Talk:Air Force One photo op incident

Updates

I won't edit this because of the editing tag, but this article gives a lot more information about the incident,[1] for example the name of the White House official who approved it, the fact that local law enforcement were notified but asked not to inform the public, the way the news spread (by youtube video), and the statements of outrage made by Bloomberg and Obama. I think we should nail down what actually happened first, and avoid undue coverage of all the recriminations - talk is cheap and politicians and news outlets do a lot of talking. But a few choice quotes might be helpful: "felony stupidity" is pretty quoteworthy. It's too early to tell but I'll guess that this story has legs, as they say, and that people will remember the incident for many years (i.e. it's pretty notable). Regarding the name, I'm guessing that the popular media will find a clever name for this within a few days. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Also, if you think of a better name for the article, please feel free to change it. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The under construction tag means that anyone who wants to can add to the article. The more info the better!Grundle2600 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. The "under construction tag" indicates that one or more editors are working on this article stub. Only an in use template would ask editors not to interfere for a certain time while one editor is working on major changes (to avoid edit conflicts), although it doesn't prohibit editing by others.

Basically the "under construction tag" was created (by Wikidemon, if I'm not mistaken) to prevent premature AFD nominations or simply said, to give potential legitimate articles a chance to evolve beyond their initial creation.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I got confused there. Still think there's a lasting notability concern here. It's really seems to run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS, and perhaps belongs under 9/11#Long-term effects as a subheading "Psychological effects". –xeno ^talk 22:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to opinion that even so it's news right now it will (in this case) overcome and override wp:crystal in no time. As for merging it into the 9/11#Long-term effects section of the main article (which I checked and considered before commenting and when I became aware of this article in the first place), I just don't see a real "fit" in there. Grundle's example and comparison to Orson Welles' The War of the Worlds below might be a bit farfetched but (in my opinion) still a valid comparison and a reason to keep it apart from the main article. Potential merging could be still discussed in a week or so if sources won't raise the notability to a higher level.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking this is more like The War of the Worlds (radio). Grundle2600 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on several wikipedia articles, plus lots of real life stuff, and I just wanted to avoid a speedy delete on the article. I like the idea that the under construction tag says it can be removed if the article hasn't been edited in several days. Several days is long enough. A few hours is not. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies, I got it confused for the {{inuse}} tag. –xeno ^talk 22:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology. It's easy to get confused because there are so many things here! Grundle2600 (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've penned 9/11#Psychological effects with relevant bits from this article, please expand/improve as necessary. –xeno ^talk 16:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New title

I changed the title to Air Force One photo op controversy.

Grundle2600 (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed it again, this time to Air Force One photo op scare. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically, it's only Air Force One when the president is aboard. And it's a good idea to discuss renaming such articles first, especially one that's up for AFD. Thanks to the double move (to a worse title!), only an admin can revert the move now. I'm reverting back to your first choice, so please discuss this, and try to achieve a consensus on a new name before making up another new title. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree that a discussion is necessary before a move. However, since I wrote approximately 100% of the article, I didn't think a discussion was necessary. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, your thinking needs a bit of an adjustment then, as you do not own the article. It also isn't usually a good idea to rename articles during an AfD anyways. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I know I don't own the article. In fact, I wish other people would add stuff to it! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see it more as a notable incident rather than a real controversy.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Me too. That why I changed it from "controversy" to "scare." Perhaps changing it to "incident" might be a good idea, but I won't do that without some agreement from other editors. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Incident" is probably the best term for now. - BillCJ (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Now that the AFD is closed, can we restart discussion about changing the title to "incident" or else if editors come up with a better idea?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, replace controversy with incident. Everyone involved seems to agree that this was a dumb move, so there's no real controversy.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cost of mission

One editor keeps deleting cost of mission, saying this is "Original Research" and not relevant.

The cost is the cost, if there is a reliable source for it, it is not original research.

