Talk:1960 New York mid-air collision

message: I've been told (don't remember by whom) that the pilot of the United Airlines flight was trying to crash-land in Prospect Park, but was unsuccessful. On the face of it, this makes sense: the park is a few blocks farther along the path the plane would be taking from Staten Island.  — Anna Kucsma 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I Googled the air crash and found one source (which, I admit, I had never heard of) which says the plane that crashed in Park Slope was indeed trying to make an emergencey landing, but at LaGuardia Airport, not Prospect Park. But Park Slope Reader (a little mare than halfway down, in the "Pillar of Fire" section) states that both potential landing-attempt sites were speculated about as such by witnesses. Neither About.com nor Infoplease said anything either way.  — Anna Kucsma 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In many accidents, the MSM tries to sensationalize and often include incredibly stupid and absurd statements from ignorant, "eye witnesses," which help them to sell their sleezy newspapers, but which only confuse actual investigation issues.  Wiki Editors should never reference such garbage statements, no matter which newspaper or magazine chooses to publish such garbage.  We are supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not just another irresponsible Tabloid publication. Thus, I have removed the most egregious statements of that kind, that were in the article. EditorASC (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article currently says sections fell into New York Harbor.  This is imprecise.  Miller Field is on the Atlantic Ocean side of Staten Island (and is now part of Gateway National Recreation Area).  The body of water on this side is called Lower New York Bay.  The way it is worded it is implied that chunks fell into the body of water between Manhattan and Staten Island.  However it would probably be on the far side of Staten Island.  Since there might be a remote chance that as written it is correct I haven't changed it but we should find a reference to make it more precise.  Americasroof 17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[New York Harbor]] vs. [[Lower New York Bay]]

message: The 50th anniversary occurs on December 16, 2010. There will be a memorial service in New York. This, and other information that might possibly be used to improve on an already well-written article, has been presented in a series of articles in the New York Times during the past several days. I found the readers' comments left in response to one of the Times articles engrossing; perhaps other Wiki readers would appreciate links to the Times articles. Publius3 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  50th anniversary memorial event 

message: I don't know much about aeronautical navigation, and an explanation of these "points"--where they are, how they are named--would be a big help. -- Wi2g 15:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "...a point called 'Preston'..."?

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101215/ap_on_re_us/us_midair_collision_anniversary
** In 1960 New York air disaster on 2011-05-25 03:41:55, 404 Not Found
** In 1960 New York air disaster on 2011-06-04 18:56:35, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: In aviationarticles ONLY US Military articles conventionally use mdy dates. A concensus was reached that all other aviation articles should use dmy dates--Petebutt (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: I'm pretty sure that the airline is not called "New York Air" and it definitely does not talk about air in New York in 1960. This title is misleading. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions)  13:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The title

message: The article should indicate why the plane crashed.  I did not see that in here.  Can anyone add some info?  Thanks.    32.209.55.38 (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of crash 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Stephen Baltz. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 10#Stephen Baltz until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   Jay (Talk) 11:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stephen Baltz" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Baltz (2nd nomination), I restored the name of the boy who initially survived the crash. Everyone who voted says he should be mentioned in this article. I am not sure why User:WilliamJE believes otherwise, being that articles for other plane crashes with only one survivor mention the sole survivor's names. Some even have their own articles. I do not see what is the difference here. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find that my understanding of the subject matter in the article is significantly impaired when a sole survivor is listed as "an 11-year-old boy" vs. "Stephen Baltz, an 11-year-old boy".   If anything, including names of insignificant people in the article is more distracting to the reader than the value added.  I agree with the consensus described in the linked discussions above.  RecycledPixels (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Removing of names is problematic when the subject is a redirect. Per WP:R#ASTONISH, the target should try to make sure to have a mention of the redirect title, to avoid the element of surprise. Local consensus cannot override guideline.  Jay (Talk) 07:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just redirected the article to List of sole survivors of aviation accidents and incidents where he is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  WilliamJE (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, not mentioned there as well.  Jay (Talk) 15:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

text: ...and restored. The AfD is very clear on this issue. The "consensus" WilliamJE claims involves other incidents. -- Tavix (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The AFD said merge. It didn't say name. THis is so stupid. . The info is merged....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no, there really can't be a "merge" without the subject of the merge being mentioned. And the RfD concerned the fact that a redirect existed without any content to support it. Since the redirect exists, there needs to be a mention. -- Tavix (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

text: If five different editors revert someone, it's probably time to take a good look in the mirror and reconsider if consensus really is in one's favor on an issue. I really don't want to escalate, but I am keen to get a third opinion on whether it is okay to revert that many different editors. Alas, I do think Ivanvector has the better approach and will defer to the RfC started below. -- Tavix (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I moved your comment as you inserted it into the middle of RecycledPixels' comment. I see what you were trying to do but RecycledPixels was quoting , and probably shouldn't have included the King's signature, but this was one entire comment. Your edit made it look like King of Hearts made the first part of the comment, where in truth they haven't participated in this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Ivanvector. I did get confused by the signature.  if you are quoting someone, please use the  template and do not use their signature. Thanks! -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning of name of initial survivor in the article 

message: WilliamJE has now reverted five different editors who have wanted Stephen Baltz named in the article. I put together a timeline in case this gets escalated:
#   adds his name on 13:12, 21 May 2021; reverted 16:37, 12 June 2021.
#   adds his name (with a reference!) on 11:30, 11 July 2021; reverted 13:16, 11 July 2021 
#   adds his name on 13:15, 3 August 2021; reverted 14:12, 3 August 2021.
#   adds his name after the AfD, reverted 14:00, 21 August 2021.
#   adds his name on 22:33, 22 August 2021; reverted 22:37, 22 August 2021. (And again  and .)
I've never seen so many editors fighting a single editor's crusade to remove a mention from an article. -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: WilliamJE's reverts

message: Come on, now.  In case you feel it would help, go take a long look at WP:BRD.  We're in the discussion part of it, and it's just pointless and self-destructive to just blindly revert people and threaten them with "in case this gets escalated".   While you're at it, take a good look at the AFD you (Tavix) are using to defend the insertion of this non-notable person's name into this article, especially the closing statement.  Here is the link.  In case you don't want to click through and re-read that, I'll copy that closing statement here, with my own bolding added for emphasis on what I think you should be paying attention to:  "The result was merge to 1960 New York mid-air collision. If the merge is attempted and there is a clear consensus at the target to reject mentioning his name, then this page may be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6 as an implementation of the RfD consensus that we shouldn't redirect to a page which doesn't mention the subject. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If five different editors revert someone, it's probably time to take a good look in the mirror and reconsider if consensus really is in one's favor on an issue. I really don't want to escalate, but I am keen to get a third opinion on whether it is okay to revert that many different editors. Alas, I do think Ivanvector has the better approach and will defer to the RfC started below. -- Tavix (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I moved your comment as you inserted it into the middle of RecycledPixels' comment. I see what you were trying to do but RecycledPixels was quoting , and probably shouldn't have included the King's signature, but this was one entire comment. Your edit made it look like King of Hearts made the first part of the comment, where in truth they haven't participated in this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Ivanvector. I did get confused by the signature.  if you are quoting someone, please use the  template and do not use their signature. Thanks! -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not escalate

message: Should Stephen Baltz be mentioned by name in this article? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To put it a different way, readers do look for information on Stephen Baltz (110 readers searched his name in the 30 days prior to the RfD nomination above). We do these readers a disservice by not including his name here. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments: Stephen Baltz