Talk:Lovettsville air disaster

message: The Washington Post:
*"Plane's Pilot Vainly Struggles To Save Craft", 1940-09-01, p. 1.
*"Line Operated 13 Years With No Fatalities", 1940-09-01, p. 8.
*"Ex-Head of D.C. Dental Society, 13 U.S. Employes Died in Crash", 1940-09-01, p. 1.
*"Lovettsville Tragedy" (editorial), 1940-09-02, p. 6.
*"Bodies Identified In Plane Crash", 1940-09-02, p. 4.
*"Aerial Experts Wind Up Study Of Crash Scene", 1940-09-03, p. 1.
*"Shock Knocked Out Pilots, It Is Believed", 1940-11-03, p. 15.
The New York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=lovettsville+crash&srchst=p
Report of the Civil Aeronautics Board investigation of an accident involving aircraft of United States registry NC 21789 which occurred near Lovettsville, VA, August 15, 1940. 13 pp. (Available from Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Ref. 31.202:Ac2.)
These are just a starting point for an interested editor to research. I added them to the Talk page instead of a subpage of my user page in case anyone is interested in the topic. --Oddharmonic 17:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporaneous references

message: Lovettsville was not the first CAB accident investigation. It was the first major investigation.
See:
http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-AIRPLANEACCIDENTS&query=(select+82)
http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-AIRPLANEACCIDENTS&query=(select+83)
http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-AIRPLANEACCIDENTS&query=(select+84)
http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-AIRPLANEACCIDENTS&query=(select+85)
http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-AIRPLANEACCIDENTS&query=(select+86)
Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lovettsville was not the first CAB accident investigation 

message: Recently, an editor added the employment nature of some of the passengers (i.e., that they worked for the FBI etc.)) without naming them.  This addition was removed on that basis that people are not named/indicated/individualized in articles like this unless they are significant in their own right.  Since the individuals were not named, I think their being listed/indicate should be evaluated on a different basis, to wit, whether the presence of their organizations (FBI etc.), which, of course, do have articles, is noteworthy. Kdammers (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there is something about the employment status of some of the passengers that affected the crash, there is no reason to mention that in the article. It is not at all unusual for FBI agents to travel around the country while performing their job duties. But when a highly notable person like a US Senator gets killed, then that should be mentioned. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The source cited is alleging that the presence of the FBI onboard was notable, linked to the presence of the Senator, and potentially linked to the cause of the crash. I don't know exactly what standard of evidence needs to be met, but that's the clear thesis being advanced by the podcast. Couldn't we link to the source and mention the allegation? Or do we consider it to be too much of an unproven allegation? Peregrine981 (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit I reverted didn't explain why the presence of FBI agents and a prosecutor aboard the flight might have been significant. It simply stated that they died on the flight, full stop. The reason why they were on the flight may be encyclopedic if it is explained thoroughly and properly attributed. The issue at hand is that back in the day when this crash took place, it was commonplace for news articles to painstakingly list the names and occupations of dead passengers, particularly ones with important-sounding official titles (e.g. military officers, judges, FBI agents, etc.) In most cases, this information falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:ROTM today; general consensus in the Wiki aviation community is to leave it out because it needlessly lengthens aircrash articles without contributing to the understanding of the topic. (The journalistic practice of routinely memorializing "important" passengers seems to have waned as air travel became more routine and airliners became larger.) Carguychris (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair. I'll try to listen carefully to the podcast and see if they are making a really substantial allegation that their presence was important. For the moment it seems a bit speculative, but I think maybe worth following up. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional passengers