Talk:John Smeaton (born 1976)

message: This page has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to discuss this prospect, please go 
Here. Regards, Lynbarn 21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am Scottish and this is yet another example of people imposing personal views and not realising what Wikipedia is not.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not Scottish but I would like to remind everyone that the deletion review is taking place here so if anyone wants to have their say then it should be over there. Saying it here won't count in the final decision. I've rejigged things and tidied the talk page up a bit so it is less... random. (Emperor 00:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that people in the AfD debate were trying to assume that Wikipedia was making some sort of moral judgement by suggesting this article should be deleted. It certainly is not a moral judgement; it's ultimately about whether this page is appropriate in an encyclopedia that'll exist for the long term.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion is closed. If you think there is grounds for deletion beyond those already debated, then you should relist for Afd. Expressing a keep or delete !vote here serves little purpose. Rockpocket 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion

message: Which is the correct spelling: John or Jon? Because if you look at this video at 00:02, his name is spelled "Jon", yet everywhere else I've seen his name, it's spelled "John." -CrookedAsterisk (contribs • talk) 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John or Jon? 

message: I read in The Sun (I don't buy that newspaper but I read it at work) that John Smeaton is not appearing at T in the Park due to security concerns, and this is not stated in the article.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not appearing at T in the Park 

message: He gave him one kick in the groin area, as far as I'm aware.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was that the groin kick (banjo in glaswegian slang) was delivered by someone else. John verifiably delivered a kick to Kafeel and dragged Mike Kerr to safety. Specifics beyond that are vague. 87.113.26.238 (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did Smeaton actually do to [[Kafeel Ahmed]]? 

message: It seems like one thing terrorist attacks are incredibly good at is taking people who were around by chance and elevating their social status based on the way they reacted. Smeaton says most people would have done what he did that day and I for one believe him, but he has this whole celebrity thing going because he was there and did what he did.
Elsewhere Rudy Giuliani is now a presidential candidate thanks largely to the boost he got from being the person to clean up after 9/11. I'm sure there are other examples but they don't come to mind.
If not I think someone should write an academic paper on the subject. Get the message across that terror attacks are counterproductive. 83.100.136.122 19:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a name for the phenonenon? 

message: Quote Correction.
Asked by ITV News what his message to terrorists was, he said: 
"Glasgow doesn't accept this. Thats Just Glasgow; we'll set aboot ye."
I happen to be Glaswegian... I watched the interview in question John clearly says:
"Glasgow doesn't accept this. This is Glasgow; we'll set aboot ye."
Would it be possible to reference the interview from youtube?
Georgeallison 16:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen the Youtube extract, but I'm sure you're right, however, the quote on the wikipedia article is not a quote of what he said, but a quote of what he was reported as having said, hence the [Sic] added to the quote in my version. I'm not sure of the wiki guidelines for quoting from Youtube, but I strongly suspect that due to the copyrighted nature of many of the extracts hosted on Youtube, it would not be permitted.  I will revert the quote to the writen reference, and direct others to join this discussion. Regards, Lynbarn 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asked By ITV News 

message: Is there a reason this article has a disambiguation marker on it?  Is there another John Smeaton with an article?  If not, there should NOT be a parenthetical (baggage handler) after the name.  If there is another John Smeaton, then the article should have a see-also redirect prominently at the top... See WP:NC and WP:DAB and WP:PRECISION for more information...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Yes, see also redirect now in place. Regards, Lynbarn 09:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  Thanks. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name... 

message: Both the people who wanted this article deleted and the anons/new users who wanted this to be kept are no longer paying attention to this article. The anons and new users will not come back in anything like large numbers since the media is no longer making a fuss about him, so if this were considered for deletion again, we'd have to take into account that John Smeaton the baggage handler passes WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. The only real problem here is WP:BLP1E. Will he still be significant in a year's time; is this unsuitable as a biographical article because he is notable only for one thing? It seems like a WP:COATRACK article to some extent. What do others think?-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean - this isn't really a biography of John Smeaton's life. It's a description of how he acted bravely in a terrorist attack, and the media and public's response to that. This article currently seems like a pseudo-biography.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And here we are using a made up essay to try and delete something, typical! Face it you lost the AFD and remeber "YOU CAN'T DELETE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA INTO EXISTENCE" (Hypnosadist) 15:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you're being premature. I guarantee you that it will be big news again in late December / early January. 85.210.6.34 18:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now that the hype about John Smeaton has calmed down 

message: See this DRV.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And if this ever came up for AfD again, I'd suggest a strong keep.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge overturned, now he has a biography again 

message: BBC source.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meeting the Queen 

message: It needs discussion before we go steaming in, as it does not present JS in a positive light. There is a report that JS has exaggerated his part in the incident, and that there are others who had a bigger role in the incident, yet did not get the QGM. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel thatthis should be included in wikipedia as an "It was reported that..." item. I first saw this on the BBC news site this morning.  The whole notability for the item is predicated on the publicity John's involvement generated - it should therefore cover the negative as well as the positive. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is controversial, so...

