Talk:1952 Farnborough Airshow crash

message: There's a video of the DH.110 flown by Derry at the airshow, including an interview with a spectator who saw the crash on YouTube here:  - it also has pictures of Derry earlier making a sonic boom over the airfield, something that wouldn't be allowed today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.153 (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube video of crash

message: It seems slightly absurd to me, as well as in poor taste, to quote a witness, Richard Gardner, who was 5 years old at the time talking about "silver confetti" floating down (the plane was painted black). There is film of the incident clearly showing what happened, and plenty of other witness testimony from adults who were there, so why include a small child's statement as the only witness for this article?Gillartsny (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to improve the article yourself, this is Wikipedia after all! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WG263 was in a silver or light finish, not black. I don't see it as poor tastes. I believe the statement is illustrative of what happened, and the effect on those present. Nothing wrong with retaining it, though could be moved to a quotebox.GraemeLeggett (talk) 
11:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm about to add another witness statement, that of author Moira Bremner.  She was clearly traumatised by an horrific incident and will remember it vividly for the rest of her life.  Re silver confetti, it sounds like chaff but I wouldn't expect chaff which contains explosive to be loaded in a non-combat situation.  JRPG (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although fully aware of copyright rules, I was somewhat surprised that you completely removed Bremner's story as it really didn't seem excessively long.  The recording itself is very emotional as she relives a truly terrifying moment which the Today program's 7 million listeners may well want to hear it again. Anyway, its about half the original length now. If you want to alter it further, could you please give reasons in accordance with WP:BRD. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your contribution, to add something to the article it really needs to have been published and a new citation added to the article as it is not mentioned in the BBC article. MilborneOne (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witness 

message: the reason why I removed 'a lot of stuff' is in my edit summary, and it becomes clear by comparing the old version with the new one, which I doubt you took the time to do in detail. The sentence "safety procedures were subsequently enacted for UK air shows and there were no further spectator fatalities until the 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash" is not just unsourced; it is seemingly contradicted by one of the two referenced sources, i.e. an AAIB report on an airshow crash at Biggin Hill in 1977 in which four members of the public died, although in different circumstances. The other source is a BBC article about the Shoreham crash that doesn't even mention Farnborough: totally irrelevant to the Farnborough article and already included in the Shoreham one. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, maybe it could be changed to say no further spectator casualties until the Biggin Hill crash. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The only safe thing to include is the safety measures themselves that were adopted in the aftermath, per BBC source. Any statement along the line 'There were no more spectator fatalities until airshow X' is essentially original research, since it's not unambiguously supported by the sources. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's often cited, so we should work on finding sources rather than remove the information entirely.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Rambling Man, will you please make an effort like everybody else and revert only the parts you are objecting to? Your last one-click contribution erased a whole bunch of edits that are completely unrelated to the point being discussed here. Thank you. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we were still discussing edits yet you restored your preferred version.  Over to you, I'm not interested in getting involved in this kind of issue.  I enjoyed creating and curating the article, but this ends it for me.  Unwatching.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead clean-up