Neither is it original to cite the cost as part of the controversy (this is an article with "Controversy" in the title). If it cost $10MM to fly around the Statue of Liberty it would certainly be more controversial (huge waste of taxpayer dollars during a recession etc), that if it cost $10, or than if it cost $370,000 but they were planning to fly the plane that number of hours anyway, just for practice.

Erxnmedia (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The "controversy" is over the public not being told about the excursion, thus raising 9/11 fears. The "controversy" is not about teabagger protests gov't spending for the excursion. Placing it here constitutes original research, as it makes it appear that the cost is a part of the controversy. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue the cost is part of the controversy.[2][3] — Matt Crypto 19:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A talking head and a blog are not reliable or sufficient sources. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And? I never suggested they be used as sources for the article. We already have reliable sources for the fact it cost US$370,000. However, you seemed to be objecting that the cost is not part of this "controversy". The links were evidence, as part of the discussion on how to write this article, that the cost is indeed part of the story. Here's another, "The incident continued to reverberate in New York and Washington today with two senators demanding an accounting of how the flight was approved, its cost and procedures aimed at avoiding a repeat" (emphasis mine) [4]. — Matt Crypto 21:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A single senator, known for complaining about the costs of everything under the sun, still doesn't quite cut it I'm afraid. There is no controversy about the cost of the flight. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, however, we're keeping the fact in the article. — Matt Crypto 05:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I am the public. I was there. I am not a teabagger, I pay my taxes. I am nevertheless concerned about the cost of the mission, it is controversial for me. It wouldn't be controversial to me if something worthy of being secret was done under the covers, but everybody insists that that is not the case. Erxnmedia (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What is controversial to you is of no relevance whatsoever, unfortunately. This is an encyclopedia that reflects what other sources have so say on the matter. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody here know what teabagging means? You might want to stop using the term... in this context, at least... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In this context, "teabagger" was either a derogatory comment, or an inadvertant (though perhaps common) misnomer, for protesting taxes a la the Boston Tea Party. Btw, groups like POGO make a living deriding the goverment for military spending, even publically stating that they were "happy" when Gates announced that the USAF would curtail further production of the F-22 Raptor. I haven't heard if POGO's complaimed about this incident as yet, but I would somehow doubt that they have. You don't shoot your own. :) - BillCJ (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, when you make a claim about "the public" and then exclude me, when I was there, and as if I am not a member of the public...it's just illogical. I think you are just WP:POV which is normal for Wikipedia articles of this nature (see for example Joe the Plumber), but such a sense of entitled self-righteousness still leaves me perplexed when I encounter it. The existential fact of the matter is this: We are both members of the public, and if we argue about whether it is controversial or not, the argument itself renders the issue under discussion controversial! In this respect we are just as much in evidence as any other written publication. Erxnmedia (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use the talk page to complain about other editors. Wikipedia is for adding noteworthy, neutral content about things to inform the reader, based on what reliable secondary sources have to say. It is not about adding your personal opinion of things. The existence or nonexistence of a controversy would be determined by significant media coverage of the fact that a controversy exists. It cannot be inferred from Wikipedians disagreeing, or argued logically based on underlying circumstances that a particular editor disagrees with. Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, I think the cost of the flyby is a relevant fact, if worked properly into the prose. My argument cuts both ways. The mainstream press saw fit to cover the cost in connection with the event, so they have decided that it is worthy of noting in connection with the incident. Just as we shouldn't add extraneous details just to express our personal opinion they are important, nor should we remove details that the sources consider important just to express our opinion that they are not. Although mentioning the $300K cost of the flight could be seen as a complaint about government waste, the cost of things is also a fairly normal fact that the press reports about things - when they cover a car or an airplane, or a sandwich, they often say what it cost so as to give people a sense of magnitude. It is what it is. Wikidemon (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That was somehow my point I made by giving the whole picture in my edit here [5] (even so I don't have strong feelings about it).Again, as I mention above at the "New title" section, it is not a controversy like some think or might suggest (and I blame in part the title) but rather an "incident' that I'm convinced will not forgotten. But either way, if the article will be deleted it still will live on in the main (article). In my opinion it is in part "just" news but although "sticking". It only can be argued if it deserves a separate article or not (and depending on this, how much information would be appropriate).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The cost of the mission was raised as a question related to the incident/controversy. The military researched it and came up with an answer. This is all documented with reliable sources. No, the cost of the mission isn't the entire controversy, but it is part of it. It should remain in the article, be given proper weight and written in a NPOV style. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Where are the photos? When are we going to see them?

