Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 253/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

CST?

The article that is cited does say the plane arrived at 12:01 CST however Detroit is in the EST zone, can we get some clarification? Bamaman (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it was just a clerical error in the reporting. MSNBC has corrected it.  fetchcomms☛ 18:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Lagos

Northwest Airlines does not fly to Lagos, so that part cannot possibly be correct. The guy was likely a transfer passenger from Lagos. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

One site said he boarded at Amsterdam from Lagos, but the majority say that it was from Lagos to Detroit through Amsterdam, so I'll change it if I find one more source for that.  fetchcomms☛ 01:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I added that he came from Lagos to Amsterdam, but I don't know what flight he used then.  fetchcomms☛ 01:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the statement came solely from Rep. Peter King and not other independent sources as well, so it probably will be confirmed as incorrect soon.  fetchcomms☛ 01:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Could the Lagos-Amsterdam flight have been a NW (or DL) code-share? That might be were the confusion is coming from. - BilCat (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a code-share is... but it might be the cause. Either way, it'll probably be sorted out by tomorrow.  fetchcomms☛ 02:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Codeshare - a flight operated by an airline is jointly marketed as a flight for one or more other airlines. - BilCat (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks,  fetchcomms☛ 03:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Now confirmed to have been a KLM codeshare.  fetchcomms☛ 00:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote those redirects

Those redirects:

• Firecracker incident
• Firecracker Incident
• 2009 firecracker plot

Tanks! Enjoy! Sorry my poor English. --B767-500 (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't really firecrackers, but rather an attempted bombing using powder and liquid chemicals...  fetchcomms☛ 03:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggesting better redirect titles? If not firecrackers were trying to using, then you can thought of better redirect title? THanks.! --B767-500 (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think firecracker incident is an appropriate name for a redirect, so I will nominate them for deletion. There are many things that could be firecracker incidents. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made NWA 253 for example.  fetchcomms☛ 18:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We might ought to make some for Delta Flight 253 and its variations also; since the plane is in Delta livery, it's being assumed it is a Delta flight. - BilCat (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done  fetchcomms☛ 18:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I made more of those redirects

• NW-253
• NW.253
• NorthWest Airlines Flight 253
• DL 253
• DL-253
• DL.253
• DAL 253
• Delta Air Lines Flight 253
• Delta operated by Northwest Flight 253 —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of those are good, but some like DL.253 and NW-253 really aren't needed. We don't need tons of redirects for one article. I'll let someone else decide if they should be kept. The point of a redirect is whether someone will search that particular term when they are looking for this article. I'm not familiar with other countries, but in the U.S., flights normally aren't named with periods in them.  fetchcomms☛ 20:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

CNN/Time Warner headline

Hi. The headline on this video on CNN "Passenger: Terror suspect seemed 'stunned'". I can't find that word anywhere in the article or the video, so conclude that CNN news is pretty much worthless. Glad I don't watch them. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh it is in the written article, my mistake, but the video describes him much differently. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw another source saying calm as well.  fetchcomms☛ 03:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No-fly list?

Peter King is quoted as saying he may have been, other sources beg to differ. If there's a definitive update, it should be changed.  fetchcomms☛ 04:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We should let the dust settle on this one because current news reports blatantly contradict each other. MSNBC says Peter King "said Abdulmutallab was known in federal counterterrorism files and may have been on the government’s list of suspicious passengers banned from flying in the United States." Fox News said Peter King "said Mudallah was not on any terrorism watchlist." BBC has Peter King saying "[Mudallad] was in a database indicating "a significant terrorist connection" although it did not appear on a "no-fly" list." How do three major news outlets have the same guy saying three opposite things? So, we shouldn't rely on anything Peter King was reported to have said about his no-fly status, until something more official is released, preferably from an entity which actually, you know, has ACCESS to the no-fly list. --Tjsynkral (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If he was named on the no-fly list, or reasonable equivalent, he definitely merits a whole article of his own. (1) No-fly list; and (2) attempted bombing, are two events. Arguably he may merit a whole article in any case. Geo Swan (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

He was not on any no-fly list it seems now, and there is an article about him that needs some attention and a name-check.  fetchcomms☛ 22:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

ITN?

Is it suitable?  fetchcomms☛ 04:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Great work on this article. It's already in Google News results for top stories. Vote here for ITN. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Tense

"Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was a transatlantic flight..." The flight still exists. Past tense is used for discontinued flights (i.e., crash and reassignment of flight number). The article should read that it is a transatlantic flight and then detail the December 25 incident. Filius Flitwick (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. But you should feel free. Thanks for pointing this out. Seems like airlines fly the same flights day after day. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Northwest or Delta?

Some sources are referring to the airline as Northwest, others are saying Delta. Photos show the plane as obviously in Delta livery. Which should Wikipedia be using? Northwest is now owned by Delta (not the other way round), and it was a Delta plane. So surely it was more a Delta flight than a Northwest flight? Abc30 (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The two airlines are operating under separate operating certificates from the FAA. Whlie these aare in the process of being combined uner a single operating certificate (posibly withine a few weeks), legally, the two airlines are separate. So there is a legal difference. Delta did not operate Airbus airliners at all, so despite the livery, it is legally still a NW aircraft, and it was being operated by Northwest. That's as deep as I can get, but perhaps someone else can explain the legalities better. - BilCat (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And the flight is coded "NW253" and "DL253" does not exist on delta.com as AMS-DTW. Like BilCat said, Delta and Northwest are still in the process of merging (obtaining a single operating certificate). Since DL do not operate any Airbus aircraft, and whatever the livery the plane will carry (DL or NW), it still an NW-operated flight. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Would be useful if a sentence could be appended to "The aircraft involved was.." that states something like "The aircraft was painted in Delta colors as the two airlines recently merged" or something like that. I think this would remove the confusion of readers that aren't familiar with the aviation industry. -newkai t-c 16:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably so. I've been thinking about that myeslf. - BilCat (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would probably clear things up some.  fetchcomms☛ 17:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to work on Wikinews article

I would appreciate it if some of the contributors here took the time to port over relevant information into the wikinews article as well. It is, after all, a sister wikipedia project. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would, if I knew how. I'm still reading up on the guidelines and differences.  fetchcomms☛ 20:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I made about a dozen attempts to draft articles on wikinews. With mixed success. I found some of the established regular are very hostile and unhelpful to new contributors. I found a lot of POV-pushing on the part of those regulars. One very senior established contributor to the wikinews said that because news went stale quickly he was not prepared to make any effort to be tactful -- he didn't have time. Over half of my attempts got stalled by rude and unhelpful insiders, and either never made it to the "published" state. Or made it after days of struggle, ie -- after they were no longer current.

If, after my warning, you choose to try to contribute there, be advised that they do not use a {{cite}} template, they use a {{source}} template. One of the rude and unhelpful insiders' justifications for stalling the drafts of newcomers is that {{sources}}s aren't in the right format. They aren't used inline, the go at the end, and in (reverse(?)) date order.

If, after my warning, you choose to try to to contribute there, good luck. I hope your experience is better than mine. I'll never try to contribute there again. Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Slow down

Hello. Epeefleche, while I appreciate your interest in this topic, this article is rapidly progressing into pop news. I am quitting for the night. I expect restraint and exact sourcing of all statements. More speculation will not help anybody. Maybe something for your blog. -SusanLesch (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't added any unsourced material. All I've done is add two sourced sentences, and rework material already in the article (that I haven't checked) so that it is in a sensible order. And oh yes -- I added a picture, and when you changed it so that the subject was not facing to the middle -- against the MOS -- I reverted it to the proper way that I had it originally (explaining why -- you had not explanation for your incorrect change of the picture from facing center to facing off the page). Is that what put you in an uncivil mood?--Epeefleche (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes. This would really help. Telegraph says "A federal “situational awareness” bulletin stated". I have thusfar looked for this bulletin in the four places most obvious to me--national counterterrorism and the CIA, NSA and FBI--and come up empty handed. Where is it? -SusanLesch (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your question, which raises the word "uncivil". I started to worry when you added "Suicide bombings in the United States" as a category. Because, thanks to a passenger and two flight attendants, everyone on this flight is alive. -SusanLesch (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to create the subcat failed suicide bombings. But as long as we include failed suicide bombings (as we have for many years -- see, e.g., 2001 shoe bomb plot which is already referenced in this article) in the cat suicide bombings, it is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me if I bow out. Perhaps you, a member of WikiProject Terrorism, would like to do the honors. Also, thanks to The New York Times whose writers say flat out that the suspect is not believed to have contacted Al Alwaki. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Name and University College London link

Various sites are claiming the name, which was "on a federal database", is the name of an engineering student at UCL.

There is nobody at UCL with the name Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, but there was one, who graduated from mechanical engineering two years ago called Umar Abdulmutallab. The only current Abdulmutallab is a paediatric clinician. The only 23-year old engineer with a remotely similar name is definitely not Nigerian. Be very careful with names, as few news sources agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.160.59 (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It is confirmed by the NYT that he was a former student through 2008, I added the info. I've seen at least 5 spellings already, though. Thanks for the notice!  fetchcomms☛ 18:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Type of plane?

I was hoping to find out the type of plane in this article, but the article doesn't say anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.111.20 (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's in the first sentece un the heading Incident: "The aircraft involved was a Northwest Airlines Airbus A330-300 twin engine jet". - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that wasn't there when I make the suggestion.67.183.111.20 (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been there since the article was created. You just missed it. personally, it probably should be mentioned in the Lead paragraph first. - BilCat (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, well when you're right, you're right. Mea culpa. Sorry for the interruption.161.181.153.10 (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Image

It appears that the image has been nominated for deletion. I'm not exactly sure why this can't pass under fair use still (does time really matter?) but if anyone has a free picture, this article needs it.  fetchcomms☛ 20:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not showing up at WP:FFD. Mjroots (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A new user nominated it and accidentally used an AfD template, but it's already been replaced anyhow.  fetchcomms☛ 22:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No fly list

"the suspect may have also been on a federal no-fly list.[17][23]"

References 17 and 23 actually say that the suspect was not on the no-fly list. DaveCrane (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think all the recent sources are saying that.  fetchcomms☛ 22:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Official identity?

This is reporting that he was charged as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. If there aren't any contradicting sources after this, it should be changed.  fetchcomms☛ 23:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I would use the name used in the criminal complaint. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Acting alone?

This article is contradicting itself. States in reaction and investigation that the suspect was acting alone, which also manages to contradict its reference, and in the suspect section it says that he claimed to have contacted al-qaeda. fix this?C628 (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

unable to tell but it is more likely that the suspect is admitted to UofM hospital burn unit with the degree of burns he had 2nd and 3rd degree. The hero might have been treated there, but more likely as an outpatient... However, it would be a HIPPA violation for the hospital to release this information. It's all guess work. I heard a press release that 1 person was admitted - but we shouldn't care which person it is - the suspect or the hero. Doctors thankfully treat everyone the same : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.150.75 (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Um...what? Never mind. I'll make the changes I see as appropriate, and if anyone complains, I did warn you. C628 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he claimed to be working for al-Qaeda but not in a coordinated effort with others, but this was never confirmed either, so it's best just to leave it out until a determination has been made by the government.  fetchcomms☛ 01:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources

• "Xmas bomb bid complicates Gitmo plan", by Josh Gerstein, Politico.
• "Wealthy, quiet, unassuming: the Christmas Day bomb suspect", by Andrew Johnson and Emily Dugan, The Independent.

