Talk:Oscar Munoz (executive)/Archive 1

Archive 1

People removing controversial material

There are persons removing controversial material on Oscar Munoz. He has gained international recognition after the incident where a paying customer was brutally removed with force and bloodied in the face. This is a significant part of Mr. Munoz's career, given it is one of the biggest moments in which he has gained public attention.

This incident had little to do with Munoz. Dragging the CEO into this violates WP:IMPARTIAL. Adding quotes around his comment violates WP:SCAREQUOTES. Also, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

From MSNBC: United CEO Oscar Munoz doubled down in a letter to employees on Monday evening, claiming that employees "followed established procedures" when removing a passenger from a plane because it was overbooked, and calling the passenger "disruptive and belligerent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.35.54.47 (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The rabid foaming at the mouth of the edits in question is the reason the edits are being removed; not because anyone is trying to cover-up anything. Place rational, encyclopedic content on the page—with citations—and the edits stand. Simple as that. --SpyMagician (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The CEO of United Airlines needs to resign in shame because he genuinely refused to take the blame for the dragging. He called the dragged passenger "disruptive and belligerent". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.186.221 (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Reverting of edits

An editor has twice reverted my edit to this article. In my edit I cleaned up the sloppy citations, and reorganized the section for clarity. The reverting editor left no edit summary. The input of other editors about the most appropriate version would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Impartial quote by non-notable expert

An editor has added what appears to be a cherrypicked quote from "Rupert Younger", director of the Oxford University Centre for Corporate Reputation. My concern is giving such a prominent status to a Wiki non-notable. Younger also said in that cited article that "the apology by the CEO was, at best, lukewarm". Somehow the editor missed this more benign description, and instead chose to quote Younger saying "a major disappointment", which is much more negative. This seems contrary to the spirit of WP:IMPARTIAL. The input of other would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, then your solution should be to _add the additional quote_, not to delete the work of other editors who _actually make positive contributions_ to Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I completely reject your unsubstantiated claim that the director _of this exact subject_ at the world's _foremost business school_ is non-notable on this topic. The quote itself is also the most prominent one in the cited article.

If you'd like, you can easily find additional articles that support the claim that this has been widely panned as a textbook PR debacle, including the BBC: https://www.google.com/search?q=Oscar+Munoz&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#tbm=nws&q=United+PR

Just out of curiosity, is there any chance that you own shares in United?

Miserlou (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert Younger, quoted by CNN is a solid Public Relations expert. See https://www.ft.com/content/5f8cd912-445a-11dd-b151-0000779fd2ac

I revised the article and Younger's quotes, but certainly did not remove them. In fact, I added another critique of the Public Relations, by another solid source, Bloomberg News. Does anyone think that Munoz handled the situation well?

The usual, "deny we did anything wrong" until videos start surfacing that he could not deny. (This happens after police incidents quite often). Suddenly he is apologetic and sensitive; perhaps the PR Agency was on the case by then. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed "overbooked"

I removed the statement that the flight from which Dr. Dao was physically dragged was "overbooked." Although that word has been used a lot, it is highly questionable that the flight was indeed "overbooked." Uporządnicki (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Magnolia saw fit to put back that the flight was "overbooked," saying it's "well-sourced." S/he didn't cite a source. So far, I've seen it mainly in headlines, in comments, or in rather careless-sounding statements. There ARE sources that say that what happened was, the airline saw fit to bump paying passengers in favor of employees that they needed to get to another city. That's not the same as "overbooked," which is selling more seats than are available. As long as it's even a question, I think we should avoid saying "overbooked," since just putting it in there implies that it's a fact, beyond controversy. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is the source that confirms that it was NOT overbooking:

From the above source: "United required the seats on the Chicago plane to accommodate several crew members who needed to get to Louisville to avoid canceling other flights, spokesman Charles Hobart said. The flight wasn’t oversold, he said."

Also from the same source: "United said initially that the flight was overbooked, its staff chose him and he didn’t want to get bumped. The airline later said it needed room for its own employees to get to another flight." --40.139.55.99 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Cosigning what others said. In good faith, initial reports were that the flight was overbooked. And I was the one who initially added that “overbooking” bit to the article. Now that Bloomberg article states, “United said initially that the flight was overbooked, its staff chose him and he didn’t want to get bumped. The airline later said it needed room for its own employees to get to another flight.” And a new article from USA Today states: “After initially saying the situation resulted from an overbooked flight, United is making a ‘clarification’ to say that Flight 3411 was sold out -- but not overbooked.” This overall story gets more and more ridiculous as time passes. --SpyMagician (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, many articles on April 10 did claim overbooked ... Including the major newspapers. See https://www.google.ca/search?q=United+flight+not+overbooked&espv=2&biw=1163&bih=539&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F10%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A4%2F10%2F2017&tbm=

Of course, it soon became obvious that the flight was NOT overbooked at all; four Republic employees needed to fly to handle another flight, so four passengers needed to leave the aircraft. Even so, some articles may have continued to say overbooked, perhaps because their readers would easily understand that concept; strange, because it was obvious by early April 11 that the flight had not been overbooked at all.

This type of item ran at 8:11am on April 11 on many news web sites : United Airlines says controversial flight was not overbooked https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/11/united-ceo-employees-followed-procedures-flier-belligerent/100317166/ Peter K Burian (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Requesting the move to Oscar Muñoz

If I'm not mistaken, his real name is Oscar Muñoz. So I'm requesting the move of this article to Oscar Muñoz. And all the instances of the incorrect form should be corrected. Thoughts?--Adûnâi (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

* Support; I don't understand how someone got the name wrong. Granted, many news reports also keep referring to him a Munoz without the ñ. Let's see if anyone disagrees with this plan in the next 24 hours. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose What evidence do you have that his name is Muñoz? United Airlines thinks they hired a guy named Oscar Munoz. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Changing my vote: *Oppose Yeah, even United does not use the ñ. So Munoz is fine. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)