We know that White House and Air Force photographers shoot digital. How long before we Americans see these photos that cost us $328,000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.165.163 (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. Photos taken by federal government employees as part of their job are often (always?) in the public domain, so they could probably be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We may end up getting to see the photos, if this writer is successful:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/29/100-days-of-the-poser-presidency/

I have filed two FOIA requests with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff FOIA Requester Service Center seeking more info, including the flight manifests; communications that would shed light on the origin of the “mission,” and copies of any and all photos taken on the taxpayer-subsidized journey. Let’s have some of that vaunted transparency Barack Obama is always talking about.

by Michelle Malkin

Grundle2600 (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! That's very clever. FOIA, of course. The American taxpayers paid for it, they'll probably have a right to see it. If a picture is released then it will be public domain and we can include it here. If not, and in the meanwhile, surely someone caught some pictures of the incident and posted them to flickr. Has anyone looked for any free images? That would certainly make the article more informative, to have a picture of it. Wikidemon (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like these are available under CC share-alike+attribution. regards, --guyzero | talk 20:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Advise about WP rules: Stop commenting on...

...editors. I'm sure not the only one getting tired of it as it also against WP rules (just in case you really didn't now). Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Air Farce One

I've restored the reference to "Air Farce One" to the intro. The fact that 5 different media outlets have coined the same phrase for this incident seems to make this worthy of inclusion. The existing title of the article is rather clinical (even with the proposed change), and this is probably the closest we're going to get to an "official name" for this incident. Thoughts?--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I did a google search, and "Air Farce One" came up over 15,000 times. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Blogs, personal websites, tabloids, and gopusa.com? Are you being serious? Tarc (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It also has ABC News, The New York Post, Kansas City,American Thinker, and The Sandusky Register. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Still only a handful of sources, mostly blogs and tabloids. The term "Air Farce One" is basically a protologism. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How exactly could a name for a novel incident not be a "protologism"? To call something published by a reliable news outlet (such as The Kansas City Star or ABC News) a "blog" is disingenuous: newspaper blogs aren't individual personal sites, but written by paid members of the news staff. The whole purpose of disallowing blogs as reliable sources is because they are self-published, which is not the case for blogs published by the media. This is made clear in WP:V and WP:RS:

Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story.

Anyway, it's probably worth mentioning 'Air Farce One' was used to refer to the incident, most notably by The New York Post, which in turn has been reported by numerous other news sources. For what it's worth, the Australian Nine Network was also using that term. Strikehold (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEO is fairly clear here. What a handful of sources, reliable and otherwise, choose to use for their screamer headlines has little relevance to the content of the article.

5 notable sources "coined" the term and 15,000 others latched onto it. I think that this has gone a bit beond WP:NEO. I agree that it doesn't belong in the first sentence of the article like it was originally, but it seems like it belongs somewhere.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

One tabloid used it, a scant few others glommed on. The 15,000 claim is, frankly, BS, as the term "Air Farce One" predates this little brouhaha. Google hits are never a reliable argument to make here. If you search for the term on the wikipedia, it redirects here, and that is really all we need. Tarc (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, you wore me out.  ;) I'm not throughly convinced on the arguments here, but at the same time, I don't think that leaving out the term takes anything away from the coverage of the topic (at least not at this point). I'm content to wait a little while and see how this incident is referred to retrospectively.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