APK whisper in my ear 00:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems good if they confirm that he was in Yemen.  fetchcomms☛ 01:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Airliner

What's the tail number and serial number of the jetliner? Can someone add it to the article as well? 70.29.208.10 (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It'll be added if someone can find a source for it.  fetchcomms☛ 02:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Variant of English used

Seeing the word "travelers" in the headings, maybe it would be worthwhile posting the relevant variety of English template on this talk page so that all editors are clear as to whether the article is in British English or American English and prevent future confusion over same. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• oF cOURSE, this should wrote as American English article because of incident is affected US airline carrier. My English have very many problems and quite poor, so I don't really knowing much difference except some spelling is use 'our' instead of 'or' (maybe you can think of example labour instead of labor). I guess British is changed English after English is came over to America, haha! --B767-500 (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jasper Schuringa

An interview can be found at CNN Is it a good or bad thing to use this as a reference in the article? Patio (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A separate section on this guy seems overkill. Just mention who he is and what he did in the incident section. It's especially inappropriate as a section under "Suspect". Grsz¹¹ 01:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be bold and move it.  fetchcomms☛ 03:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Aborted" attempt

This wasn't an "aborted" attempt. It was a failed attempt. In my opinion, the distinction really is very important. I think the wording should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The explosive *did* go off and the suspect was subdued. Revelian (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Like news

Peter King initially said... but it was later revealed... This reads like a news story. We should write about what we know now, not about how the story developed. Sole Soul (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not everybody in the terror watch list is added to the no-fly list?

From my reading this is what I understood: Because these watch lists are name-based, people with similar names may have misidentification issues. The no-fly list is only 4,000 names, yet in the past two years, 51,000 people have filed "redress" requests claiming they were wrongly included on the watch list.[1]. The terrorists database, in cotrast, has 550,000 names!. Sole Soul (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I note that this article uses {{infobox terrorist attack}}. Most aircraft accident/incident articles use {{infobox Aircraft occurrence}}. Should the infobox be changed to the latter, or maybe use both? Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's declared an official terrorist act, it'd probably be better to leave it as is, but aircraft occurrence would be fine either way I guess.  fetchcomms☛ 17:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the infobox - just click edit and copy the code Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Northwest Airlines Flight 253

A Northwest Airbus A330 with Delta Air Lines livery, similar to the one involved in the incident aboard flight 253
Date	December 25, 2009
Summary	Attempted bombing
Site	Romulus, Michigan, United States 42.208°N 83.356°W / 42.208; -83.356
Aircraft
Aircraft type	Airbus A330-323X
Operator	Northwest Airlines
Registration	N820NWdisaster
Flight origin	Amsterdam Airport Schiphol
Destination	Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport
Passengers	278
Crew	11
Fatalities	0
Injuries	3
Survivors	289 (all)

I've added the infobox to the article. Much better with both. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

al-Awlaki

"Mr. Abdulmutallab told F.B.I. agents he was connected to the Qaeda affiliate, which operates largely in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, by a radical Yemeni cleric whom he contacted online. The cleric is not believed to be Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born imam who has spoken in favor of anti-American violence and who corresponded with Maj. Nidal Hasan...."

from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27terror.html

Let's just leave it as undetermined.  fetchcomms☛ 04:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That statement is not a statement that the deleted statement was untrue. It is possible that both are true. Beyond being synthesis, which is not allowed, saying that the above statements says that the Congressman's statements were untrue is fabrication. And even if they said that, we would have the word of the Congressman against the NY Times--not reason to delete the Congressman's statements. Let's pls have a stop to POV editing, and report the facts as they appear in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying that it isn't decisive wither way.  fetchcomms☛ 04:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

For an article dated today or yesterday, the newspaper can update it continually (and sometimes change it past publication in print). So I won't be disappointed to find that reworded a number of times. I don't think they will change the sense of it there--they would write a new article. I personally think the less speculation in this article, the better it is. If that is POV, so sorry. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki, who may or may not have been contacted by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

This is the image and caption currently on the page. Several editors have removed it, and Epeefleche has edit-warred for its inclusion. Any reasonable person would read that caption and scratch their head. It adds nothing to the article, and only fuels speculation that we are not about. Grsz¹¹ 05:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• A senior US Congressman, who is on the House Intelligence Committee, has indicated the concern's he has heard from the Administration and law enforcement authorities that the person in question may have motivated the attacker here, and that the connection is even greater than that in the Fort Hood shooting (where it was pretty great). Any reasonable person would say your effort to delete the picture here is POV-based. In its present form it has language from Fetch that should satisfy any concern a non-POV editor might have. I ask that you revert to include the pic as we continue this discussion, and if you refuse to be satisified by Fetch's comments and mine, that we seek impartial input elsewhere (and that you leave the pic in as we do so). This isn't the first time concerns have been raised as to your editing with POV; please don't make this into an even greater issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. I raised no comment about the information in the section, just this picture, which many have deleted, and you have continuously restored desipte objections. Grsz¹¹ 05:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if stating that there have been assertions that your edits have been colored by POV is a personal attack. As to the substance, no cogent reason has been raised -- by you or anyone else -- as to why the pic should be deleted. Fetch was one of the deleters. He has himself restored the pic, with a title fashioned to satisfy even the most POV-leaning of non-POV editors. I'm fine with it. I agree with him. Pls restore it, for you to join those who have reverted it is POV edit warring (and as I pointed out the crowd you join has deleted statements by the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, and lied as to what the NYT article says--deletion of the pic is just one third of their three-fold POV editing here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly was this "lie"? (And labeling it as such is an bad faith attack). How did the text here contradict with the article said? Here it said it wasn't believed to be him, NYT said it wasn't believed to be him either. Grsz¹¹ 05:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And in case it wasn't clear, I'm not expressing any issue with the text as it appears now. Grsz¹¹ 05:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm surprised that you wouldn't know that when someone lies, it is not a violation of assumption of bad faith to call a spade a spade. For you to argue otherwise is surprising for an admin aspirant. Second, the lie was as to what the NYT article said. You can see it in the edit history of your fellow editors who also sought to delete the picture (and the Congressman's words, as reported by Business Week, Reuters, etc.). You've still failed to indicate why the picture, as revised by an editor who deleted it and included by him, is not permissible. Please put the picture back, as I've requested before here, on my talk page, and on your talk page. For you to fail to do so suggests that you are simply aligning yourself with the POV editors. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the image serves no purpose. This article isn't about al-Awlaki. The association is pure speculation and including the image only adds to that, which is a poor quality if we're trying to make an encylopedia here. Seek input elsewhere if you are that hung up on it, but do not attack myself or others because of what you perceive to be a POV. As for "lies", the NYT article says "The cleric is not believed to be Anwar al-Awlaki" while the text here had said "Abdulmutallab is not believed to have contacted al-Awlaki". The say the exact same thing, just in different words. If there is anybody twisting the source here, I think it's evident in this edit summary. The article "did not say al awlaki was not connected"? And by some illogical process, that means that he is? There was nothing wrong with the original text, and it certainly was no "lie". Grsz¹¹ 06:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hoekstra who may or may not be a candidate for Governor of Michigan

• This article is about the bombing, and the senior member of the House Committee with information as to the suspect says it is most likely that al-Awlaki and the suspect have ties to each other, and reports on what he has heard from the White House officials and law enforcement officials in that regard. That's not "pure speculation". That's factual reporting from RSs. The image is completely appropriate. Nobody ever said that al-Awlaki was the introducing cleric, or the only cleric that the suspect had contact with -- The NYT article only said that the introducing cleric, who introduced the suspect to Al Qaeda in Yemen, was not believed not to be al-Awlaki. It says nothing about the ties to al-Awlaki, who, as you well know ... is a Regional Commander of Al Qaeda in Yemen. You've been POV editing as discussed at your RfA, and the reverting editor who changed the photo description has indicated he is fine with it. --67.177.166.246 (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The al-Awlaki is now a major part of this story, for all reasons already mentioned, but in addition the article now (with revisions since your last comment) has 12 supporting refs on the connection. It also has Sky News reporting that according to its sources the suspect had links with al-Awlaki. And University of Oxford historian Mark Almond wrote on December 27 that the suspect was on American security watch lists "because of his links with al-Awlaki". Also, Fetch as mentioned has changed sides, and agreed to the photo as revised. And the photo I will restore is one that has been altered by him (in its caption) since the earlier revisions, so it will not be a 3rr for me to restore the pic and text that he put up (which I believe I've only restored 2 or at most 3 times ever in that format). Since this is a fast moving subject of current events, and you haven't posted, I'll revert now on the assumption that you are either sleeping or agree given all the changes indicated. I would hope in any event that you will agree, and not revert.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

whatever the rights and wrongs of whether (or not) the picture of al-awlaki should be included, the associated text stating that he "may or may not have been contacted" is risible. anybody in the world "may or may not have been contacted". in fact i myself "may or may not have been contacted". just "may have been contacted" would surely suffice. any rational reader could fill in the "or may not have been" for themselves HieronymousCrowley (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole section needs weeding. I will try again later today. Maybe we should put in a new photo. :-) -SusanLesch (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, you wrote: "Since this is a fast moving subject of current events, and you haven't posted, I'll revert now on the assumption that you are either sleeping or agree given all the changes indicated." Nobody can work on Wikipedia without sleeping, and to say "either you are sleeping or else you agree" is not fair. I will try to write in a new section later on. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

All very quaint, but this Anwar chap in question is a living person who has a right to privacy as much as everyone else, bear and dark skin or not. --Silvia Mer. (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is privacy an issue? That's like saying we shouldn't take pictures of Obama for his privacy.  fetchcomms☛ 23:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/Fetch. I'm fine with the change that Hier suggests. As to Silvia's comment, if RS's report what they have, Wikipedia rightfully reflects what they say. There is no privacy concern in wikipedia rules that suggests otherwise.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I will make the change that Hier suggests to the caption. No cogent reason has been offered why this is innappropriate, and it meets Fetch's prior concerns and Hier's concerns.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Intended destination for flight?

It landed at a Detroit airport, but was it its intended destination airport? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it made it to its destination, the big Detroit hub. Seems like it was sent to a second airport there. What a help. Wikipedia's article about Detroit says Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport is the big hub. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

NW Flight 253 is routed AMS-DTW, the flight landing safely in Detroit. So, the flight reached its destination. DTW is the second-largest hub for Delta so DL/NW only flies to DTW. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You infomations is incorrect:

• ATL is DL/NW super-duper hub - Rank 1
• JFK is DL/NW super-big hub - Rank 2
• MSP is DL/NW average hub - Rank 3
• DTW is DL/NW average hub - Rank 4

Thanks.--B767-500 (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Detroit is/was most definitely Northwest's biggest hub. Certainly after the merge it's not Delta's biggest hub (Atlanta obviously holds the top spot), but I don't see how it could conceivably be after Minneapolis/St-Paul. -- tariqabjotu 03:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, DTW's official website http://www.metroairport.com/ mentions that DTW is the seond-largest hub for DL and the primary Asian gateway. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Article name

Can we change the name to Northwest Airlines Flight 253 bombing attempt. This article is not about the flight. --217.39.15.185 (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's standard practice to refer to the flight regardless of the incident (take a look at a few other hijackings/bombings etc.) raseaC^{talk to me} 12:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

For example the plane was crash-landed in the Hudson is at US Airways Flight 1549, not US Airways Flight 1549 splashdown. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 14:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I fix one of those problem, haha! I create redirect US Airways Flight 1549 splashdown! --B767-500 (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Title not in bold

Why is this titled Northwest Airlines Flight 253 but Christmas Day bombing attempt is in bold? Terrierhere (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see it was just changed. I bolded the article title, as I see Christmas Day bombing attempt is a redirect to here and those are usually bolded as well. Terrierhere (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Amsterdam airport

Does anyone know if US officials are investigating security procedures at the Amsterdam airport? This would be useful information. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are still trying to figure out how the bomber got thru security check with the explosive/firecrackers. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I, as a Dutchman, don't know anything about an investigation by US officials, but in the Netherlands, but the NCTb - the Dutch counterterrorism unit - and the Royal Marechaussee (Koninlijke Marechaussee) will both investigate the security of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. For this fact, I also couldn't find an English source, but here's a Dutch one: Onderzoek naar veiligheid Schiphol in De Pers. The marechaussee has also started a search for the possible accomplice of Abdulfarouk (Dutch article in De Telegraaf). Maybe these facts and sources can be useful. Afhaalchinees (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Speculation

