Talk:Jeremy Glick (airline passenger)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Jeremy Glick (Flight 93). JPG-GR (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy Glick (Flight 93 hero) → Jeremy Glick (September 11 attack victim) — Pre-existing title, which has been a redirect, is less POV-laden. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Perhaps an alternative target would be Jeremy Glick (Flight 93 passenger). Seems more neutral than either of the names so far proposed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree. I disagree with the suggestion to use Flight 93 passenger as it is too unspecific, and it could lead to having to be too specific about where people where when applying the same convention to other victims who need disambiguation. Note this coincidence: another Jeremy Glick lost his father in the same attack. --David from Downunder (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support though the disambiguator could be 'September 11th' or '9/11' just as easily. Narson (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Jeremy Glick (Flight 93) seems more neutral, to me. Corvus cornix_talk 23:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support, but go the Jeremy Glick (Flight 93), more immediately informative than the broader 'September 11 victim'. The Drama Llama (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support revised Jeremy Glick (Flight 93); no value judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Jeremy Gilck (Flight 93), per Corvus and Septentrionalis. Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• There is nothing POV about the phrase "attack victim". It is purely factual: (a) it was an attack; (b) he was a victim of that attack. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article about that event is called "September 11, 2001 attacks" and the word "victims" is used throughout the article numerous times - if it was POV then the article would not be so. --David from Downunder (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Jermey Glick (Flight 93) is fine with me if that's the consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.