John McCain referred to the incident as an "Air Farce 1 photo op." Grundle2600 (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This aspect of the plane story has, er... taken off now. My reservations of two days ago were well founded, but it is clear that this rather lame play on words is rapidly becoming part of the public lexicon. I wouldn't be surprised if the premature coverage in Wikipedia was partly to blame for that, given that it now seems that journalists get their info from here. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Although debate on this keeps climbing higher and higher, some people's position on this is up in the air. They might have to bail out of this discussion before it reaches terminal velocity. Perhaps they need an altitude adjustment. Hopefully the bots have enough artificial intelligence to keep the article on automatic pilot. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's probably relevant to note that Google groups (archive of forum posts) shows occurrences of the term "Air Farce One" going back to 1997. Some appear to be typos, one is a reference to a Canadian comedy troupe, etc. We may or may not decide that the term should be included in our article, but those 15,000 Google hits that User:Grundle2600 mentions aren't necessarily all relevant. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The title is STILL wrong

The current title "Air Force One photo op incident" is inappropriate, since the plane was not Air Force One. As I have stated previously, the correct designation would be a "presidential VC-25". As suggested at the time, 2009 New York City flyover by presidential VC-25 would be a neutral and accurate title. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no consesnus for that title. While I actually agree that the use of AF1 is technically wrong is this case, the current title has more support. Further, AF1 is the common usage for the plane, and your proposed title is too wordy IMO. Feel free to make a formal move proposal if you want. - BillCJ (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be some more debate. My proposed version is "wordy" because it is an evolution of the original title (simply replaced "Air Force One" with "presidential VC-25"), but the salient fact that this was not Air Force One is important - stating that it was gives the false impression that the president was actually on the plane. There are certainly concerns about accuracy and neutrality with the AF1-based title. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how you read the current title (Air Force One photo op incident), it's by no means necessarily inaccurate. That is, the fact that the "mission" was a photo op for Air Force One is true, even though the plane was not designated "Air Force On"e at the time. — Matt Crypto 14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Scjessey) The current title is fine. Though, perhaps, technically incorrect usage of the term "Air Force One", it has widely been reported as such by the media probably due for the sake of concision. However, the title of the article is "Air Force One photo op incident" – keep in mind, the whole purpose of the photo op was to create a picture of "Air Force One", not just any old VC-25... What exactly are the NPOV issues here? Strikehold (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying the title is correct because the VC-25 was intended to represent Air Force One is original research. That something is "true" is not sufficient - it must be stated by a representative reliable source. I know this seems like nitpicking, but that fact remains that the title is both inaccurate and non-neutral. The "NPOV issues" stem from the use of "Air Force One" in the title. As I said, it falsely gives the impression that the president was on the plane, and perhaps to blame for the "incident". -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no it isn't and no it doesn't. Every major American news outlet has referred to it in that way: The Washington Post (headline: "Official who approved Air Force One flyover may be fired"), U.S. News and World Report (headline: ""Air Force One" flyover incident an embarassment"), The New York Times (first line: "It was supposed to be a photo opportunity, a showcase of Air Force One alongside the sweep of New York City skyline."), The Chicago Tribune ("catching a photo-op to update a photograph of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty."), The Boston Globe ("President Obama yesterday ordered a review of the decision to send a backup Air Force One plane swooping low over Manhattan for a publicity photo"), The Kansas City Star (headline: "Air Force One flyover underplayed?"), CBS News ("an Air Force One flying at low altitudes over the statue of Liberty..."), The Wall Street Journal ("Air Force One photo op over NYC came without warning"), The Wall Street Journal ("A publicity shot of Air Force One over Mount Rushmore. A photo shoot Monday in New York led to evacuations...Despite the cost of an Air Force One flight..."The president thinks there is nothing wrong with the previous official photo of Air Force One."...")... Strikehold (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The airplane was not Air Force One because the President was not on it at the time. However, when he is on it, it is considered Air Force One, and that's why the photos were being taken in the first place. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying the title is correct because the VC-25 was intended to represent Air Force One is not OR. Several of the articles cited, including this one, clearly state that the photo op was intended to get "glamor" or "beauty" shots of the aircraft to update the files. The WP Air Force One and Boeing VC-25 articles bothe have Lead photos of AF1 over Mt. Rushmore. More than likely, these were also staged photo ops. For what other reason would the photographs be taken? And while the callsign "Air Force One" is only used when the president is onboard, the VC-25s are called "Air Force One" in common usage, and thus it is not false or wrong to use it in the title, per WP naming conventions. At this point, we've probably said all that needs to be said, and I doubt we can say much more without repeating ourselves. At this point, the consensus is for keeping the current title, and I doubt a formal move proposal, or even an RFC, will change that. - BillCJ (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"For what other reason would the photographs be taken?"