Hello. The Wall Street Journal said one hour ago, "The link between Mr. Abdulmuttalab and Yemeni extremists is still tenuous." and "It is still unclear if his claimed links with Al Qaeda-affiliated extremists in the country are genuine." and "But the possible link further stoked concerns about terrorism in Yemen." When I woke up this morning, this article had been tranformed into speculation. I am thinking about sending this article to request for comments because I am unable to stay up 24 hours a day for a week. Comments? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is one of the most visible articles now, so no need to request the attention of more eyes. "because I am unable to stay up 24 hours a day for a week." you may have a legitimate concern but this sounds like WP:OWN. Sole Soul (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know I do not WP:OWN. Good thinking, I will skip request for comments for the moment. But it is alarming. Thank you for your reply. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There's been some concern about POV-pushing here, and I think that SusanLesch is just trying to say that there is indeed some speculation in the article, which I agree about. However, I don't think that it's serious enough to bother provoking another argument as before, because it ends up being a matter of source interpretation. Now, if it gets to the point of blatant misinformation, I'd remove that immediately.  fetchcomms☛ 18:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I likewise am concerned by edits such as this one right now, in which pertinent information to the effect that the suspect told his parents he intended to remain in Yemen was deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, that paragraph says "Yemen" three times, with the word ending three of four sentences. I tried to reduce that repetition. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If by doing so you delete pertinent information from the article, as you did here, it is inappropriate. We say "suspect" and the suspect's name many times in the article, but you wouldn't go through the article deleting whole clauses that mention him--and are not in themselves repetitious--on that basis.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Tried again. I don't like your terminology saying that "is inappropriate". -SusanLesch (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

University

Hi. Every source said that Abdulmutallab attended University College London until last night when the Washington Post said here that his degree is from City University London. Maybe they will correct that. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Abdulmutallab, came to America on rice? --Huik01 (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Huik01 spammed my talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Plane was actually over Ontario, Canada

According to The Toronto Star, the plane was descending over Southern Ontario, Canada (Lambton County south of Sarnia, Ontario) when the emergency was declared. It had not yet entered U.S. airspace. If it had come down, it would have been over Canada, not Michigan.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/743003--airliner-drama-played-out-over-ontario

AppleBman (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes: The coordinates listed are for the Wayne County Detroit Metropolitan airport. The incident occurred in-flight approximately 20 minutes prior to landing. Using the published flightplan as a guide.. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/NWA253/history/20091225/0754Z/EHAM/KDTW and using a descent flght speed of roughly 300 mph, then the incident occurred alomost 100 miles prior to landing, which puts it over Middlesex County, Ontario, Canada, in the area of N43degrees, 1 minute, W 81 degrees, 46 minutes or so. I have tried to find a confirmed source but the Canadian press has not picked up on this fact yet. If the explosion was successful in taking down the plane, it would have occurred in Canada, not the United States of America. 24.57.92.217 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't planes often circle the airport before landing? The above assumes a straight line descent in the last 20 minutes.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

See the above section, but I don't know if we can get an exact place.  fetchcomms☛ 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All of this is speculative, so I suggest sticking with the airport for now. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Or remove the coordinate altogether. Sole Soul (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Stale

 – TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Motives missing

The "Possible motives" section does not state motives. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Second incident

Another incident has occurred with the same flight number. Separate article or mention in this article? MMetro (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate article if it's a significant event, small mention in this one if otherwise. If it is a significant event, this article will need to be renamed, and all the flight number redirects will need to direct to a dab page. 76.66.202.108 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article about the second incident: CNN: 'Disruptive' passenger prompts 2nd alert on Detroit-bound jet. I think we should wait for more details about this incident before we decide if it's worth a separate article. If the story is exaggarated, it's not worth (much) attention. It could also be that there's a link with this attack. In that case, I think both subjects should be mentioned in the same article. Afhaalchinees (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's only a minor incident, so I think just keep it here.  fetchcomms☛ 21:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: As of this writing it was not a notable incident. A passenger got sick, something that happens all the time. There are always false alarms in the wake of incidents that seems big at the time but are quickly forgotten. These things should not linger forever in Wikipedia Edkollin (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree. Although it was an entirely unfortunate coincidence, it was a consequence of the original incident, and provides documentation as to whether newly implemented measures were overreaction or underpreparedness. MMetro (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Background

I think the newly introduced, first-up background info should be pushed down later in the article, as we had it in the past. It is tertiary to the main story. The readers dont want to read that stuff first -- they want to read about the incident/suspect/motives before that. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I tore up that section into bits - all the content was overlapping other sections, and it gave the erroneous impression that the University of Wollongong was a fictitious school. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Extent of injuries

I don't know whether roast nuts were on the in-flight menu, but according to one source [2] "ABC said the device consisted of a six-inch packet of powder and a syringe containing a liquid, which were sewn into the suspect's underwear so they would be near his testicles and unlikely to be detected." Enquiring minds need to know: would the part of his "leg" that was burned be including these tender morsels?

Oh, and also - was the difficulty of detection because the position of testicles is unpredictable, or because the TSA hardware is somehow rigged to censor naughty bits? Wnt (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's because most security officials wouldn't feel very comfortable searching in that area, and that it's not a place that would be scanned easily.  fetchcomms☛ 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Problems with those kinds of searches is airport have to dealt with sexual harassment types lawsuits, and if they use body scanner devices, then airport got blamed for reproductive organ damage (with x-ray) and have to dealt with those lawsuits. So many issues to dealt with it! --B767-500 (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouter Bos?

There's something wrong with the statement about the films. Neither of the sources used have anything to do with the subject either. I'm think it's vandalism, but I'd like to confirm it.

Dutch Deputy Prime Minister Wouter Bos phoned Schuringa, a resident of Amsterdam born in 1971 who is a film director of low-budget Dutch films for an Amsterdam media company, and is credited as the assistant director for National Lampoon's Teed Off Two,[3] [4] on behalf of the Dutch government, conveying compliments and gratitude for his part in overpowering the suspect.[5][6]

--FlyingPenguins (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bomb in the 'jocks'

Channel 9 TV news in Sydney (Australia) just stated that the "device" was sewn into the suspects underpants. Only info I have, no other reference at this time. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

BBC news source Oscroft (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The BBC even had a picture. I expect that Wikipedia can get a copy from the US government. Maybe the FBI has the photo. IMHO, that photo belongs at the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.152.209 (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Underwear

boxers or briefs?

76.66.197.17 (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Undisclosed.  fetchcomms☛ 18:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the BBC had a photo on their fron page. It was briefs I guess, but almost a jock strap. Maybe you could call it a thong. They were white, dirty, and cut at the sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.152.209 (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work

Epeefleche and others who worked very hard on this article today, you did a great job. Sorry I was so negative, from the start I didn't want to believe that Al Qaeda was involved but they are. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tx for your kind words.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I second that, kudos for their great effort. Note: we should not judge things in hindsight, if we speculate without evidence then our speculation proved accurate that doesn't make us right. I'm talking generally, this is not necessary the case here. Sole Soul (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tx. And I agree with all you said; and that wasn't the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Geert Wilders

The Dutch politician Geert Wilders, known for his anti-Islamic views, called Schuringa "a national hero" for his actions during the attack, and said that "he deserves a royal honor". Wilders said he would ask the Dutch government to award such an honor.

I dispute the neutrality of this sentence, in particular the reference to Wilders "anti-Islamic" views. In order to achieve neutrality, I think either of the following changes should be made:

• The part I put in bold is removed. The article doesn't mention Islam anywhere in its description of the incident itself; then why is a mention to Wilders' allegedly "anti-Islamic" views relevant? Why say precisely that (which is not even true — AFAIK he is an anti-Islamist, which is quite different) about him and not that he's a supporter of (say) Ajax FC or that he holds a KLM frequent flyer special card?

• Context is given to the mention of Wilders' views on Islamism by specifying where in the description of the incident is this view relevant. That would mean finding a "reliable source" — a media outlet brave enough to report on the perpetrator's comments and actions which might have indicated he's a Muslim — which, coupled with his attempted terrorist attack, makes him an Islamist. An example of such report: this from CBS states the criminal "said he was acting on al Qaeda's instructions".

Or else you could just leave it the way it is and imply Wilders just "guessed" the attacker had any ties to Islamism, or that he time-traveled to read the stories, published after his quoted comment, regarding the terrorist's history of supporting Islamism. Oh, but that wouldn't be neutral... Amorim Parga (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This has now been correctedNaffannaf (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Read Geert Wilders#Views on Islam, e.g. his comment "I don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam."[7] Fervent disbelief in a religion is not a crime but a human right, and we do a disservice to the encyclopedia by "sanitizing" such beliefs out of it. Wnt (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The originally sentence was "The Dutch politician Geert Wilders, known for his anti-islamic stand and his ignored warnings for islamic terrorism and fundamentalism long before 9/11, called his compatriot Jasper Schuringa "a national hero" for his actions during the flight and that "he deserves a royal honor".". It is a fact that Wilders long before 9/11 was indeed warning for islamic fundamentalism and terrorism: already when he was a PM for the liberal party VVD. Then, this was merely seen as another politician with a peculiar hobby or private obsession. Imho he himself would certainly not object against the attribution of an "anti-islamic stand". --JanDeFietser (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft involved

Earlier today, I added details of the aircraft involved in the incident. Epeefleche later boldly removed it. I've reverted that removal. So, we now discuss the issue here, per WP:BRD.

I believe that the info is relevant. Many aircraft accident articles have sections on the actual aircraft involved, including construction details and service history. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be fine where there is an issue with an airplane malfunction. That's not the case here. What's of interest is the "construction and history" of what nearly led to the disaster -- but here that is the mind and history of the terrorist, not the airplane. That information hasn't attracted any significant media attention, and it makes no sense to include it in the article, let alone at the top of it, ahead of any discussion of the incident -- Do you really think that readers come to that page to read the aircraft's registration is N820NW, msn 859, and that it made its first flight under French test registration F-WWYF? I will await a response, and unless there is a cogent one it should be deleted post-haste.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, as we are in a dispute, you should not remove the info while it is under discussion. I've no objection to it being moved further down the article if you consider it is too prominent where it is. As to whether or not it is kept, let's allow other editors their chance to have their say. If consensus is that it goes, I'll accept the decision. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It makes no sense for the reasons given. You're response after I differentiated the other articles (which was your only material point above) is that "we are in a dispute". That's not a cogent, reasoned response--I expect much more from you as a seasoned editor. I suggest that the material be moved here as it is discussed, and deleted from the article, given this. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a reasonable person, move it here then, and allow others to comment. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've set it forth below. I invite others to comment (my thoughts are set forth above). I also had trouble even pulling up the refs, and note that they seem to be from something other than a typical RS--an industry-specific site, which further leads me to question the general-interest nature of this information.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made that a subsection of this discussion. I believe that the info is relevant, but accept that by putting it at the top of the article it could be too prominent. I'm open to suggestions of a better place for the section. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Might you also be able to respond to my comments a) differentiating it from instances of accidents (where that info might be relevant), the basis for thinking that this source is an RS (it doesn't even appear to have a WP article, and I couldn't access it), and why you think this info is of general interest (e.g., do you see wide-spread coverage of this info in the tens of thousands of news articles on this incident?)? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly want to know at least a bit about an aircraft involved in an accident or incident. I'm happy that the source is reliable enough to use. Given the msn and registration, it shouldn't be too hard to find alternatives though. There are many RS's that don't have articles on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We already know a lot about the aircraft. The article already says it is a Northwest Airlines Airbus A330-300 twinjet, with 279 passengers, 8 flight attendants, and 3 pilots aboard, painted in Delta Air Lines' livery, as Northwest is a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta. Why in the world is it relevant that its registration is N820NW, msn 859, and that it made its first flight under French test registration F-WWYF? I don't think it is. I expect that readers would be more interested in whether the bomber is wearing Hanes or Calvin Klein; or as an editor mentioned above, boxers or briefs. You still haven't answered why you think that specific info is possibly worth mentioning in the article. Also, as to the RS point, what info do you have on the source's fact-checking history and reputation? And again -- do you see wide spread coverage of this info in the tens of thousands of news articles on this incident? I don't.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

