. Certainly enough for inclusion in the category. - Helvetica ( talk) 11:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: Spartaz, no, this it's not a biographical category, and sexual orientation was a notable aspect of this incident and its coverage. - Helvetica ( talk) 16:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I started the sub-section so people can see the sources. WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Steven Slater is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Muboshgu ( talk) 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on JetBlue flight attendant 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
-- Marc Kupper| talk 04:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Why DOES this article use the plane crash infobox? GOLDIEM J ( talk) 18:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I have nothing to contribute, having landed on this topic by chance. However, I can't walk away from this talk page without noting that the length of the article itself and the sheer volume of discussion here are both way out of proportion to the event and, frankly, make Wikipedia look like a tabloid desperate for filler to achieve a promised page count. I can only wonder that no one bothered to identify the brand of beer Slater guzzled or described the necktie he threw to the tarmac. The detail in Timeline, Third Party Reactions, and Media Notability are prime examples of text that a seasoned editor anywhere else would have mercilessly pared and which far exceed similar sections in much more important and notable incidents than this one, which had its moment of notoriety and is now essentially forgotten. Seriously, people, while deletion may not have been appropriate, the piece is ripe to be offered for extra points on a final exam of a course on editing. Irish Melkite ( talk) 20:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
JetBlue flight attendant 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 was nominated for deletion on 3 July 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2010. The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | 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 review in the past. The result of the discussion was JetBlue Flight 1052 created using page history. |
This article is a joke. It's useless, and it's horribly written. There's also several exaggerations listed. Concussion? Really? People here are just trying to make their own things up to see if the media catches them. Which obviously won't work. This article is the only place I've heard "concussion" in. Like I said, this article is a joke. I support the fact it's getting deleted. CloudKade11 ( talk) 22:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
-- Marcwiki9 ( talk) 04:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)== Already seen in the JetBlue Airways article ==
There is already info on this incident within that article, and I feel that is enough to get this entry deleted. esposimi ( talk) 23:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Create event article for now. Should be covered, [1] says how. See discusssion in AfD. 24.23.198.90 ( talk) 10:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The article says he "ran to his car" after exiting the plane, however one of the passengers on the plan has gone on CNN and posted on his blog that he encountered Mr. Slater conversing with other passengers on the air-train from the terminal to the parking lot where his car was parked. Sounds more like he got out via the slide, entered a service door to the terminal, then took airport transport to the employee parking lot. -- 134.84.19.236 ( talk) 16:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
That he did not 'run to his car', as seemingly reported only in a UK tabloid, is contradicted by a detailed NY Magazine interview with Slater at https://nymag.com/news/features/70980/ Irish Melkite ( talk) 20:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This person is part of our modern culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.176.28.10 ( talk) 23:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree the article is poorly written, but that's something that can be easily fixed. Don't delete this post Steve Slater is being hailed as a hero and his actions are probably going to have a profound effect on society. Jrfoldes ( talk) 23:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This article needs to be edited and not deleted. How is this individual? Why have so many people responded? Are there similar events? What's next? What is the history? Etc.. -- Scasey1960 ( talk) 01:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I would say this article can be included in the internet phenomenon page.
User:devmanuel —Preceding (
talk)
19:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC) comment added 08:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC).
KEEP.-- Conrad Kilroy ( talk) 03:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Drmies: Regarding this edit, [2] 69.141.122.210 appears to be a new editor. We should be welcoming and helpful to this new editor. Sure, we have a reliable secondary source, but it's out of date. I am trying to save this new editor's contribution by citing a primary source which is perfectly allowable according to our verifiability policy. Please remember that we were all beginners when we first started at Wikipedia. Reverting a good faith contribution by a newbie amounts to a negative experience for them. This makes it less likely to contribute in the future. I have no interest in engaging in an edit war, so I ask that you self-revert. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I checked the source used for Slater's expletive-laden quote, and it does censor. We need to match what our sources say, even if they choose to censor perfectly good words.
I also checked to see if there was a less-censorious source we could use instead: at the time the only results on Google were this article and a couple of Facebook pages. Hopefully that'll change, because I find the "****" nonsense insulting and patronising. But for the time-being it's all we've got.
