Talk:Betty Ong

message: The recent deletion and redirect was done without the process of an AFD nomination or any other discussion.  There was a deletion discussion already on this very subject, and the result was to preserve her article.  Betty Ong is plenty notable as an individual - 20,000+ google hits, a mural monument to her, a foundation in her honor, plenty of citations in major newspapers, and there are still news reports about her six years after her death.  Her thoughtful actions did much to assist the process of investigating the 9/11 hijackings.  It's a bit of a slight to her memory to call her non-notable simply because she was an extraordinary but previously unknown person caught up in extraordinary events.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring article

message: According to some 10th anniversary news reports, her handling of the hijack lead to a new procedure, having to do with contacting home base and passing information about the hijack and hijackers... 76.65.129.5 (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope so since reading the conversation one can see a good number of mistakes made by the op. center. Anyway, any source on your claim would be helpful  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.143.195.165 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  changed procedures 

message: The article clearly establishes that Ong was an American, and American born. Is it really necessary to list the Chinese versions of her name? George Takei, for example, is an American of Japanese descent yet his article doesn't include the Japanese version of his name. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese version of name necessary?

message: Can someone please show me the source for this text?
I've just listened to the audio file (http://www.rutgerslawreview.com/2011/4-american-11/) and from the 'American Airlines Emergency Line' entry onwards, Ong's voice is absent.
If this is the only existent version, can we please transcribe it faithfully? Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to whoever added the citation, but it does not feature any post-AAEL Ong quotations. Therefore, I urge either: the 's reinstatement or a verbatim quotation from the new source. Beingsshepherd (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how things looked in 2013, but the 2015 version waa full of original research. Copied and pasted from the source. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The phone conversation transcript 

message: The webpage (falsely) cited for the featured call transcript, claims she used a 'cell phone', boston.com claims it was a 'GTE Airfone' and page 5 of the 9/11 Commission Report claims it was an 'AT&T airphone'. 
What should we write? Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type phone Ong used? 

message: Just as legally you cannot defame the dead, you legally don't need the permission of their "heirs" to used their voice and likeness. Paul Austin (talk) 06:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The word should've been consent or approval, as indicated in the cited source, and not permission. I fixed it, thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero Dark Thirty 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Betty Ong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101010025624/http://pelosi.house.gov/pressarchives/releases/Sept04/BettyOng092204.html to http://pelosi.house.gov/pressarchives/releases/Sept04/BettyOng092204.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Betty Ong. 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/20150722090139/http://www.asianweek.com/2012/07/16/betty-ann-ong-chinese-recreation-center-opens-in-chinatown/ to http://www.asianweek.com/2012/07/16/betty-ann-ong-chinese-recreation-center-opens-in-chinatown/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Betty Ong. 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/20091108202459/http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm to http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 98.1% of this article concerns American Airlines Flight 11; 1.9% of it is biographical information.  This is not a biography.  Ms. Ong is not notable, and though her actions may be, I doubt the viability of September 11, 2001 American Airlines Flight 11 actions by Betty Ong (or similar).  This needn't sit here; it should redirect to the Flight 11 article.  Before I take such action though, I wanted to ask two questions: (1) What prose is in this article, but absent at the Flight 11 article, that is absolutely necessary to understanding the actions of Ms. Ong in the context of the flight?  (2) What arguments are there in favor of this article as it stands now?  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: notability and retention

message: This article could very much use a photograph of Betty Ong (like in the related article on Madeline Amy Sweeney). I am a new user and cannot upload a fair use image at the moment, but I would like to point out that the Betty Ann Ong Foundation has a photo of Betty on their website. If that is considered fair use, that would be a very appropriate photo for this article.
http://www.bettyong.org/
Michaelnrdx (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   JGHowes   talk 18:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph of Betty Ong 