At risk of getting bitten, I'd like to make note of the fact that you have dozens of other articles on Wikipedia on aircraft incidents that would seem to provide good precedent. In nearly all the five articles on major commercial aircraft incidents this year, (Colgan Air 3407 being the exception) there have been sections within the article, generally the first section after the table of contents, in which aircraft information such as history of the airframe, registration and other miscellaneous information such as what you are referring to here. This seems like it sets a perfectly good precedent as to the format that should be followed here. C628 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The obvious answer--if that's the only reason for reflecting the French test registration number that zero of the 60-70,000 articles on the incident have mentioned, is wp:otherstuffexists. (we don't even have to get into the fact that the shoe bomber case doesn't follow that approach, and it would seem to make much less sense in terrorist incidents than in airplane accidents). It is beyond trivial. Just because you can find a factoid (though it hasn't even been shown that RS's have anything more than trivial mentions of these factoids), doesn't mean it should be reflected here. That's sort of basic, at risk of being bitey. What's next? How many miles it flew that day, or has ever flown, or how much gas it used, and how much was left in its tanks, or the zodiac sign of the suspect, and his horoscope for the day? Nothing mentioned above, with all due respect, suggests why this is other than completely trivial.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides here, and I have no personal stake in this debate, so please don't get on my back as well. I am attempting to provide you both with information that neither of you have mentioned, and that I believe could help this debate to a constructive conclusion. C628 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the tendency for plane spotting info to appear in all these incident articles, I suppose that at a stretch in the case of this particular article, it might be conceivable that people might use this info to determine the fire resistance / fire suppression of this particualr aircraft, although I would be amazed if just the build date would not be sufficient for that. MickMacNee (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Unless the change is very old, the 'B' in BRD stands for the insertion I always thought. Doesn;t make sense otherwise, no point discussion it if the 'R' leaves the status quo as after the bold change. MickMacNee (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The information is verifiable and reliably sourced. There does seem to be a general style guideline operating in aircraft incident articles and including information on the aircraft involved seems logical and relevant. Before reading it below, based only on Epeefleche's protestations, I thought it was a couple of paragraphs long, but its only two sentences. I can't see the harm in including it and its beneficial to those readers interested in more detailed information on the aircraft. Tiamut^talk 23:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd when an editor such as Tiamut has a disagreement with me in one place, and then turns up--of all the pages on Wikipedia--at another page I just edited to differ with me there.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are free to find it odd, but I'd appreciate it if you would keep those opinions to yourself, or else bring them to my talk page. This is not the place and my comment remains valid. It is not disqualified by your failure to assume good faith. Tiamut^talk 11:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

@Mick. Nobody else has suggested any reason other than those addressed by wp:othercrapexists, and the fire resistance issue (which I note even you, who raise it, would be amazed if it wasn't satisfied already) doesn't seem to be something that requires reflection of the French test registration #. No doubt people interested in this info for obscure reasons can find it on the sites that seek to satisfy them. No reason to encumber this article, which gets hits from thousands of people a day, with such minutae.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft

The aircraft involved was an Airbus A330-323E, registration N820NW, msn 859. It made its first flight on 1 August 2007 under French test registration F-WWYF. The aircraft had entered service with Northwest Airlines on 14 September 2007.

This article is crappy

There is scant mention on Jasper Sinringa, the hero.

Put more info in, please.Secpol (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's being quite rude. You can't even spell his name right, either. Perhaps you should start a new article about him yourself rather than complain about other peoples' work. Anyhow, I'm sure you could easily find information about him yourself.  fetchcomms☛ 03:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To put it more succinctly, what's stopping you from improving it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, actually. There is a whoel section about him, and that's too much. Grsz¹¹ 05:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As ever with teh wiki, the version you are commenting on is not the same as he was commenting on. And infact, I think he actually created the section, on the advice of BB. MickMacNee (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

People can make do with a Google translation of the Dutch article if they really want to know. It makes for odd reading though. MickMacNee (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

need more sub-articles

I'm not talking about Jasper specifically. I am talking about this article in general. Eventually, this article will need some smaller articles. For example, the trial of the suspect or the preparation for the attack or (maybe??) Jasper, particularly if he starts a high profile film directing career based on his current fame. It's a tricky situation because some editors will try to cut out information but such information is the seed to good sub-aritcles

WP:CFORK?  fetchcomms☛ 21:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Similar attack attempt?

BBC is reporting that a Somali man was arrest on November 13 trying to board an aircraft in Mogadishu with powder, liquid and a syringe.[8] Probably needs to be mentioned in this article. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jasper Schuringa

Just a note to say that the Dutch wikipedia article on nl:Jasper Schuringa has been nominated for deletion from that Wiki. If it gets deleted we'll need to remove the interwikilink from the article. Their system seems to be that a support vote is in support of the deletion (opposite to ours). Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It does happen that pages in the Dutch Wikipedia are nominated for deletion for very strange and also wrong reasons (they're Dutch you know...) and indeed there is a "voting system" that turns out especially more appealing to demagoguery than to proper reasoning. At this moment the Dutch weekly magazine HP/De Tijd actually exhorts its readers to promote keeping the page on Schuringa in the Dutch Wikipedia "Wikipedia negeerde held Jasper, maar buigt voor lezersactie HP/De Tijd". --JanDeFietser (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Schuringa responded to wilders

Apparently in the Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad Schuringa has responded to Wilders' request to give Schuringa an award with something like 'I don't want an award from someone who sows hatred'. "Geert Wilders mag zijn lintje houden. Ik hoef geen onderscheiding van iemand die haat aanwakkert". [9][10] 85.147.37.120 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Goed gedaan, Jasper! Mjroots (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

@Mjroots: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

@85.147.37.120: I do not see such quote in the newspaper Algemeen Dagblad. "De zoekopdracht wilders haat schuringa leverde geen resultaten op" = no results for the query Wilders + hate + Schuringa. The alleged cold shoulder is only to be found on stand.nl (no newspaper) and twitter (no newspaper) --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday (December 31st, 2009) this Dutch daily newspaper the AD/Algemeen Dagblad did indeed feature an interview with Jasper Schuringa "'Ik zag de angst in Umars ogen toen ik hem wegtrok'" (= "I saw the fears in Umars eyes when I pulled him away"). However, in the part of this interview that is also published on the website edition of the newspaper, Geert Wilders is not mentioned at all. I could not check yet if the "paper edition" of this newspaper contains the above mentioned quote.

By the way, best wishes for 2010 to all. --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright if nobody can verify it we can't use it. 85.147.37.120 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance on airport and airline security...

...but amidst all the mea culpas in the U.S. government about the security failures, I'm missing an explanation as to why (or when) U.S. security procedures for screening boarding passengers would have been relevant to a flight originating outside the U.S., in Amsterdam. Some context would be helpful. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe it has to do with overcaution. I'm not quite sure, either.  fetchcomms☛ 03:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's because the US has considerable influence on security measures for flights entering the United States. Homeland Security at work again. C628 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's because passenger lists for flights to the US have to be submitted to and pre-authorised by US authorities, and in this case the would-be bomber was allowed to fly. Oscroft (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

kurt haskell story

seems to me that this should be addressed. haskell, an eyewitness who was on board, is making some pretty startling claims. about a second "well dressed" Indian man being present, and abdulmutullab boarding without a passport- http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_kurt_hask.html

is he credible? what do we know about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.28.174 (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also mentioned at the end of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlYNTGQAz5Q --69.118.234.218 (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, seems like paranoid rantings more than legitimate fact. Grsz¹¹ 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been included in the article a long time ago, too. Only a possible lead, nothing confirmed.  fetchcomms☛ 04:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

re "paranoid rantings": This text from Kurt Haskell and this text from Lori Haskell (both of which are NOT WP:reliable sources) may help to better understand the background against which WP:reliable sources are covering the issue.  Cs32en  07:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Lede image caption

I honestly cannot believe I have to take this to talk to discuss it, but its being edit warred over now [11]. It is NOT trivial, or even relatively trivial, that the title of this article and the livery of the plane don't match, and it serves no purpose expecting readers to have to either go to other articles, or to go hunting in the main body text, for an explanation, when there is an image caption right there where you are looking when you realise things don't add up. The fact it has to say 'similar' only compounds the problem. You can debate what words are superflous to add 'power', but not mentioning the merger at all in the caption is not being succinct or powerfull, it is simply a total failure to explain the image properly, which is what captions are for. This aspect of confusion has already come up once on this talk page, it should not be this hard to provide information to readers that are coming to this article for the first time. This article is not for editors, who by now know every detail of it. MickMacNee (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's OK information for the body, but more than is appropriate in the caption per Wikipedia:Captions. IMHO. Even since you've written this, we've been tag-bombed w/too-much-intricate-detail tags (relating to the text ... which tags I believe should be deleted, btw). So my vote is to leave the caption as-is, rather than make it three times as long just to explain the plane's paint-job ... which is not highly material to the story. I feel this is especially the case as it is the lead image/caption.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The potential for confusion is obvious, and it is hardly immaterial. It is an utter joke to force people into the main article/other articles, to explain the patent nonsense that is the lede image/title, easily dealt with in a caption next to the image. If nobody agress with you, I'll definitely be re-adding it. The tag is a joke, I removed it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as nobody has agreed with you, I would suggest you leave it out and not edit war by reverting. Your suggested tripling of the size of the caption to explain the paint job on the plane IMHO is exactly what the indicated guidance is suggested to avoid--it is trivial in relation to the focus of the article.--Epeefleche (talk)

P.S. Images with the wrong 'paint job' are often purposely used in infoboxes when an exact replica cannot be sourced, just to give a general idea as the next best thing. Given that fact, it is not unreasonable to think people might come to this article, see the title, see the image, and just assume that's what has happened here. Infact, due to the wording of the current caption - "An Airbus A330 similar to the one involved...", this misconception is only reinforced. MickMacNee (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So what? This article is about the near-killing of 289 people on a plane. The picture is helpful, as it gives a sense of "big plane". The paint job, and tripling the caption to discuss it? Not so much -- IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the whole point, the image is not for giving the sense of a big plane, it is an image of the actual plane in every way bar the serial number, something that everybody who has seen the news will identify with, and something which adds to the understanding of the article if they didn't (as long as the obvious mis-match between title and image is explained to them first). If your only answer is 'so what' to potential confusion, and nobody else has seen fit to comment, then on the fact that more harm is caused with it out than with it in, I'm re-adding it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has voiced support for your view. I disagree with it. You certainly haven't evidenced you have consensus for tripling the caption of the lead image just to discuss its paint. Its paint job is trivial given the focus of the article. I would ask you not to edit war by -- without consensus support despite having posed the issue here 2 days ago -- adding the trivial paint job info to the caption and tripling its size, as had been the case before.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Too late. It is not trival, and it does more harm than good by not having it than having it. And you are forgetting that somebody had already said on this page that the issue was confusing. MickMacNee (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Infact it was one of the very first few talk page sections, now archived: see here : "Some sources are referring to the airline as Northwest, others are saying Delta. Photos show the plane as obviously in Delta livery. Which should Wikipedia be using?"" - User Abc30. MickMacNee (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of more detailed information regarding charges from lead

This edit removed updated and detailed information on the nature of the charges being laid against the suspected attacker. Its the second time this information is removed. The edit summary justifies the removal by characterizing this as "breaking news" and "speculation", but the sources cited date to December 31, and the text it replaces it equally speculative but just more vague. Could the editor removing the material explain further? And could others please give their opinions as well? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The edits you are making are not necessary in the lead and the justification for removing them is fine. The lead is supposed to be a summary, please stop readding the info. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

They are not my edits. They were introduced by KeptSouth. I restored them when they were deleted once, and MickMackNee reverted them out of the article twice. Thanks for your opinion however. Tiamut^talk 16:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

He was charged on 26 Dec with a specific offence. Any other info based on press speculation is irrelevant for the lede. I've removed the potential sentencing details if this is attracting such clarifications. MickMacNee (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Your recent edits actually make that part of the lead read more smoothly. Question though: perhaps we should consider mentioning he's facing two charges instead of just one? Tiamut^talk 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems redundant to me when it is clear he was on the plane himself. The suspect was charged with trying to blow up a plane, and putting a bomb on it.... MickMacNee (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It may seem redundant to you, but there is a legal effect to each charge. Each charge is based on a separate statute, or portion of a statute, and each charge can result in additional penalties. Will also be revising the lead so that is not so choppy, and would like to note that recent edit summaries as well as the edits seem rather contentious, and on the border of violating WP:civil. Of course, I could be proven wrong. I guess I will see. — KeptSouth (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I share the concern regarding the tone of edit summaries and some commentary. There's no need to be aggressive about things people. We are writing an encyclopedia together, not competing in a battle to the death. Tiamut^talk 17:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am utterly unconvinced any reader would ever care if they were or were not made aware, in the summary, that he has been charged with two offences, which to all intents and purposes, are for the same crime. It is sufficient to say he is charged with the attempt, that's it. It's not like you can get two years for planting a bomb, and twenty for intending that bomb to blow up a plane. He is facing serious time, end of story. You are calling other information in the lede trivia - well, that level of detail is legal trivia. In addidtion, there is absolutely no reason to have a ref for that one bit of information. If we are calling that challengable, then there counld be 10 refs in the lede, patently unneccessary. MickMacNee (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we want to portray the US court system as inadequate?

