Talk:United Airlines Flight 663 incident

Speedy Deletion

I nominated this page for speedy deletion because a regularly-scheduled airline flight is not a notable subject, and the event that is being written about is not notable. Please see WP:NOT#NEWS. Janus303 (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not notable, the whole thing will be forgotten in a day or two. This should be deleted, although merely being a non-notable story isn't a valid CSD criterion. Hairhorn (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I made the comment about notability on the talk page, but I originally flagged it because of a WP:CSD#A1. It stated that "United Airlines Flight 663, from Washington D.C to Denver, Colorado was attempted to be blown up by a "shoe bomber" on 7 April, 2010." And it wasn't just short with lack of context, but completely false statements of fact not supported by any source. Janus303 (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Janus303 has requested reasons for removing the notability tag added twice. The article meets all five criteria from the General notability guideline. I will remove the notability tag shortly unless there are objections. This is a notable incident covered internationally and on the front page of major national newspapers. Jokestress (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it meets the standards for notability. See WP:NEWSEVENT. 35 planes have been diverted this year alone in the United States over bomb threats. This wasn't even a bomb threat, it was a guy smoking a Parliament in the toilet. This one just happened to occur at prime time. If it had happened at any other time of day it wouldn't have merited a mention on the evening news because the fact that it's a non-story would have been determined. The news media have become accustomed to reporting first and collecting facts second. This became less and less of a story the more facts were gathered. Janus303 (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would say yes, delete -- but Qatar happens not to be backing down, but either way, that clash would make it notable. However, the title of this article should be different, to reflect that notability. There is nothing notable about the flight number itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.194 (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have evidence for that? Diplomatic immunity only ever clashes with domestic policy. That's why it exists. I find it hard to believe (in fact impossible to support) that this is the first claim of diplomatic immunity since 9/11. Janus303 (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I vote for speedy delete. This is an article about flash-in-the-pan news that will quickly be forgotten. It is about an ignorant young jerk who used some stupid language, apparently without realizing how stupid it was to make such flippant comments. There was no actual risk to the safety of the flight, so it will soon be forgotten. EditorASC (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but anyone who wishes to nominate it as an article for deletion always has that option. This incident has notable elements that are already leading to expanded debate about the response, about profiling Muslims and Arabs, and about international diplomacy. [1] Jokestress (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to throw in the race/religion card. EditorASC (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal analysis

The WSJ is one of several major news outlets which have published analysis of this incident. The quotation in the article is from the subhead of the WSJ editorial. Relevant passages below:

Israeli security personnel have great discretion in singling people out for questioning. They take many behavioral factors into account, from how people travel to body language and eye contact. The U.S. has some "behavior detection officers" to help keep air travel safe, but it needs many more, with better training. The case of the Qatari diplomat at least establishes the principle that egregious behavior justifies authorities being able to use their judgment to deter potential terrorists....

The broader lesson of this incident is that Americans will support reasonable antiterror procedures, even ones that depend on an intelligent use of judgment, even when suspicious behavior turns out not to be terrorism. If the antics of the diplomat from Qatar now help give U.S. authorities courage to assess behavior along with other information when targeting terrorists, he will at least have served some community service.

Source: Crovitz, L. Gordon (April 12, 2010). The Lesson of the Joking 'Shoe-Bomber.' Wall Street Journal Jokestress (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Despite your assertion that the quoted phrase is in the freely avaiable part of the article, it somehow doesn't show up in the part I can see, without subscribing. It, therefore, is a citation that is not verifiable. EditorASC (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read my second sentence above: The quotation in the article is from the subhead of the WSJ editorial. Jokestress (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Per the closing admin on the AfD and per WP:BOLD, I have moved this article from United Airlines Flight 663 to United Airlines Flight 663 incident. As several editors have mentioned, the article is about the specific incident vs. the flight in general, and the original title using the name the involved diplomat seems inappropriate. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Airlines Flight 663. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100411224538/http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/what-does-it-take-to-lose-diplomatic-immunity/19431585 to http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/what-does-it-take-to-lose-diplomatic-immunity/19431585

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

explanation

I aded a link to the diplomat, Mohammed Yacoub Al Madadi. It is a redlink, now. Is he notable? I'd say heis on the cusp. Redlinks stay if the link is potentially notable.

Plus, this is how disambiguation works. He is notable enough to merit a link to the Mohammed Yaqoub (disambiguation) page, to disambiguate readers from his namesakes. Both the disambiguation page and this page are supposed to share a redlink. Geo Swan (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)