There's the OR right there. Assumptions are being made here. And this isn't an issue with naming conventions, but one that concerns the possibility that it might be assumed that the president was aboard at the time. That issue has not been addressed. And let's not get ahead of ourselves with claims of "consensus" when this article has been renamed several times, including just a few hours ago, with minimal discussion - and this issue was not discussed at the time. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The move was discussed several days ago, but not made at that time because the AFD was ongoing. Having seen no objection to moving it to the current title, and there being support on the AFD for removing the term "controversy", I moved this article after the AFD was closed. You're supporting a different title, which is your right to do, but no one else has supported it to this point, and some have supported the current title. That's the consensus I'm talking about. Consensus is not a vote or poll, though they can be used to determine consensus. As to OR, I was asking a rhetorical question. Feel free to provide sorces giving alternate answers, but the current sources are clear enough on what the photo op was for - these were not pics of a 747 being taken for Boeing, or for some other purpose, but to update the "files" (AF1 files is being inferred here). - BillCJ (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You aren't reading what I am saying. Let me try to be more clear. I am not supporting a different title, but rather I am objecting to the use of "Air Force One" in this one. I have already given my reasons, and you have said nothing that resolves the underlying issue. Since the aircraft is only called "Air Force One" when the president is on it, it introduces concerns that readers will assume the president was aboard during the photo op. It makes no sense to have an inaccurate title, especially when we all agree it is inaccurate, when one can easily be created that does not contain this problem. Also remember that the "common usage" argument is not necessarily a world-centric view. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The article makes it clear the president was not on board, perhaps this should be re-iterated in the lead. –xeno ^talk 02:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The current title is a reflection of how the incident is being referred to by the media and public. To most people, "Air Force One" is an airplane (or more accurately, two identical airplanes), not a radio callsign. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the current title is preferrable to something that includes a precision reference to the aircraft name.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Got a source for "most people"? Don't forget that the callsign refers to any plane that carries the president. Also, "most people" in NYC didn't know it was the presidential plane - most described a "big jet" or a "747" because few could make out the aircraft's livery. Agree with Xeno that this must be properly clarified in the lead at the very least. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources, sure... here are a bunch of them that refer to the incident using "Air Force One" as the name of the plane... The White House,ABC, NBC, FOX, New York Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, .... shall I go on? The current title reflects the common name of the aircraft as it relates to this incident. Again.. see WP:COMMONNAME. When it comes to article titles, Wikipedia policy favors recognizability and common usage over precision accuracy.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sharkx, thanks for the great response. That contains my answer to Scj's last response to me. Additionally, I'm flummuxed by Scj's "world-centric view" comment. While Sharkx's sources are all US-based orgs, I doubt that international coverage is much different. Beeing that AF1 is a US-owned/operated aricraft, it's natural that the common usage would be US-based, and be the majority of uses and cites. Note that the British press is well aware of AF1, having dubbed Tony Blair's ill-fated efforts to procure a larger government tranport aircraft as "Blair Force One". And that they still used that name, despite that fact that Blair had not flown on the transport at that time :) Finally, given less exposure to AF1 than the US press, I would expect internation coverage to be less inclined to make the distinction that AF1 only uses that callsign when the prez is onboard, at least in "popular media". Granted, the international press as a whole does seems to have a higher average IQ than that of the US media, especially in military-related issues, or at least does not tailor its coverage to the least intelligent reader/viewer. - BillCJ (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