It has previously been reported, and erroneously so, that the (alleged) terrorist would be facing a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison under the federal court system. In fact, this very article said so for nearly one week, (in both the lead and the body), even though there were reliable sources that said two charges (for 40 years imprisonment), had already been made and more charges were likely. However, only the one view -- that the (alleged) bomber would be subject to a maximum sentence of 20 years -- was allowed in this article and in the lead --information and sources to the contrary were speedily removed. This results in non neutral point of view and bias against effectiveness of the U.S. courts of law.

Why? Because most Americans would consider 20 years in prison a slap on the wrist for the attempted murder of almost 300 people.

The significance of indicating there are two charges is that

• 1. it is true and accurate
• 2. it subjects the (alleged) terrorist to a penalty of at least 40 years
• 3. it is discussed in the article,
• 4. it is a matter of concern and importance to readers and the media,
• 5. it is a fair summary of an important point discussed in the article.

Is this "legal trivia" as MickMackNee asserts? No, and I have actually given reasons why.—KeptSouth (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of reflecting the charges/penalties. Where the RSs disagree, in reflecting what RSs on both sides say (until/unless the confusion is cleared up).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't be convinced of the sentence length until it is declared. The shoe bomber got a life sentence. 20 years is just speculation at this point. After all the charges are filed, there will be a better clue of the possible sentence. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Double standard

At the same time that MickMackNee calls the legal charges and penalties trivia not worthy of mention in the lead, he or she adds and re-adds the following details and embellishments to the lead:

[12], that the terrorist entered Nigeria on December 24 - whether he came from somewhere else is not a crucial detail for the lead. [13] the date, several months earlier that the terrorist traveled to Yemen and what he said he would be studying, again not important to the lead [14] the fact that the terrorist had a two year, multi-entry visa and the year it was issued, how many days prior he had purchased his ticket, where he purchased the ticket. Certainly these details are best described in the article where their significance can be discussed. I am not proposing to delete these details, though they garble the lead up a bit, however, I am trying to point out what to me is a baffling inconsistency—KeptSouth (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How many general readers do you really think will actually care if the list of all specific charges with all the possible or currently theorised legal permutations is not in the lede, a summary of the article? I doubt anybody will be interest beyond the fact that he has been charged for doing it, and will go to federal trial. As for the possible sentence, I wasn't doing anything nefarious by adding 'up to 20 years' in the lede, I saw it in the main article, I decided it was important, so I added it to the lede, nothing more, nothing less - so enough with the drama please. Seeing as it is suggested it might not be accurate, or open to change later, I decided its best not to have it in there at all, at least for now. If you have a concrete source for say, he definitely faces the death penalty for the charges he is facing right now, then it could be added. 'he could face this if he is later charged with this or if he does this or if the DA does this' is not particularly worth having in the lede.

As for the other details, first, there is no sense in bartering one fact against another, that's a giant waste of time. The fact he only entered Nigeria the day before is pretty important, because otherwise, with him being described as Nigerian in the lede, people will just assume that he was already there, that is innaccurate, and not particularly fair on the Nigerians to imply they were harbouring a terrorist all this time. And it makes no sense with the whole 'the Yemenis did it' angle either. The details of what legitimacy he had to travel is patently important for the lede, the whole incident is basically framed around 'how did this happen!'. He bought a ticket in cash (a very large amount of cash), eights days before the flight, in another country, and having done that he did the whole thing on a valid visa issued in 2008, all apparently straight up and legit and in his name. That seems pretty much top level starter for 10 detail for 'how did this happen'?, particularly as it is all focused on terrorist methods and security and intelligence measures. You can remove August 2009 if you really want to, but without explaining he was in Yemen, the part about his dad makes no sense, which means the embassy warning makes no sense, which means the database wathlist info makes no sense. You have to set the scene somewhere, and given all of his various travellings up to that point, going to Yemen in August seems a pretty logical start point. MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Google news!

Google news serch [[15]] has quoted this as as news artical to read! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.137.249 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC) --86.29.137.249 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

They've been indexing WP articles for some time. Even the BBC sometimes links to WP articles. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Chime!--86.29.137.188 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection. Generally, that's not something worth proposing: be bold. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds great. (and I don't fault you for being polite and mentioning it here first).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, the User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo strongly recommends "establish a consensus that archiving is really needed". I assume that exists.--Oneiros (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've made it quite agressive: seven days and keep five threads. The bots should start in the next 24h.--Oneiros (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

SUMMARY OF ACTION taken by Oneiros...it seems that two people agreed to archiving after 30 days of inactivity, and that rather than wait for more comments to "establish consensus" per the rule you quoted, you then decided to "assume that it exists". Then, based on the agreement of two people to archive inactive threads every 30 days, you went ahead and decided to set the bot to archive all threads every seven days, except for five beginning in less than 24 hours?? Maybe I am reading this wrong...Please explain.KeptSouth (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I was bold: With the current activity on this page, I think the bot needs to be more agressive now. It can always be tuned down later.--Oneiros (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You read it wrong: It will archive any threads that have been inactive for more then seven days, but keep at least five.--Oneiros (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not what people agreed to. Why did you seek consensus (for only one hour) and then go against it? I believe being bold means acting on your own about edits--but if you seek consensus instead, then you go with that. You make a choice. In the case of MizraBot, you went against its strong recommendation, by acting without consensus, and somewhat against the consensus.--Regards KeptSouth (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've disabled archiving.--Oneiros (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of archiving. I care less about the number of days than others do, but would urge that someone at least soon archive some of the above. Any number of days from 7-30, inclusive, is fine with me. This pg. is getting longish, and some of it is clearly not relevant any longer.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to use the standard 30 days but then realized the youth of this article and the activity—with 30 days and 10 threads (my default) this page would grow much too large.--Oneiros (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's have some suggestions on # days/threads, then. I'm flexible as indicted above. Most who have commented seem to be in favor of archiving generally (even Oneiros, who disabled it).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much for explaining, for having a good attitude when questioned rather briskly, and for opening up the issue for additional comments/consensus. I agree with your reasons and would go with immediate archive, every 7 days.KeptSouth (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've disabled it because we obviously had no consensus. KeptSouth, you still have it wrong: The bot runs (at least) daily, and would archive any threads that had no comments in the last seven days, keeping at least five threads.--Oneiros (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection, therefore there is no one objecting to archiving. You have clarified your reasons very well and have politely spelled out how the bot would run. In my last message, I meant archiving daily where there has been 7 days of inactivity is okay with me. I was just a little imprecise, as you were at first. Regardless, absolutely nothing excuses my harsh tone, and I sincerely apologize.—Best regards,KeptSouth (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My disabling has already been reversed by Grsz11 and the bot has already run.--Oneiros (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, but I wanted to reply to the prior comment and offer a more direct apology.—KeptSouth (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote

I suggest someone delete the hatnote.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as Flight 253 redirects here, then per disambiguation policy, it's a valid hatnote: a search for 'Flight 253' can mean either this article, or the 1968 Flight 253, especially given some of the arguments made in the RM supporting the idea that 'Airline Flight' is how people remember these incidents. It would be recentism to suggest everybody looking for an article about a 'Flight 253' only want this article, and not the 1968 one. That article sure could use some references though. MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be recentism. That would be the case if this flight were recent, but at the same time most articles that mention Flight 253 were not written about this flight. That's not, I'm sure most of us could agree without the trouble of a Gnews search, the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You've totally lost me, can you try and explain again what the issue is with the hatnote? The basic fact is for me - people looking for Flight 253 might be looking for the 1968 article, and per policy, while it redirects here, that navigation is acheived via a hatnote. MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lost me too. But I think the hat note is appropriate. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 02:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about the objection as well, but might as well add that the hatnote is appropriate here. Grsz¹¹ 02:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Stats indicate 3000 views of Flight 253 in December, all after this incident, and 500 so far this month so it seems warranted to presume nearly everyone is interested in this flight. For those who aren't or who are also interested in the Cold War flight, there's the hatnote. I'd suggest keeping the redirect for now. Gotyear (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification. If there were no views of Flight 253, at least as indicated above, prior to this incident, why do we need a hatnote for a search term that was not previously disambiguated to the other flight?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

First, my stats are irrelevant. Flight 253 was created as a dab on December 26. Whoops!

There's a hatnote up there because there are two Wikipedia articles with Flight 253 in the title. Cs32en redirected Flight 253 here a day ago, as the most prevalent meaning, which is probable at least in the short term. While a great majority are likely looking for this flight when searching for Flight 253, it's standard WP practice to include a hatnote if anyone could be looking for a similarly named article.

I think the redirect and the hatnote are both reasonable. Gotyear (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Two questions. First, was there a redirect before that would have directed a "Flight 253" search to the cold war flight? Second, do we know how many people before this christmas searched for "Flight 253"? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The redirect page to "Flight 253" appears to have been created on December 26. I support doing away with the hatnote because it directs to a rarely viewed, single sourced article about a rather obscure event. November 2009, average daily views = 26. I support doing away with the redirect. But all this is disputed, so how about a a reasonable compromise? I will shorten the hatnote, making it cleaner and easier for the reader, per WP:Hatnote, WP:Common sense.— Regards, KeptSouth (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Alleged accomplice: reliable sources

• "FBI follows up on terror accomplice claim". United Press International. December 30, 2009. Retrieved December 31, 2009.
• Memmott, Mark (December 28, 2009). "Witness: Alleged Bomber & Possible Accomplice Were Odd Pair". National Public Radio. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
• Whittell, Giles; Fresco, Adam (December 29, 2009). "I'm the first of many, warns airline 'bomber' Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab". The Times. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
• "Police search for Detroit bomb accomplice". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. December 29, 2009. Retrieved January 4, 2001. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• McGreal, Chris; Batty, David; Walker, Peter (December 28, 2009). "US says aviation security system failed in Flight 253 case". The Guardian. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
• "Al-Qaida bekennt sich zu Anschlagsversuch". Bild. December 28, 2009. Retrieved December 31, 2009. (Sixth largest newspaper by circulation worldwide.)
• "Dutch probe claims of Nigerian bomber accomplice". Ynetnews. December 28, 2009. Retrieved January 4, 2010. (Israel's most read newspaper.)
• "White House seeks answers in failed terror". New England Cable News. December 28, 2009. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
• Meek, James Gordon; Kennedy, Helen (December 29, 2009). "President Obama vows to hunt down all terrorists, plug gaps in airport security". New York Daily News. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
• Patton, Naomi R.; Schmitt, Ben (December 30, 2009). "FBI probes account of Michigan couple in Flight 253 case". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved December 31, 2009.
• Egan, Paul (January 1, 2010). "Witnesses say second man arrested in Flight 253 incident". The Detroit News. Retrieved January 1, 2010.
• Portteus, Danielle (December 26, 2009). "Newport couple witnesses to airliner attack". Monroe News. Retrieved January 3, 2010.</ref>