message: I know ye wee fannys (more Glasgow slang) want to use Glasgow terminology in your spelling throughout the quotes of this Mr Smeaton. But not. He spoke in English. None of us give a damn how he pronounced his words. Spell the quotes in correct English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.240 (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The language used in the article is that of the sources we are quoting from.  David Underdown (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glasgow slang 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was no consensus to move. Jafeluv (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: John Smeaton (baggage handler) → John Smeaton (Queen's Gallantry Medal recipient) — Mr Smeaton has not officially been a baggage handler for a long time, and I sincerely doubt it is even fair or decent to suggest that being a baggage handler is what he was originally known for. Neither does it explain how he came to be a public speaker, columnist and political candidate. All of these things stem from his intervention during the 2007 airport attack, for which he received the QGM medal, and therefore I cannot see any problem with John Smeaton (Queen's Gallantry Medal recipient) as a better title for the article than John Smeaton (baggage handler). MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Not sure of the merits of the move, but since when VC recipients require disambiguation we simpy use (VC), (QGM) might well suffice in this case.  On the other hand it is his actions when employed as a baggage handler taht first brought him to notice, and more people will probably recognise him as who is meant by using baggage hadler, than using QGM.  David Underdown (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, most people know him as "the baggage handler" and the article would be more easily recognised as "John Smeaton (baggage handler)" than "John Smeaton (Queen's Gallantry Medal recipient)" in my opinion.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Title===
I agree with the proposer that the current title is a little misleading, especially now that JS has gone on to further things such as standing for parliament. Rather than go to the complexity of putting in another RFM, I was wondering if people agreed with the principle that a different title would be better? How about simply John Smeaton (b.1976)? --Pretty Green (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: WP:QUALIFIER specifically says that year of birth is not a good qualifier.  Remember, the qualifier is not necessarily intended to fully describe the person, but to describe what they're notable for sufficiently that people will recognise them as what they're after.  So, someone starts to type "John Smeaton" in the search box on the left, the prompt comes up, and they will see that they have two choices: simply John Smeaton, and John Smeaton (baggage handler) - most people will realise which one they want.  David Underdown (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Good point, wish I'd thought of it. A 252 year difference in birth dates is not going to be ambiguous for people looking for either a historical engineer or a currently living person. This title is abysmal, borderline offensive, and most definitely not accurate any more. Support a relist. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Smeaton is not notable for being a baggage handler (mind you it's an honest job, nothing wrong with it as such, although the bags are always a wee bit slow to come out at Abbotsinch for my taste). No, the Smeatonator is notable for being a hero of the War on Terror, a recipient of the Queen's Gallantry award, and an inspirational symbol of the indomitable spirit of the British people in general, and the folk of Glasgow in particular. I know who my money would be on in a square go between John Smeaton and Osama bin Laden. Support relist.Irvine22 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move (12 October 2009) 

message: I agree with the proposer that the current title is a little misleading, especially now that JS has gone on to further things such as standing for parliament. Rather than go to the complexity of putting in another RFM, I was wondering if people agreed with the principle that a different title would be better? How about simply John Smeaton (b.1976)? --Pretty Green (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:QUALIFIER specifically says that year of birth is not a good qualifier.  Remember, the qualifier is not necessarily intended to fully describe the person, but to describe what they're notable for sufficiently that people will recognise them as what they're after.  So, someone starts to type "John Smeaton" in the search box on the left, the prompt comes up, and they will see that they have two choices: simply John Smeaton, and John Smeaton (baggage handler) - most people will realise which one they want.  David Underdown (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Good point, wish I'd thought of it. A 252 year difference in birth dates is not going to be ambiguous for people looking for either a historical engineer or a currently living person. This title is abysmal, borderline offensive, and most definitely not accurate any more. Support a relist. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Smeaton is not notable for being a baggage handler (mind you it's an honest job, nothing wrong with it as such, although the bags are always a wee bit slow to come out at Abbotsinch for my taste). No, the Smeatonator is notable for being a hero of the War on Terror, a recipient of the Queen's Gallantry award, and an inspirational symbol of the indomitable spirit of the British people in general, and the folk of Glasgow in particular. I know who my money would be on in a square go between John Smeaton and Osama bin Laden. Support relist.Irvine22 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on John Smeaton (born 1976). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110517042431/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article2026761.ece to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article2026761.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Smeaton (born 1976). 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/20160121032833/http://www.jeffmaysh.com/smeaton2 to http://www.jeffmaysh.com/smeaton2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121032833/http://www.jeffmaysh.com/smeaton2 to http://www.jeffmaysh.com/smeaton2
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) 03:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: People who are only notable for one event typically should not have an article. I would like to suggest this article either be deleted or merged into the main article for the attack. Many of the supporters of the article here appear to be fans of his and while I can understand their enthusiasm and admiration for the subject, that's not a valid basis to keep the article. Isenta (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  delete or merge