6 v. 1 sources

Tarc and Child, discuss the issue of that here, since I don't want yet another edit war erupting during an Obama case. I'll provide a third opinion after hearing both sides if desired. Wizardman 02:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This article was recently at AfD where a lot of editors (including Tarc who argued strongly for its deletion) wanted to get rid of it. So it's very inappropriate for these same editors to remove a series of legitimate sources with substantial coverage. My understanding is that Wikipedia content is supposed to be built on citations to reliable sources and I hope we can have them restored. Links sometimes go dead or are disputed, so having several good sources is very helpful and important particularly on disputed content. There is no advantage to removing them, and I'm the third editor who has tried to include or restore these citations in some form. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Other editors' opinions

Ideally there should be no citations in the lead, and the lead should simply repeat cited material in the body. Setting that aside for the moment, the first and main link provided, the Wall Street Journal article, is a solid source, and seems to support most everything in the lead. I'm not sure why it needs buttressing with five other sources, unless each source adds somehow, for example by supporting a slightly different piece of content. Doubling or even tripling citations happens sometimes, and sometimes it's good to have more than one perspective on things. But as far as I can tell none of these other cites are solid, and none add to the WSJ source. Most don't support much if anything in the paragraph to which they're appended. Running through them, two are editorials[6][7], one is an editorial cartoon,[8] and the final is reliable but only reports on "quotes of the day" used by other press outlets - it says nothing of substance about the incident .[9] Given that the focus of all five is either "air farce one" or "scare force one", so I wonder if they all arose in the context of an earlier attempt to add relatively uncommon neologism to the article. In any event, I see no value of any of these citations to the article as written; if more sources are needed surely there are others of the caliber of the Wall Street Journal piece. Wikidemon (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The NY Post story is two pages totally about the incident and includes photos from the ground and a map of the flight path. Does the WSJ article have those photos and a map?

The fact that some media referred to the incident as Air Farce One was removed. More cites were added including one including this headline and statement:

"Quotes of the Day: 'Scare Force One...' April 28, 2009 9:32 AM

"Scare Force One" and "Plane Stupid" - headlines in this morning's New York Post and New York Daily News, following bizarre Tuesday flyover incident." but it was still removed.