TFOWR 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, interesting indeed, we could say something like...and the cabin staff responded with a string of expletives. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, guys - it's not our call. Especially if we are quoting. And I would argue that the text IS relevant to some people. Depending on exactly what was said I can make a judgment call as to whether Slater was righteously angry or just a dick. Without context the reader can't make that call. Not to say we should encourage WP:SYNTH but, as a reader it does add to the article. Padillah ( talk) 13:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Can't we all just agree this article is a work in progress. The investigation has not been concluded and as a result some information may be skewed. Right now we do have some legitimate facts, but what will happen remains to be seen. Jrfoldes ( talk) 18:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If anyone writes a Chinese page about this, Apple Action News has a video about it, complete with CGI depicting the incident (No, JetBlue doesn't have 747s!): " 空中少爺鬧爆惡乘客 跳機劈炮" WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Why can't "Steven Slater" just be redirected to the JetBlue article. I mean it was a "JetBlue incident". Slater was working at JetBlue. He was wearing the required JetBlue uniform. He did step out of a JetBlue airplane. Just because the media is calling him a "hero" doesn't mean this article has the right to stay now. Many people have been called heroes, and no such articles are listed on Wikipedia anywhere. Just last night I was watching the news about a woman bus driver working for the OCTA. She had stopped a passenger from lighting the entire bus on fire while she was driving and other passengers were present. She was called a hero afterwards for stopping the man, who is now a terrorist suspect. My point is that I don't see an article about her anywhere. She's perfectly listed in the "OCTA incidents" section. That story had to be not so different than the man from JetBlue. Article goes, redirects to JetBlue. CloudKade11 ( talk) 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP, in the section labelled WP:BLPCAT, states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." I don't know if Slater is self-identified as LGBT, but even if he is, it has nothing to do with why he is (allegedly) notable. Thus, that category does not belong. 08:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC) (this was from Qwyrxian)
Just because some articles say he's 38 years old doesn't mean he was born in 1972. Yes, it's true that 2010 minus 38 equals 1972, but that's not the whole story. What if Slater was born in September 1971? That would mean that he's currently 38, but will be 39 next month. Also, just because Slater claims to be 38 doesn't make it so. Lots of people lie about their age. I think we all know someone who is 40+ but claims to be 38 or 39. Long story short, until we have a reliable source for his DOB, it should be left out of the article. – BMRR ( talk) 20:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This article doesn't deserve to be one. Exactly Wikipedia's biggest flaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.54.237 ( talk) 00:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a name change in order here... I think it should be the renamed The Steven Slater Air Rage Incident, and then either sourced properly and/or moved to the Flight Attendant article... Michael 03:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The account of Steven Slater has not been corroborated by the passengers and other crew members of JetBlue Flight 1052 on 8/9/2010 with respect to events prior to his tirade on the public address system. Also, since first presented with these contradictory accounts, Slater has declined to offer some evidence supporting his account, or even to affirm his original account.
Use of the terms "He claimed", "He claims", and so on seem to me to be inherently pejorative language.
Something like "He said", "He says", "He stated that", and so on is better. Sugar-Baby-Love ( talk) 01:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater, an recreated as a redirect to JetBlue Airways#Incidents and accidents. -- Lear's Fool 04:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
How can an admin who was editing be the one to close the AfD. Especially in such a contentious Afd where there was no up down consensus at all, and that a 3rd way was starting to emerge of instead creating an incident specific article which would comply with wiki's Biography 1 event policies. I'd like to state this in the Deletion appeal, however wiki seems to supress IP users by prohibiing participiating there without an account. 24.23.198.90 ( talk) 06:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
why are you guys deleting it? its all over the news, is it because hes not an Arab?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.67.246 ( talk) 02:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This i9s not the deleted page. Why was not the last version of the origional page used? How is giving oterh winesses version of the events a BPL violation? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I have last night spent time removing what is rubbish, please do not replace it, if you want to add another report that may well be ok but it should be strongly cited and not attacking in nature. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Its like what you just added, is absolute valueless fluff, allegations they didn't report it for 25 mins, that is just tabloid fluff, fillers, something to add to make the story seem exciting, this is an encyclopedia. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
In one of the most polite edits the timeline was deleted here. This issue is very complex and I've found that on breaking news it's easier and less controversial to discuss developments in chronological order. The deleted material included references to events about the event having notability beyond one person's meltdown (e.g., the Republican ad, the Taiwan animation, the proposed television deal, analysis that he had become a defacto folk, and dealing both pro and con whether the story is true (this seems to be a moving target). Again I appreciate the polite comment on the deletion. Americasroof ( talk) 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This minor incident does not need a timeline at all. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