message: I've discussed this article's impropriety (here, here, and here).  I plan to redirect this page to American Airlines Flight 11 again.  If anybody objects, please review my links and discuss such here.  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  20:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't, a consensus of one is not sufficient. "Impropriety" is a bizarre choice of wording, and notability is not subject to re-examination every few years to see if the subject is still being discussed. Acroterion (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  "[A] consensus of one" is covered by the editing guideline that instructs contributors: "If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself" (WP:BOLD).  Considering this page is currently masquerading as a biography, when only 1.9% of the reliably-sourced prose is concerned with such a topic, that's pretty unambiguous."Impropriety" is defined by Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary as "the quality or condition of being improper; incorrectness."  I've detailed the essays, guidelines, and policies with which this page is out of compliance.  I don't see how use of the word "impropriety" meets the definition of being "bizarre" ("markedly unusual in appearance, style, or general character and often involving incongruous or unexpected elements; outrageously or whimsically strange; odd: bizarre clothing; bizarre behavior.")My argument is that Ms. Ong has never met our standards of notability, especially as we administrate them today.  Her actions may be, but only in the context of American Airlines Flight 11 (if such content isn't there already).  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  21:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Boldness is subject to consensus: you've made a bold proposal. That doesn't mean that you get to dictate the final outcome or to force it through against opposition. I see no "impropriety" here (your choice of words): I see concern about notability, which is far from impropriety. I could construct similar arguments with much better justification for MMA fighters and KPop artists, but would probably not achieve consensus there either. Please find consensus for your actions rather than using boldness as a justification. A less wordy approach would be appreciated. Your next to last sentence is really what matters: it's concise and not unreasonable, but I disagree and others have as well. Acroterion (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't dictated a final outcome, nor have I forced anything.  I had a discussion with a single, now-absent contributor.  Then I invited further discussion should any potential second person have any input.With regard to your objection to the word "impropriety", are you trying to say that non-compliance with guidelines and policies is the correct state for an article?  Yes, I am concerned about notability (and notability-people, and pseudo-biographies, and what Wikipedia is not); should I not be?  That's what I'm endeavoring to do with the discussion I began here.  Mind you, I'm asking others to catch up on the essays, guidelines, and policies I've already discussed, but I've never seen anyone take umbrage.  How so?  The biographic material for Ms. Ong has but two references and only constitutes 395 bytes.  That is far and away from meeting our standards for notability.  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  22:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You've announced your intention to redirect. I disagree. I do not discount your concerns about sourcing and weight (far from it), but I do not support your intention to redirect, which has gained no support over many words in the sections above earlier this year. That is my chief concern, that you mistake a lack of interest in discussing your walls of text for assent. I emphatically reject the notion that notability is temporary, which you appear to be proposing with your graph. Such time-based assessments of potential notability usually play out over a period of weeks rather than years. My feeling on overall notability is that Ong's prominent and amply documented role in reporting and documenting the events on Flight 11 set her apart from other victims, and that and the the continuing recognition of that role are  sufficient for enduring notability.  Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  To add to the discussion, I do not agree with the intention to redirect this article for reasons that have already been discussed by others in the discussions above and in the previous vote for deletion. I wasn't aware that notability requirements had a specific byte requirement for articles and that 395 necessarily disqualifies an article for notability. I tend to agree with Acroterion about some of the previous discussions being too wordy, and I'm not sure they have been productive. If anything, it feels kind of petty to be counting the number of bytes in an article, how many seconds have elapsed since the previous vote, and speculating about the average number of Google Searches per day to too many significant figures that we can really be sure of. 2601:645:4301:4330:19F5:2D67:791A:2D28 (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2017 plan for redirection 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Betty Ong. 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/20130727095710/http://names.911memorial.org/ to http://names.911memorial.org/
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/movies/9-11-victims-family-raises-objection-to-zero-dark-thirty.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Or 8 minutes 26 seconds ? Wisdood (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you clarify? Nightscream (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Source https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160547 says : For the next 23 minutes. The last 8 minutes are part of the larger 23 minutes call. Wisdood (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  25 minutes ?