FOX News and CNN interviewed Kurt Haskell, see here for the videos.  Cs32en  02:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an actual suggestion? The article already addresses these claims and mentions that authorities are investigating. Right now, there's nothing else to say about it. Grsz¹¹ 03:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, Oscroft removed more detailed information about the issue from a more prominent part of the article. We have agreed to discuss this on the talk page. Oscroft might be away from Wikipedia for the next few hours, and I will probably not be present here either. Opinions and suggestions from other editors are welcome, of course! I'll comment on the issue later on, and will probably also make a suggestion.  Cs32en  04:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

All your sources look reliable, and so nicely formatted! As I am sure you know, that does not mean the story itself is verifiable or true. When there is a large, breaking story like this underwear Al Qaeda bomber, there is a viral tendency for media to repeat false or spurious claims that are published early on. If all the articles on your list are about the claim by the Michigan man who says that A. traveled w/o a passport, I have to say this is now a discredited claim. Dutch authorities have debunked it; A. did travel on his own passport. That is not to say the Michigan man is lying. There were surely other passengers matching A's general description who boarded the plane, and one might have been a real or pretend Sudanese. I also don't doubt that A had a number of co-conspirators in his plot to bring down NW 253. But this does not sound like a story that will check out, and I would not agree with the inclusion of your list of articles. Regards—KeptSouth (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That Abdulmutallab had a passport does not discredit or invalidate the claim that he tried to board the plane without showing the passport. While he may not have been on a no-fly list, it would be a reasonable assumption on his part that his name would be listed on such a list. I do not want to include anything in the article that would present the allegations reported by the reliable sources as facts. Yet the allegations are notable, as they have been reported in multiple reliable sources. They are certainly more notable that some of the intricate details of the text that are sometimes only base on a single or a small number of reliable sources.  Cs32en  15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Reposting of a helpful tag, "Fancruft" (Update) Now called "Overdetailed"

This is the meaning that I am using, straight from WP:Cruft#Usage

"The use of the term implies that an editor does not regard the material in question as encyclopedic ... because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse... when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole." (emphasis added)

Also of note: while the tag was on, superfluous material was culled such as Dutch community in Mich, "scheduled flight" and other irrelevancies.Therefore the tag is beneficial to the article. It was previously deleted with the bare assertion that it was an "utter joke" [16] Want to delete it again? Then please seek consensus here.—KeptSouth (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have found a template with a better name that contains the same clean up language. Again, please obtain consensus here if you believe it should be removed.— KeptSouth (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you will need to get positive consensus for it to be in place. It is not acceptable that this article has a meaningless tag placed on it based on one person's idea that it contains 'intricate details'. I was the person who removed the michigan info, and I would have done it with or without this ridiculous tag, which is not meant for these sorts of articles in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The {Current} tag is only used when articles are recieving hundreds of edits an hour, like a celebrity death or a sports match. Wikipedia is a Wiki, articles change all the time - it is not a tag for simply informing this article is about a current event (which is self evident). And the {Redirect} tag is what should be used for the hatnote - this is normal when the reason it exists is because of a particle redirect, and adding Cold War is hardly excessive detail. These are standard Wikipedia practices that do not need discussino every time. MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I support deletion of all the tags on the page, and don't see consensus for their inclusion. I suggest deletion until/unless consensus for its inclusion is demonstrated here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Waved through without carrying passport

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_says_at_l.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.77.117 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That was already added before this.  fetchcomms☛ 19:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim is clearly complete nonsense. Schipol officials have confirmed he had a valid Nigerian passport and a valid US visa with him when he boarded Flight 253. Also, one of the failings publicised by the Obama administration is that his multiple-entry US tourist visa, issued in 2008, was not revoked when his father reported his suspicions - to have a valid US visa, he obviously had to have a passport. Also, you don't get to enter the US as a refugee simply by having a man in a smart suit turn up with you at check-in and have a word with the airline staff, so that story is laughable. As such nonsensical rumor is not of encyclopedia notability (except, perhaps, in an article about rumors started in blogs), I have removed it today from both this page and the Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab page. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to say so. Oscroft (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On the substance: The issue is not whether Abdulmutallab had a passport or not, but whether he tried to board the plane without presenting it. On Wikipedia policy: Multiple reliable sources (you have deleted one of them) are reporting on the account given by Kurt Haskell.  Cs32en  10:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but they all report the single uncorroborated account - I'm not disputing that the Haskells made their claim, but whether the claim itself is of encyclopedic notability. The authorities at Schipol (who I think are far more notable) have confirmed that he did have his passport with him. I think we need pretty strong evidence (more than just the one, frankly unbelievable, account) before a claim that he boarded the flight from Schipol without his passport should be deemed to be of encyclopedic notability, and none of the news reports from major sources (Reuters, AP, NY Times, London Times, BBC, etc) that I have read has given any space to the passport claim. Oscroft (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bild, the best-selling newspaper in Europe, with the sixth-largest circulation worldwide, reported on the issue, and included a reference to the alleged accomplice in the title of its article. See "Al-Qaida bekennt sich zu Anschlagsversuch". Bild.de. December 28, 2009.  Cs32en  11:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've been thinking about it some more, and I've changed my mind part way, because I've worked out why the inclusion was making me uncomfortable. I now think we should include the Haskells' claim, because the fact that they made it is reliable and notable. But I think we should describe it in terms of "Two passengers claimed that...", which is purely factual, and I don't think we should use words like "He may not have had a passport...", as that implies some degree of judgment of the credibility of the claim (which we shouldn't judge either way) and suggests it's a generally-accepted dispute. (To use an analogy, in Elvis Presley phenomenon, the popular claims that Elvis is not dead are addressed in plain factual terms, and the article does not say "He may not be dead"). If you think I'm on the right lines, I'll be happy to make it so. Oscroft (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with your view that the correct framing of the content of the claim is something like "two passengers claimed", or, maybe, "two passengers reported". ("Claim" may be interpreted as somehow implying that a personal interest would be involved. Also, see Wikipedia:CLAIM#Claim.) The info from Belgian authorities would follow, and maybe we also have a reliable source saying something like "the reports were not confirmed by officials".  Cs32en  15:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good point, and thanks - I was trying to think of something other than 'claim', but 'assert' also sounded wrong. 'Report' is perfect. It's bedtime where I am and I'm tired, so I'll do it first thing in the morning. Oscroft (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've updated it, as suggested. Oscroft (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect for discussion related to this article

at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 28#Christmas Day bombing attempt.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguate page?

I just noticed that KeptSouth removed a double redirect to Seaboard World Airlines Flight 253A, should perhaps flight 253 be turned into a disambiguate page? Normally, I ignore these edits, but while Northwest Airlines Flight 253 is in the spotlight right now, shouldn't it be allow people to find the other page as well? --Hourick (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the template. Assuming that people who are looking for the 1968 incident would necessarily look for "Flight 253A" instead of "Flight 253" is unreasonable.  Cs32en  19:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody looks for articles about airplane incidents (except flying freaks) by their flight numbers so it really is irrelevant.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is for everybody, including flying freaks. If someone reads something about a "Flight 253" in a book or on the net, and the "Seaboard World Airlines" part is not included there, the user may well search for "Flight 253" even if he's not a flying freak. (Note: KeptSouth has moved Seaboard World Airlines Flight 253 to Seaboard World Airlines Flight 253A at 16:24 today.)  Cs32en  20:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is still available to anyone who searches for Seaboard - It's probably a good idea to create a disambig page anyway. I will make one now. Approx 26 people per day were viewing the Seaboard article prior to this incident. It is a good example of how diplomacy can work.—KeptSouth (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy on redirects, "Flight 253" need to redirect to this article, rather than being a disambiguation page. I'm inclined to leave it to others to resolve the issue, as long as every interested in the 1968 incident can find the respective article easily.  Cs32en  21:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Flight 253 should redirect to this article. It's still getting nearly 200 hits a day, likely a great majority from people seeing the recent Flight 253 in news headlines. I would argue it is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, at least in the short term and possibly in the long term. I believe the dab page should thus rest at Flight 253 (disambiguation). Gotyear (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Indictment says bomb is "weapon of mass destruction"

Presumably, the U.S. military erred in declaring they haven't found any WMD in Iraq.  Cs32en  17:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You presume too much. They are using the broad, statutory definition which was written to make it easier to put away a terrorist such as this. It is the same charge that was leveled against Richard Reid (shoe bomber) in early 2002.

If the statutory definition was the same as the common use definition then, the U.S. would have had justification for attacking every country on the globe in 2003. When Cheney, Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. said that the US needed to strike because Iraq had WMD, then people (liberals and conservatives alike) would have said, so what?—Regards, KeptSouth (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we broadly agree on this here. I also assumed that the usage of the wording in the indictment was not unprecedented. Still, how about a disambiguation page: WMD (warfare), WMD (U.S. legal definition)?  Cs32en  14:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Tag

As discussed above on this page, IMHO the tag "This section may be too long to read and navigate comfortably" for the suspect section is not accurate nor necessary/appropriate, as I do not believe the section is too long to read and navigate comfortably. The other editor who responded on this pg appeared to agree. I am now boldly deleting the tag. Pls do not re-tag the section unless there is a consensus here for doing so.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be in summary style. Right now, it's almost as long as the biography article. Grsz¹¹ 03:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that a lot of the information here is not in his article, while it should be the opposite. We need to trim the section here and can place a lot of those details in the biography. Grsz¹¹ 03:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the information in this article as to his background is the relevant information now, as the bulk of it relates to important aspects of his background that are relevant to his actions, especially as there is interest in how he became radicalized, and what in his background was consistent or inconsistent w/what people view as the backgrounds of suspected suicide bombers. I don't think the tag should remain unless there is consensus for it, which (as its just been suggested (certainly is not the case as of yet). If we populate the bio w/the info in this article but not yet in the bio (should be done at some point), this will be smaller than the bio.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That is my point, the bio should be longer than this section, as it is the main article on the subject. I think the information most relevant to this article is his radicalization and recent (a year or two) actions leading up to the event. Grsz¹¹ 04:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a debate as to when it began, with some pointing to Togo. It is now summary of the longer article, as I've made adds there.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is now at 17410 characters of prose, while the section in this article contains 11503 characters of prose. That's not a summary.  Cs32en  04:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would need to be deleted per WP:BLP1E if it was a stand-alone article. As it is not, it is a sub-article of Northwest Airlines Flight 253, and so the section on him in this article must be written in summary style. The {{summary style}} template that is currently being used is designed for articles, not sections. It's ok with me, however, as its tone is less sharp.  Cs32en  04:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Its now summary.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Error in "chronological order" edit

This edit claims to fix the chronological order in the lead, but ironically it confuses the chronology by inserting an event that occurred on December 28 in the middle of one that occurred on December 26.