How is this timeline not the ultimate in fancruft? Aside from the six entries that comprise the actual incident it's comprised of publication dates. Those are usually called references and are already called out in their own section. Do we really need a chronological breakdown of the refs table? This is pure fluff to fill the article and make it look like it can't be the blurb it really is (in the Jet Blue article). This coverage timeline needs to go. It's nothing but cruft. Padillah ( talk) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Tyhe sources say that 90% of the passengers have not cooberated his story, why does the artciel only say dozens, that seems to undemine the fact. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
If non witnases opinions of the matter should be given why can't we also have what actual witnese say abuot the incident? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion originated at User_talk:E._Ripley#Opinions and User_talk:WhisperToMe#Opinions
I missed it, did this plane crash? Was it involved in some sort of hijacking incident? Why in God's green Earth is this article titled after the flight number. This is usually reserved for notable flights in which people have died violently. The article is disrespectfully titled. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events).-- Jojhutton ( talk) 22:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Now that the whole AFD process is finally over (at least for now), maybe we can think about a good title for the article. I don't really think the flight number is the ideal title. As others have pointed out, the number hasn't been retired, so there are still other flights with that number. But more importantly, I don't think it's really what most people associate with the incident. My proposal at this time is to move it to Steven Slater air rage incident (currently a redirect), but maybe someone else can think of something better...What does everyone think? - Helvetica ( talk) 09:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
(Outdent) E. Ripley, unless there's been some sort of poll conducted, there's really no way to know for certain Slater's name recognition among "regular people." One of the only tools we have for gaging this is how it's presented in the media, and there are multiple examples of articles and editorials where the author starts with the premise that his/her reader already know who Steven Slater is. For example, this one, which begins with "By now, only the dead are unaware of Steven Slater," this one, titled "How To Head Off The Steven Slater In Your Organization," and this very recent one, which focuses on Slater and analysis of the event/impact throughout, but only incidentally mentions his airline and job as flight attendant. And there's no good reason to think we'd see this if Slater had such low name-recognition as you seem to think he has. As for your OED reference, I'm thinking that must be a joke, as obviously a new phrase isn't going to be put in there within three weeks of being coined, but the fact is that it has been used in notable sources. - Helvetica ( talk) 10:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
\ talk 13:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
@E. Ripley (Re:16:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)), it still seems to me that you're not really addressing the main point that I've been making and which Propaniac made again above. This is not an AFD debate, it's about the title of the article. It seems to me that you ignored Propaniac's question about whether you think people are *more* likely to remember that the airline was JetBlue than that his name was "Steven Slater." That's the relevant topic here - the *relative* notability of one vs. the other in regards to this incident. And you haven't shown any evidence that people are more likely to associate it with JetBlue than "Steven Slater." Wikipedia guidelines for naming say that we should generally use what it's most commonly been known by, unless there's a good reason not to, and it's clear that the coverage of this incident and its aftermath have focused more on Slater himself than the airline, so his name should be included in the title. - Helvetica ( talk) 09:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, it looks like, after a month, the title is what it's supposed to be. this MSNBC article even feels they have to remind people who Slater is. Padillah ( talk) 15:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
At the moment (and in the past others were removed as BLP violations) we have a statment from one non-witness (she admits as much) backing Mr Slaters story and refuting claims that are not in the article. Either we should not have stamants from witnases or we should also include those statments thi9s person is repsonding to. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
User Johnuniq removed mention of Steven Slater from the lead paragraph [13], citing the first AFD. There are a number of problems with this. First of all, the results of the first AFD were contested, leading to a deletion review in which the result was over-turned, the article was restored, retitled, and retitled, and the 2nd AFD resulted in a consensus to keep. In any event, Slater is by, any objective standard, very central to the event, and it makes no sense not to mention him in the lead paragraph. Also, even if there were an undisputed consensus to not have a biographical article about Steven Slater, this in no way implies a consensus that his name should not be mentioned in the intro paragraph. A clear consensus has now emerged that this event is noteworthy and deserving of its own article, and since Slater played a central role in that event, there is no good reason for him not to be mentioned in the lead. - Helvetica ( talk) 09:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move to JetBlue flight attendant incident. Jojhutton ( talk) 22:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
JetBlue Flight 1052 → ? — A previous section was devoted to moving this article to another name. See Renaming, above.
Some editors preferred Steven Slater Air Rage Incident, while some broached that the new name should be some form of Jet Blue Flight Attendant Incident, or anything to that effect.