So wouldn't it be appropriate to at least note the incident made headlines? Isn't that an indication of notability? And this assumes it isn't proper to specify what the headlines were, which several editors have supported. At the very least, as I've tried to do, shouldn't we maintain cites to the coverage, including in places well outside New York? Do you think it's appropriate that the same editors trying to delete the whole article are removing substantial coverage of the incident? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the subject of what headlines were chosen to grab newspaper reader attention for the news of the day does not seem very encyclopedic - neither noteworthy to an understanding of the event, nor terribly significant. The fact that the event made headlines goes without saying if the subject is notable. That second and third tier opinion sources, an editorial cartoon, and a tabloid engaged in mocking wordplay is just not a significant issue. Further, doing a survey directly, like this, is using the headlines as a primary source, and it cannot address weight questions. Media covering media "quote of the day" is very weak content. A quick survey shows that "air force one" is used vastly more often in the press than "scare force one" or "air farce one" in describing the incident, something like a 200-to-1 margin. If there were something worth saying about press coverage, the way to say it would be to find a reliable netural secondary source that describes the matter and ties it to the subject of the article. Regarding editor legitimacy, any editor is free to edit the article. The question is the merit of their contribution, not what they think about the subject of the article. The article is no longer nominated for deletion, so establishing notability is no longer at issue. Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see what the big brouhaha is here. Those half-dozen sources were originally there because they were cherry-picked assertions of the "Air Farce One" pejorative, which has since been removed from the lead, and has been discussed above. (Note that the phrase is still a redirect to here). So, if that isn't there in the lead anymore, then there's really no need for SIX citations, is there? Tarc (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Accurately describing the media and public reaction is a necessary part of encyclopedic coverage of an event like this. In addition to the sources provided, the Air Farce One designation is also reported on here [10] from John McCain. But now you're not even satisfied with removing that notable description that was used to describe the event. You also want 6 sources including a major story in the New York Post with photos and a map of the flight plan removed. This is highly inappropriate for an editor trying to delete the article. You've made no effort to compromise, made no suggestion of a better way to describe the public and media reaction, you simply want the whole article gone, and failing that now you're deleting sources and notable bits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And let's be clear, Tarc removed widely reported on cost of the flight [11], removed the under construction tag [12] and vigorously argued to delete the article [13] since it was just one day old. So maybe this editor should work on article subjects they aren't working hard to strip of sources, content and to delete? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

To the matter at hand, we're already done with the issue of the "Farce" pejorative appearing in the lead of the article, as discussion seemed to have petered out in the earlier section. That was last week. This week, you restored the string of sources that were only being used to support the "Farce" term. Now that that is gone, those sources no longer serve a purpose so I removed them. The info in the lead is cited to the WSJ link, [14], which seems to be quite sufficient. So, again, I'm really not seeing what the problem is here, and why it made you go running for admin intervention. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be cited in the lead - it can appear later on. The reason I cited so many sources was to counter people's claims that it wasn't notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a good approach. If something is truly notable, there will be a good-quality reliable source that is representative of the others - and only that single source would be necessary. Multiple references on a single sentence are only appropriate when that sentence draws information from multiple sources. I see a lot of this around on Wikipedia and it has always bothered me. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Still making news

[15]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Point? I believe that the discussion of notability ended some weeks ago. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion ended less than one week ago on May 6. Editors trying to get rid of the article also suggested a merge with a "mention" in the 9-11 article claiming it was a one day WP:NOTNEWS event. It's also possible someone wants to add content from the above story. Not everyone working on the article is trying to get rid of content and to delete sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Digital alteration of photo

It seems the only source we have for this info is the caption on the picture. What kind of alterations did they make? If it was for color and lighting, that's one thing. But if it was for content, that's a very different thing. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Unaltered content: [16] =) --guyzero | talk 08:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I also found these: [17] [18] [19] [20]. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Without the consultation and permission of the president

I find it astounding how the president wasn't even consulted before they went ahead with this show into the city! While it does make sense that the military will keep confidentiality especially with this activity from the citizens it's incredible that all who organized it did not notify the President!

I could sort of imagine how the president suddenly is whisked away by personnel and security staff and find out it was the just the presidential plane flying around doing photoshoots... would have been absolutely funny! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.205.127 (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Informing the president about every potential security hole would take too much time out of his schedule. The Secret Service exist to handle his security. Furthermore, there are two VC-25s, so he could have hopped on the other one. Is that 100% as safe as the standard double-convoy? No, but he'd still have a plane. 24.205.64.27 (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's entirely possible that he was briefed that they would be doing a photo shoot with one of the planes, and was simply not told the specifics. 24.205.64.27 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Air Force One photo op incident. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-plane29-2009apr29%2C0%2C2498563.story
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ny1.com/Default.aspx?ArID=98785
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511172220/http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/a/w/1151/05-08-2009/20090508142009_54.html to http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/a/w/1151/05-08-2009/20090508142009_54.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/homeland_defense/NewYorkCity_flyover/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)