Talk:Aircraft hijacking

message: This article simple lacks internal law issues. -- Toytoy 04:49, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
:See under newly-created Tokyo Convention page for a stab at this broad topic. (Weirpwoer (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  International law issues 

message: Numerous web sources give the date for the Miss Macao hijack as June 16th (or possibly 15th). Only one independant source has July 16.
see June 16, june 16
june 16
compare with July 16
I'll change the article. 
Zeimusu | (Talk page) 15:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Go to this website:  http://www.waterfrontair.com/history.htm
At 5.30pm on July 16, 1948, Catalina VR-HDT - piloted by American Dale Cramer, 27, known as a gifted softball player, with Sydney-born Ken McDuff, 23, as first officer and Delca da Costa, 22, as hostess, left Hong Kong for the final time. 
you can contact me at mollidew@yahoo.com
Dale Cramer was my Uncle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trepessa (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Miss Macao

message: The mention of the 1970 attempted hijacking by Refuseniks in USSR seems a bit out of place if we consider that no other attempted hijacking is included. If not, I'll just remove that part, I already removed the political commentary on it but I am thinking of removing the attempted hijacking as a whole. Any thoughts? Jewnited (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are '''attempted hijackings''' supposed to be included in the list? 

message: "Opponents proposed that shooting down the aircraft and killing everyone onboard would be more reasonable than a pilot firing a pistol in an airliner at a flight deck intruder."
Is there a source for this statement?  It looks like it was designed to ridicule opponents of armed pilots. PK9 22:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Can we have a list of movies relating to of revolving around. --unsigned.
*Support: Yes, in a section under popular culture like other significant topics. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies 

message: The article seems to contradict itself listing the 1954 Israeli hijacking as the first act in civil aviation when the Background paragraph preceeding it states this was actually the Miss Macau incident? It's also a little out of context when most think of hijackings as having a hijacker on a plane, not military or other jets forcing another to land in order to take control. I wonder if this incident should be removed all together or at least more details supplied to make more clear what happend? I also should be modified to state the hostages were held for 2 days, not just "days" (this could mean any length of time really). Your thoughts? Macutty 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Hijacking in Civil Aviation 

message: Updated some flags to represent counrties of origin for the Hijackers rather than the home countries of the respective airlines (does it really matter what country the plane was from?). Working on identifying remaining countries for those not listed. Macutty 17:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: Seems like we missed the Cubana hijacking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_Flight_455
Also note the comments:
"In September of 2005, a US immigration judge ruled that Posada should not be deported to either Cuba or Venezuela because he could be subject to torture"
:Cubana 455 was a bomb not a hijacking.--Zleitzen 03:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cubana 1976 

message: Can anyone confirm what is claimed at 7500, that this is some kind of special hijacking code. Thanks. Not a dog 04:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my reply on Talk:7500. I removed your tag. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 04:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is cited at Transponder (aviation), along with (7600 = loss of radio comms & 7700 = general mayday) Oktal (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  7500 

message: The aircraft involved was a Fokker F.7 Trimotor, not a Ford Trimotor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.145.174.220 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pan Am 1931 Hijacking, Arequipa Peru 

message: According to this artivle , the first Aircraft hijacking happend in 1919 by Hungarian nobleman Ferenc Nopcsa, who forced the pilot with his gun to land in Wiener Neustadt, Austria. The second by the former Hungarian king Charles IV upon his attempt in returning to the trone of Hungary in 1921.
:The article in question, in Magyar, does not contain the text "1919" or "Wiener" or "Neustadt", which causes me to doubt the claim.  Even with the very poor translation of InterTran I can see that there is no talk of hijacking there. --Eliyahu S Talk 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can deduct 1919 from the fact that he hijacked the airplane right after the [Tanácsköztársaság] started. "Bécsújhely" is the Hungarian name of Wiener Neustadt ( just as Vienna is "Bécs" in Hungarian ), "repülőgép-eltérítő" is hijacker.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mermik (talk • contribs) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Hijacking 

message: The alleged directive by LAX to passengers to say "Hello, Jack" instead of "Hi, Jack" sounds extremely suspicious. Can we find a citable source for this? Grayston 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homophones 

message: Moved list here.  Lists included in articles are not necessary, OR moved as a separate article. For those with separate articles, check if they're included in :Category:Airliner_hijackings. KyuuA4 23:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not create an article List of notable hijackings? It seems a waste to just get rid of the information. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 00:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airliner Hijacking List 

message: (Moved list to list of notable aircraft hijackings)--Lendorien (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not create an article List of notable hijackings? It seems a waste to just get rid of the information. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 00:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of well-known hijackings 

message: I'm curious if anyone recalls a made-for-TV in the 1980s that involved a group of hijackers taking over a plane and then having the passengers fight back and retake the plane.  They had the hijackers bound in 1st class and the second half of the movie involved the Captain and one of the flight attendents trying to stop the passengers from holding a vigilante trial.  The one thing I remember clearly about the movie was one of the hijackers was a heavy Irish man who said "They'll be no heros on this flight!" when they took over the plane.  Such a film as this is impossible to find with a goggle search since United 93 now dominates this very same topic.  So, anyone remember the film? -OberRanks (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1980's Airline Hijack "Fight Back" Movie