No one seemed to be in favor of the current name of the article.
Are there any objections to actually changing the anme of the article at all? If not, then please state your preferance from the above or create a new one. This should be interesting.--
Jojhutton (
talk)
21:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Jet Blue Flight Attendant Incident Slatersteven ( talk) 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
As a point of process, I would like to note that there has been extensive discussion about the article's title in other sections of the talk page, with a number of arguments made by a number of different editors. So I would ask that whoever closes this requested-move discussion take those into consideration as well, when trying to determine consensus, even if they don't re-state them in this section. - Helvetica ( talk) 10:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Steven Slater air rage hoax would correctly identify his claim to have been in a confrontation with a passenger to be a hoax. No passenger or other crew member corroborated his initial story. patsw ( talk) 18:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
@Patsw (Re post at 13:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)), you say that there's a wide consensus, but you haven't shown any evidence to support this claim. Some coverage has suggested that it *might* have been a hoax, and there may be a small number who assert certainty that there was no confrontation, but this is certainly not the majority, let alone anything approaching any sort of consensus. As for what I'm claiming, my opinion about what happened isn't the most relevant, though I do think there probably was some sort of confrontation on board. I wasn't there, so I don't know what exactly happened. I don't know if there were any surveillance video cameras on-board that would have captured an incident or lack there of. If there are, then JetBlue could release them in clear up the mystery. This account from one passenger sheds a bit of insight: [14]. She didn't witness the confrontation itself, but saw Slater both before and after he was bleeding, so deduces that something must have happened to cause his head to bleed. In any event (to get back on track here), for the purposes of this Wikipedia article, it would violate policies like NPOV, no original research, and no novel synthesis for Wikipedia to assert that it was in fact a hoax, unless almost all of the mainstream media (and other reliable sources) were unequivocally presenting it as a purely contrived fraud, which they aren't - at least not at this point. - Helvetica ( talk) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It is known with certainty from the disclosures made by investigators, and the statements made on the record by passengers to reporters that Slater's statement was false. There is no might about it. There are no accounts taking into account these disclosures and statements which give credulity to Slater's initial account. In fact, later statements by Slater have avoided mentioning the passenger. So, it has morphed from these original accounts:
“ | Reports claim that as the Embraer ERJ-190 taxied to the gate after landing, a passenger stood up and began pulling his luggage from the overhead bin. When Slater asked the man to be seated, the man refused. Slater approached, and as the man continued removing his bags, one of them inadvertently struck Slater in the head. A "heated exchange" ensued in which the passenger called Slater a "motherfucker." To the passenger who just called me a motherfucker, fuck you. I've been in this business 28 years and I've had it. (August 9, 2010) | ” |
“ | It all began when he was hit in the head by an overhead locker door as a passenger collected luggage after their plane landed in New York. The same passenger swore at Slater when he told her to get back in her seat as the plane taxied to the gate at JFK airport. (August 11, 2010) | ” |
to this
“ | A number of passengers were competing for overhead carry-on luggage area. (September 7, 2010) | ” |
So where is the evidence that Slater's initial statement was truthful? Or that any of the actions of passengers on this flight were justification for Slater's actions on that aircraft on August 9? patsw ( talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
@Patsw (re: post at 02:21, 8 September 2010), I'm not trying to be condescending, but what you're suggesting does violate Wikipedia policy. I think WP:V is not the most relevant here, but rather WP:NOR and WP:SYN, and maybe also WP:NPOV. If, for example, the New York Times says that "no passenger or crew member has corroborated Slater's initial account," then Wikipedia can say something like "according to the New York Times, no passenger or crew member has corroborated Slater's initial account." But if a Wikipedia editor goes through a bunch of different witness accounts and decides that that none of them verify Slater's initial account and writes that, then this sort of thing violates NOR and/or SYN. For example, the first sentence of SYN states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Also, if there's some subjectivity and judgment call involved, then it's likely to violate NPOV as well. I hope this clarifies things. - Helvetica ( talk) 12:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we are looking at this from the wrong perspective. If you view what he did as a crime then there are tons of precedents where the events are summarized in a biography of a perpetrator or in some cases the victim. There are not separate articles on the crimes. Some examples include Ronald DeFeo, Jr.. Bernhard Goetz, Ken McElroy. There are not stand alone articles on the crimes of Jesse James or Bonnie and Clyde. By that logic the name of the article should go back to Steven Slater. Of course this is all pointless because of redirects. Americasroof ( talk) 02:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