There is also a confusion of subject matter. Before the change, the paragraph was about Abdulmutallab's arrest and the legal procedures that followed. After the editor's change, we have an unverified website declaration by a terrorist group stuck into the middle of a paragraph about the suspect's confession, and criminal charges. This juxtaposition leaves the false impression that the statement by the Al Qaeda group had something to do with Abdulmutallab's confession or the charges. It did not. There is also a better place for the sentence - it logically fits in the paragraph which deals with connections with Al Qaeda, and moving it there improves the flow and mades the lead more readable. — (posted in the hope of avoiding an edit war) — KeptSouth (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have copy edited the lead so that it describes the current event involving the attack, then backtracks through Abdulmutallab's recent history, then discusses the intelligence and failure to connect the dots, then discusses the US govt response. Seems logical and readable to me! The former version of the lead hopped around at least three times, making it difficult to follow. — KeptSouth (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is utterly illogical to just mention in passing near the bottom of the lede that, 'oh, and by the way, now that you've read all about the attack and events in the weeks before and after, you should also know that two days after the attack AQAP claimed responsibility for it'. This is utterly non-sensical and it is frankly quite bizarre to claim this improves readability or logic of the lede in the slightest. To suggest that the AQAP statement had anything to do with his confession is utter rubbish. I cannot even begin to comprehend the thinking behind that. MickMacNee (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And your little note about hoping to avoid an edit war has got to be a joke. If you didn't keep persistently editting the article in the obvious belief that what you think is right is simply what is right, there would be no edit wars at all. Quite why you even bothered to post to the talk page, and then went and made the edit an hour later anyway, is beyond me. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And as a final note, the original version was the most logical and readable - it was in full chronological order from start to finish, like a summary should be. It was only when people started trying to split part of it off into an unreferenced 'background' section, totally against policy, that it started getting screwed up and back to front. MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Title of article

Shouldn/t the title of this article specify the incident as opposed to just the name of the flight? After all the article is not so much about the flight itself but about a terror attempt incident that occured aboard that flight on 12/25/2009.Naffannaf (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See the above section. Essentially, its common practice to name the article just after the flight number. See US Airways Flight 1549, American Airlines Flight 587, Air China Flight 129, etc. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 14:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Common practice" doesn't make it right. The article should be named so people who want information can find it. I doubt many readers know the flight number today, and certainly won't in the future.--Gilabrand (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This isn't a crash, so the flight number won't be so memorable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Per policy, it often does. But what do you propose? Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If the other article is at 2001 shoe bomb plot, then perhaps this one should be 2009 boxershorts bomb plot 76.66.197.17 (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • I fix those problem. I create 2009 boxershorts bomb plot! Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"2009 Attempted Terrorist Bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253" Edkollin (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• So, basically, I creating those redirect, which some of them did got delete, such as Firecracker incident. But I creating those redirects while everyone thinking it was a firecrackers. Now we knew better names; so can you creating them? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Support a rename. The airline editors can have their style guidelines for their airline articles, but a mainstream story like this one must get the name that is used by mainstream sources, as described above.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Northwest 253 is the term I've been hearing in the media. I haven't heard a common name like "shoe bomber" or anything arise yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.172.128 (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I would suggest that the lead be trimmed. It should at most be four paragraphs, and is longer than what the relevant wp guidance suggests, and far longer than, for example, the Fort Hood shootings lead.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Its pretty much fine as it is, and definitely meets wp:lede. It explains the major points of the article and is in a summary style, without unduly ignoring the major details of the incident. Nobody would have to read the rest of the article to find out major things if they didn't want to, unlike poorer articles Like Fort Hood Shooting. It is only more than four paragraphs because people seem to confuse the word 'paragraph' with 'sentence'. MickMacNee (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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: Not moved. Majority opposes, and while descriptive titles are certainly used for some articles, the GNews analyses presented and the naming convention pointed to seem to favor the current name. No compelling evidence rebutting the prevalence of the current name was presented, which just leaves the subjective aesthetics argument and that is not strong enough to justify overturning the !voting results. Non-admin closure; there is a backlog, please consider helping out. Cybercobra (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Northwest Airlines Flight 253 → 2009 Christmas Day bomb plot — This incident is notable enough not to require pointless adherence to the air incident MOS, which just produces meaningless titles, and in this case even introduces some confusion due to the Northwest/Delta issue, so I've taking a cue from 2001 shoe bomb plot and 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot for this suggestion, but I'm happy for anything better than the current name tbh. — MickMacNee (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally OK w/whatever is decided by the rest of you, as long as we have redirects for all popular names for this (some may still develop). I also note that a number of editors have expressed similar sentiments as to renaming it above. Furthermore, having Christmas in the title makes even more sense now than it did as that discussion took place, given al-Qaeda's emphasis on the fact that the attack was on Christmas (not that I would want to cede article naming to AQ, so this shouldn't be taken as precedent...)--Epeefleche (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I solve temporarily problem and creating those redirect! 2009 Christmas Day bomb plot Sorry my poor English. THanks. --B767-500 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support move'As I said above, the article should be named so people who want information can find it. I doubt many readers know the flight number today, and certainly won't in the future. Oh, and the Christmas day bombing attempt is not made up. I added three different sources for it, which various editors deleted. --Gilabrand (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Do any sources refer to it as 2009 Christmas Day bomb plot? ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 04:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I never said it was, I am saying that it is a better, more accurate, title, than the one forced on us by a guideline desinged for indexing lesser notable incidents. Given the notability, this title is always going to register something with readers. There is no discernable exact common name at all that I can see in sources, which is why a better descriptive one is preferable over a basic formulaic one. With this still being front page news, most sources just use headlines like Detroit terror attack, or foiled US bomb plot, which are of course useless for us. MickMacNee (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment how about Underwear bomb plot ? 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose move The vast majority of aircraft accident/incident articles are in the format (airline) (flight number). There is no compelling reason that this article should not follow that. By all means have redirects from other plausible titles. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  And the vast majority of those are relatively obscure incidents, where such dogmatic approaches are usefull. The ones that do not follow the system are well known incidents where that approach does not work, just like this one, where a descriptive title that connects with readers is a hundred times better. The current title doesn't fit the prose, it means nothing to most people, and to top it all off, it even creates its own confusion by following the format, because not everybody is aware of the whole Delta/Northwest issue. If you don't think those are compelling reasons, then what would be? MickMacNee (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose move Per Mjroots comments. I think we can all make up our own titles, but this one works until there's reliable proof of another term being used in most published situations. And this was a "bombing attempt", not just a plot. He did try to set it off. End commnets. - BilCat (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'm repeating myself by now, but I never said the proposed new title wasn't 'made up' (and as explained in the rationale, I didn't just pluck it out of the air, it is a sensible extrapolation from both sources and other similar articles) And how do you know this one works? Based on what? It doesn't work in my eyes, and others have complained (as generally always happens when it is foisted on more notable incidents). We even had someone try and disambiguate it from the panic attack 'incident' which occured on a later NW253, that is the sort of thing that can happen in this system, where unless you already knew the flight number, the title means nothing, and you are forced every time to look at the article to figure out if this is the incident you were looking for or not. Several of these mos-derived-titles already require similar disambiguation, the new title would never require disambiguation, even if there was another attempt on a future Christmas Day. It frankly looks like what it is in the lede prose - a square peg for a round hole. By emprical evidence on this talk page, nobody has apparently ever used it as a way to get here. I have seen no external sources ever refer to the infamous and well known incident of 'Flight 253' unambiguously in the same way as say Flight 447, (perhaps the only example of a truly famous incident where no descriptive title would work), and as I have pointed out many times, 'Northwest' in the title throws up a very large confusion anyway so ... so much for the mos-system working until something else comes up - for this incident, it had an additional inherent flaw from the start as well as the usual problems with it. Delta plane and Northwest title was the very first thing I noticed about the article, necessitating a wasted few minutes to figure that out, and I am positive I am not alone in that. I agree, we can have 'bombing attempt' instead of plot, but not having it is no reason not to get rid of the current title, again, I said that already in the rationale. MickMacNee (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I've learned the hard way that repeating the asame arguments over and over really doesn't help one's case, and makes a nuisance out of oneself very quickly, especially if one is repeating oneself over and over. I don't mind answering questions about why I prefer something over another, but when the question is "asked and answered" in a dismissive manner, there's usually no point in tying. As the saying goes, "Methinks thou dost protest to much!" Chill, dude. - BilCat (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I really have got no clue what your point is. I am repeating arguments because they are being ignored - I agree that this never usually works, but the fact is, ignoring them is a really dumb way of determining consensus if nobody is even able to justify their opinions in policy or fact, because the same issue will come up time and again. You will see general readers challenging this title system on every major air incident, that alone is a good indication it doesn't work, and on this specific incident, there are additional reasons too. Simply saying 'it works' is useless if you aren't prepared to explain that when challenged. I don't mind losing this debate 10-1 if in the end that for this article it is clear that nobody really has any argument for using this naming convention, or against using a better title that better meets all the funtions of a title, because they want to pretend we don't use 'made up' titles, when all over the pedia we do. I've got no respect for anybody who ignores simple questions and give some simple reasoning, and simply sticks by their opinions as if it was incontrovertable fact, even when it contradicts policies. MickMacNee (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
      • "You're right - you don't have a clue. - BilCat (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Eh? From the link behind the insult - In determining consensus, consider ... the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority.. So, who is it here that doesn't have a clue here, really? On the one side, we have people giving short, weak, unsupported arguments, who are happy to have the decision be decided by vote without having to bother themselves with objections, on the other, we have detailed, common sense and policy backed reasons for the move and cogent and valid objections to opposers, with nothing coming in reply? Like I said, I really don't care if I lose to dumb numbers, the quality of the debate is here on record for all to see. Nothing about a closure of an argument with no real expanded arguments supporting it and no actual rebuttals of opposition will affect the weight of the basic facts I have presented, least of all the fact that we do use descriptive titles and the current title does not help in a single one of the established uses of and reasons for, article titles. To give you an example of the quality of argument on show, you could rename it to the FAA incident report number for all the use it is as a title, that is still 'neutral, verifiable and accurate'. Infact, every debate that goes down like this (if as expected it closes as no move), is another nail in the coffin of the sentiment behind very link you provided above. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
          • • My goodness, you really don't get it. "An argumentative approach rarely convinces others." That is all you're doing here! Arguing. You're daring people to respond to your obviously superior arguments, after insulting their "simple" attempts to express their opinions. No thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
              • Its clear that you and I have totally different ideas about what constitutes a quality argument and a proper debate, where positions are laid out properly and in detail, and actualy defended when challenged. 'this works' and then silence and/or snarky comments, is not it. The brevity, evasion, and repeated ignoring of points already made time and again in this RM, is enough to make anybody wanting a proper debate to appear 'argumentative'. If you think its fine that people can just troop in, make a low quality argument and/or ignoring everything said in the nomination and subsequently, and then leave, and then somebody rocks up and simply does a head count, then what's the point. There is no point in that, and it dosn't resemble proper debate in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support move. Per Mick and Gila above. They've convinced me. Now we just have to find the most popular name ... but I'm guessing it has Christmas in it. Just checked ... so far "Christmas attack" has over 9K hits on Gnews this week. More than alternatives I could think up. So my vote is for "2009 Christmas Attack".--Epeefleche (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose move article title meets guidelines is neutral, factual and not made up. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  Granted it is made up, but that is pretty much the reason for changing it, because a better made up title is preferrable to a meaningless one, even if it is supported by a 'guideline' (and just to point out, the actual naming convention comes from a WikiProject style guide, not a Wikipedia Guideline, there is a difference). I am scratching my head as to what is not neutral or factual about the proposed new title though. MickMacNee (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. To advance the ball, I took a look at a few of the names I could think of. Following are the current GnewsHits; I would add the phrase "2009" before whatever we choose (e.g., "2009 Christmas Attack")--pretty clearly, what we have now is not a popular choice:

1. "Christmas Attack": 9,223
2. "Christmas Day Attack": 4,668
3. "Detroit Attack": 1,534
4. "Christmas Day Plot: 776
5. "Christmas Day Bombing": 713
6. "Christmas Bombing": 440
7. "Christmas Plot": 136
8. "Christmas Day bomb plot" 31
9. "Flight 253 Attack": 27
10. "Flight 253 Bombing": 13
11. "Flight 253 Plot": 5

--Epeefleche (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

5,308 for "Christmas attack" is what my gnews count brings, some of which are referring to the attack on the pope (Security tight after Christmas attack on Pope) and some to an attack by a Finnish skier on his wife (Finland ski star Nykanen arrested over Christmas attack). Not all the "Christmas attack" references to this event are capitalized either, indicating its a description, rather than a proper name. The media likes sensationalist headlines it seems. Tiamut^talk 15:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Christmas Day attack" also lacks capitalization for "Attack" indicating its a description rather than a name. The gnews search also includes references to unrelated events, such as Lee County man charged in Christmas Day attack on girlfriend's ex and Man left with severe facial injuries after Christmas Day attack in Nuneaton. Tiamut^talk 15:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose move Any new name will be necessarily made up due to this event being relatively recent. Sticking to the flight name and number as per other articles in a similar vein for now seems wise. When some time has passed, the issue can be revisited and reliable sources can be mined to determine the most common name. Its not Wikipedia's job to give the event one but rather to report the one that others do. There's no need to rush and the current title is neutral, factual, and accurate, as stated by at least three other editors above. Tiamut^talk 14:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that we should look at what others do. I've done that above. When we have 10,000 articles with that format, I'll feel comfortable that we have sufficient input. Should another name surface later due to some unforeseen event (say, the "x-inspired attack"), we can always revisit it. But number of articles with the name, rather than passage of time, seems like a reasonable approach, and there are likely relatively few articles on wp at the moment that have their name in 10,000 gnews articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