message: Several years ago I read a book on hijackings published in the mid-late 1970s which had extensive coverage of the "fly me to Cuba" hijackings. One of these incidents involved a teenager armed with two pistols who was tricked into letting go of them by a passenger (Allegedly a coin dealer who used the stock he was carrying as a distraction). He was then jumped by two other passengers who tied him up with their belts. I cannot remember much else about the incident beyond the fact it happened in the late 60's and that the hijacker claimed he was doing it to provoke the US into invading Cuba, but I thought it might be worth tracking down for inclusion.Graham1973 (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Passenger fightback in the 1960's?

message: As you will see, I've added many templates. In fact, I've added so many, I'm going to say that there are too many for me to specifically describe the reason behind each one. Why? Because I'm lazy and have less-important (but more fun!) things to do. Most of the tags should be self-explanatory...but they might not be due to my high expectations of articles on Wikipedia.
Therefore, please pose all questions about tags here...and please, also on my talk page. That way I'll get that little message =D  If you don't have questions, perhaps you're not lazy and can help fix the issues?  Shicoco (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Amount of Problem Templates 

message: Transponder codes are one of the only lines of defense a pilot has against hi-jackings.  To publicly relay this information on Wikipedia is jepordizing pilot and passenger lives.
As a pilot, strongly urge someone to take it down immediately. 
I am all for publicly available knowledge, but emergency transponder codes are of no use to the public, so long as they do not wish to take over a plane.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.161.243 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilot Actions. 

message: As a general rule, the law of one specific country does not deserve its own section on an article about a non-local topic unless the particular importance of the local perspective can be justified. Moreover, I think the content itself is of questionable importance. The first sentence isn't even about hijacking. The second continues with the excruciating detailing of the organization of the law, followed by a trivial definition that doesn't add much to the article. And while the third (and last) sentence is a bit more interesting, it has the problem that the link "Air disaster" redirects to Aviation accidents and incidents, whose working definition, borrowed from the ICAO, appears to exclude some or perhaps even all forms of hijacking. As such, I have gone ahead and deleted the section. I hope this decision sits well with you all. 108.216.31.202 (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the section "United States administrative law definitions" 

message: I also removed four paragraphs from the history section for blatantly copying one of the references for the article, per WP:CPI. The section should be repopulated with details about the history of hijacking during its heydays, as well as post-9/11, appropriately compiled. Don't write things like "... the situation has not returned to the pre-1968 level and the number of successful hijackings continues to be high - an average of 18 a year during the 10-year period between 1988 and 1997..." that gives away the decade the (copied) passage was written, and, well, don't plagiarize, period. 108.216.31.202 (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation in and requested expansion of the history section 

message: The Prevention subsection makes spurious claims and has no citations. Adding them now. I suggest the article be locked if they're reverted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.244.2 (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention Section Citation Free 

message: The "Golden Age" dates are clearly incorrect as they self-overlap, which isn't even a thing, but there you have it.  I've now made the same amount of sense as this section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.116.128 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Golden Age" Errata 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aircraft hijacking. 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/20120611011403/http://www.samaa.tv/newsdetail.aspx?ID=35569&CID=1 to http://www.samaa.tv/newsdetail.aspx?ID=35569&CID=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201044248/http://trybunal.gov.pl/eng/summaries/documents/K_44_07_GB.pdf to http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/eng/summaries/documents/K_44_07_GB.pdf
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) 19:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aircraft hijacking. 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/20070724125115/http://www.airdisaster.com/features/hijack/hijack.shtml to http://www.airdisaster.com/features/hijack/hijack.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126110320/http://secure-skies.org/crewtraining.php to http://www.secure-skies.org/crewtraining.php
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) 10:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Why why did this happen we all ask these people were psycho they hated us because we could live in freedom and they couldn't they stabbed passengers and pilots to get the plane and crashed into some very important monuments we will never forget that day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5863:8290:79db:e07b:e70a:5151 (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk pages are not a discussion forum about the subject of this article. Please read the talk page guidelines for how to use talk pages. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

text: "they hated us" Who is "us"? It is far from clear what you are talking about. Dimadick (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by anonymous user reverted from top of talk page due to damage 

message: What does this mean? That Australia had no hijackings ? In which case the statement is absurd.  Or there were just a few attempted hijackings? 2001:8003:3082:F500:EDAE:4B0E:FFB9:6D7B (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia… ‘relatively free’ ? 

message: As ye know, when hovering over a link with your mouse, there is an article preview showing up, most of the time with an image related to the article (usually the first image in the article). The image of this article here, has no link whatsoever with the subject (I assume it's vandalism), and I wondered if someone could do something about this situation. 173.246.29.147 (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am confused as to why the preview image of this article is a detailed image of an open wound. Currently on the mobile app, and clicking the image temporarily changes it to the correct one. BxHammer (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article preview image is unrelated