User Mkativerata removed the AFD and DRV history table, saying that it was for a different article. But this is not true. The title was changed, but that doesn't mean it's a different article. Both the article and the talk page have an intact history from before the "Steven Slater" AFD, and that article was restored following the DRV and edited until it became what it is now. And the "Steven Slater" article was more of an event article than a bio article before the first AFD anyway. In any event, please do not remove this relevant history from the talk page. Thank you! - Helvetica ( talk) 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
@ Mkativerata, IMO you have a bit of a conflict of interest here, as you were the closer of the disputed "Steven Slater" AFD. As for this article being totally new and re-written I don't completely agree, though there has been an evolution since it was restored and retitled. If you look here, this version of the "Steven Slater" article from shortly before it was deleted was really much more an event than a bio article. I only see one sentence - "Slater's career as a flight attendant began in 1994, starting with Business Express Airlines, and later working for Trans World Airlines and Delta Air Lines." - that's actually biographical. The rest is about the event and aftermath, so it's really more just bio in name only. It doesn't take much of a re-write to turn something like this into a non-bio event article - just re-titling, re-wording of the intro, and removal of that one sentence. Anyway, I'm generally ok with your summary, but I've just changed it so it doesn't say "new article" as that's more opinion than fact. - Helvetica ( talk) 12:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Everyone is talking of the hit to the head and there should be a link or section on what can happen with head trauma. For instance if it can be shown that a head blow can cause temporary irrational behavior then all the criminal hype over his actions will be just a work injury and nothing more. Did not the man who sold Oxyclean die a few days after being hit in the head by carry on luggage? Septagram ( talk) 05:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Can we group together the undisputed parts of the narrative into the "Incident" section which commence with his address over the aircraft public address system, and break out the variants of Slater's accounts into a new section so that its clear to the reader this is something which has changed from August 9 (and probably has not yet seen its last new disclosure). I'm not an advocate for "Slater's version" as the current heading has it, I suggest "Conflicting accounts of the background to the incident" or something similar. patsw ( talk) 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I just moved a statement from the lead which said that no passenger had corroborated Slater's account. This is a subjective matter, and I posted a link in a section above to an account from a passenger which does at least partially corroborate his account. I feel it's important to maintain NPOV here, especially while the charges against Slater are still pending. I think it's fine for Wikipedia to present, with attribution, what a police officer or prosecutor or whoever says, but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to assert it as fact. It was presented as fact in the lead, with a citation, but the citation was to a Wall Street Journal article where an anonymous Port Authority officer was quoted as saying that. But this citation does not make the assertion a verified fact. It only verifies the fact that an anonymous Port Authority officer was quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying that. Please maintain NPOV and proper attribution. Thank you! - Helvetica ( talk) 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | The point is, the fact that I and most other passengers did not see or hear a confrontation does not mean it did not happen. | ” |
I have removed these two as this is supposed to be an article about an incident not a person. Spartaz Humbug! 11:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Somebody removed the category, but I restored it. The incident has receieved significant coveraged which referenced Slater's orientation, and much of the anti-Slater backlash was homophobic in nature. Slater was also in bed with his boyfriend when the police came busting in, and that was a big part of the story. Certainly enough for inclusion in the category. - Helvetica ( talk) 11:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: Spartaz, no, this it's not a biographical category, and sexual orientation was a notable aspect of this incident and its coverage. - Helvetica ( talk) 16:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I started the sub-section so people can see the sources. WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Steven Slater is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Muboshgu ( talk) 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on JetBlue flight attendant 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
-- Marc Kupper| talk 04:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Why DOES this article use the plane crash infobox? GOLDIEM J ( talk) 18:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I have nothing to contribute, having landed on this topic by chance. However, I can't walk away from this talk page without noting that the length of the article itself and the sheer volume of discussion here are both way out of proportion to the event and, frankly, make Wikipedia look like a tabloid desperate for filler to achieve a promised page count. I can only wonder that no one bothered to identify the brand of beer Slater guzzled or described the necktie he threw to the tarmac. The detail in Timeline, Third Party Reactions, and Media Notability are prime examples of text that a seasoned editor anywhere else would have mercilessly pared and which far exceed similar sections in much more important and notable incidents than this one, which had its moment of notoriety and is now essentially forgotten. Seriously, people, while deletion may not have been appropriate, the piece is ripe to be offered for extra points on a final exam of a course on editing. Irish Melkite ( talk) 20:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)