At least four editors here oppose the idea of a page move which requires consensus. Looking into what media are writing is always good, but listening to what your fellow editors have to say is also important. While there does not seem to be consensus for such a move at the present time, consensus is not immutable and you may find that views change with time. So I would suggest trying again later. Tiamut^talk 15:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is a total and utter fallacy that Wikipedia does not allow descriptive titles - it is the consensus of millions that, where no common name exists (which is what your own analysis shows, and what I had already said in the rationale anyway), they are appropriate. This cornerstone of the naming convention should not be ignored simply because a Wikiproject has set out a format which is not even a Guideline (capital G). I am listening to editors. And all I am hearing is, we must use this format. What I am not hearing is, why? You think its wise, so explain why. Give me some reasons other than 'we don't make up titles', because as said, we can and we do where appropriate, and it is appropriate here. Even in ten years time and no common name emerges, a descriptive name will still be recognisable and useful to site navigators. The current name, if it even means anything to anybody right now, it will certainly be irrelevant with the passage of time. The current title does not help in a single one of the ways titles are useful - immediate subject recognition, hooks for google/internal searching, recognition in category navigation and link hovering, and fitting naturally into the opening prose. It is utterly useless to me, and I am not convinced otherwise at all as yet. The Delta/Northwestern issue makes it more than useless even, as people can't even get lucky by looking at pictures of the plane and searching for Delta. MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't be listening very close to what other editors are saying if all you hear is "we must use this format" and no reasonning as to why. I see a number of reasons listed above. Perhaps you might want to read more closely? And for all its faults, a search for "Northwest Airlines Flight 253" does bring back the greatest number of gnews hits (7,000+ hits), all of which are related to this subject, unlike the other proposed titles. Like I said, I prefer that Wikipedia not get into the business of giving events names (that's what's called WP:OR) and that we rather stick to simply reporting what reliable sources have to say about a given event, in an NPOV and verifiable way. Tiamut^talk 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Give examples then, I'm not a mind reader. Your idea that using descriptive names is banned as being OR is totally false, and is not an idea that is in any policy or guideline anywhere. That fact that (for pretty obvious reasons) the airline and flight number appear in several sources means absolutely nothing with regards to determining a common name. Anybody remembering the flight number from the news won't in a years time, and that is assuming many people even remember it at all, which is a fantasy. This is not an argument for a common name in the slightest. The vast majority will recognise a well chosen description, that's a cold hard irrefutable fact of human nature. The RS/NPOV/V argument is just meaningless hand waving, but for the record, there is nothing in the proposed title that fails any of those policies. MickMacNee (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(indent)Infact, you irked me enough with that comment about not seeing any arguments that I double checked anyway. Here are the arguments as to why the format must be adhered to for this article, and the rebuttals I had already given before you stated that I had ignored them. No replies have yet been forthcoming.

• Mjroots:
  • "There is no compelling reason not to" - several have been given
  • "lots of articles use it". - so? the ones that don't already have better titles using a keyworded description or common name
• BilCat:
  • "Per Mjroots comments" - as above
  • "this one works" - how? plenty of examples given as to how it doesn't
• MilborneOne:
  • "title meets guidelines" - if he means the Wikiproject, it isn't a Guideline
  • "is neutral, factual and not made up" - the proposal is neutral and factual, current title is a 'made up' format supported by a Wikiproject only, 'made up' titles are allowed where appropriate by consensus of the whole of Wikipedia

MickMacNee (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Tiamut sums up my argument perfectly. Oppose moving the article from its current name. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 17:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest 2009 roasted nuts bomb plot, which other editor is came up with it. --B767-500 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • As long as we're making up titles to see what sticks, that's as good a one as any. - BilCat (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose move Despite Epeefleche's search, and as Tiamut noted above, a Google News search of "Northwest Airlines Flight 253" turned up 15,020 hits; "2009 Christmas day bomb plot" turned up 1,783. If our titles are dependent on Google News, it would semm seem that the current one is most appropriate. C628 (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

First, our titles don't depend on Google News - the title is not meant to represent a commonly used phrase, but the best and most recognisable description, that will serve the actual funcitons we use titles for - recognition, navigation etc etc. Second, the fact the airline and flight number appear in all search results of the incident is hardly a surprise, but thirdly, that fact is meaningless as to arguing that putting them together on their own is anything like a common or usefull name for our article on the incident. See above explanation for further details. MickMacNee (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't serious when I said titles were dependent on Google News; it just seemed like a lot of this discussion revolved around what Google News came up with. Sorry if that was misunderstood. C628 (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note Brewcrewer (talk · contribs) posted a 'support' in the #Title of article section above, stating Support a rename. The airline editors can have their style guidelines for their airline articles, but a mainstream story like this one must get the name that is used by mainstream sources, as described above, but looking at it I'm pretty sure he meant to add it here. MickMacNee (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I Support the proposed move. Sorry for not noticing this thread.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. After watching the weekend news broadcasts, they have generally been using Flight 253 or some variation including Northwest. None of the ones I caught referred to it as the 'Christmas Day bomb plot'. So it would appear that the current name is in sync with US news usage. I'll add that most added, after the flight number, some comment about it having occurred on Christmas Day, like 'Flight 253 on Christmas Day'. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

"Pre-boarding events"

Resolved. Collapsed due to length. -Grsz11 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An IP and myself seem to be in dispute about different versions of Northwest Airlines Flight 253#Pre-boarding events. His version includes lengthy quotes which bring up WP:UNDUE issues considering how insignificant these accusations proved to be. My version has not changed the content of the section, only attempting to solve weight issues and make the text easier to follow. I've been met with unreasonable reversions of any of my edits, even when approaching the issue in various different ways. Grsz11 03:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Further, this version seems to inaccurately imply that Taylor is endorsing Haskell's account, when in fact the only reason Taylor spoke was to refute Haskell's statements. If mentioning the situation, it's necessary to include how exactly Taylor's view differed from Haskell's, which the IP has reverted (several times) as "opinion". The whole thing is opinion, it's based on differing opinion. You have to either include it all or none of it to have a neutral POV. Grsz11 03:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC) IP here, Grsz11 believes that non-facts and people's opinions of what other people saw is what belongs in Wiki as long as it conforms to his way of thinking. No one hears him argue to put Haskell's opinion in, but he wants Taylor's. He has offered no additional facts and keeps trying to dilute factual testimony. The funniest part is that he reverted to my original, where I made the mistake of putting in the non-facts. I corrected my mistake, and he want to put the mistake back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.41.2 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC) You are again making false claims. I haven't argued for taking Haskell's opinion out, just attempted to fix your inaccurate and dishonest portrayal of Taylor's statements to fit your own opinion. If we are to keep Haskell's statements, WP:NPOV says we must provide any alternatives - Taylor provides that. Grsz11 04:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Simple request Grsz11, name one opinion attributed to Haskell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.41.2 (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Erm, I have, more than once. It is his opinion that the man he claims was with the man he claims was the attacker was an accomplice. In contrast, it is Taylor's opinion that the black man Haskell saw wasn't the attacker, and the man with him was just an airline employee and not a cohort in some terror conspiracy. I haven't argued you take out Haskell's claims, just that we must include opposing views to balance. I've attempted to do this, and you have edit-warred to prevent that. Grsz11 04:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC) "It is his opinion that the man he claims was with the man he claims was the attacker was an accomplice." Huh? Where is the word "accomplice" in my edit? Is it something you made up in your head? How exactly does Taylor know who Haskell saw? There is no war, you just don't like the facts and you want to dilute them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.41.2 (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I don't think you are grasping anything I am saying. I understand you are new here, therefore you don't fully understand essential guidelines such as WP:NPOV. You've included an extended paragraph on Haskell, and yet word the opposing view by Taylor so that it seems as if he is endorsing Haskell's view, which is inaccurate. The paragraph on Haskell does not expliciting say "accomplice" but let's assume the majority of readers have half a brain and can put two and two together to infer what he is saying, especially when the next paragraph includes that authorities "found no indication that accussed bomber had accomplices". Haskell has said he believes there was an accomplice, even if that isn't stated exactly here, and that is to what Taylor is responding. Grsz11 04:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I don't think you get it. The section is titled Pre-boarding events. It is supposed to contain factual information and testimony on just that. It is completely neutral right now and you simply do not like the facts. It is the reporter that called it a dispute to sell papers. There is no dispute between Taylor and Haskell, just exclusively different sitings. No one know who is correct. I don't, you don't. By only putting the facts of their testimony, the reader can make his own judgment. You just want to make it for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.41.2 (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I'm beyond confused as to how you think I am making a judgement, I've only introduced text that was in the source. This edit, and the preceding, changed no content, just readability and comprehensiveness. Please do not revert it, as additionally, you would break WP:3RR. Grsz11 05:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC) On a broader scale to third-parties, I don't see much need for including Haskell's account in the first place. He claimed the attacker boarded with no passport and help, while the investigation has since discovered he had all the required documentation - passport, visa. Grsz11 05:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC) On even even broader scale, it's completely apparent that these facts are really freaking you out and you are absolutely desperate to dilute them. No wonder I never bothered to join Wiki. Pure Truthiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.41.2 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Haha, there aren't any facts. It was one guys 15 minutes and then proved false. And for the love of God, please sign your posts. Grsz11 05:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Proven false LMAO. The only thing proven is you don't understand fact from fiction and if you are an example a good Wiki Contributor, I no longer trust a damn thing off this web site.74.233.41.2 (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 98.77.194.104 comments Epeefleche, you have made numerous changes to fact that has distorted the accuracy of this section. Please revert back or explain your edits.98.77.194.104 (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Please give examples. I don't believe that to be the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1 "American" narrows him down to 2 continents 2 Haskell did not say "he saw Abdulmutallab...approach the boarding agent" 3 you removed testimony like the two people went down the hall, Haskell did not see them board not board 4 Ron Smith is the top dog at Customs in Detroit, he is not just "a spokesman" 5 you removed that authorities were taking claims seriously 6 you removed all the dates Please revert back.98.77.194.104 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Note that this is the same individual as the IP above, who has engaged in edit warring at this section already. They aren't factual inaccuracies, just appropriate weight for Haskell's comments. 1. American is widely accepted as United States, but a link solves this problem easily. 2. He saw a man he claimed resembled the attacker, easy fix. 3. Irrelevant. 4. So change it to "official" but really no big deal. 5. Doesn't matter, as the text states they reviewed the situation. Obviously they took it serious enough to look into it. 6. Pointless when they occur one day to the next, had they been March 1 to April 1, a little different issue, but December 30 to December 31...who cares. Grsz11 04:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC) American is commonly understood to mean a citizen of the United States (not of Canada, etc.). It's accurate. He says he "saw two men...One was what I would describe as a poor-looking black teenager around 16 or 17...approach what [he] would call the ticket agent, the final person that checks your boarding pass before you get on the plane." He later says the black person was Abdulmutallab. There's no need to quote him, and the description as written is accurate. That the two people went down a hall is irrelevant. Same with him next seeing the suspect at the incident. The article need not reflect every fact, only relevant ones, and is already at the upper limit for an article in terms of length. The pertinent part about the spokesman is that he is spokesman in Detroit (though the latter two words should be reflected; one can go to the article for his title/name; we don't know how many "chief's" there are in Detroit). The fact that they investigated reflects they took claims seriously; the language adds no content. The dates are irrelevant. One additional comment -- this should be moved out of the facts, and down to the investigation section. Undue weight at the top, for a claim that has been found groundless.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Hey Epeefleche, I hope you'll accept my version as an acceptable compromise. I expressed similar concerns of UNDUE last night, and now feel that my version can be acceptable to both groups. If you have issues with it, I encourage discussion here, rather than just reverting it. I agree it's probably best placed elsewhere in the article. Grsz11 04:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC) With minor changes, for reasons indicated. For example, the article calls the fellow a spokesman, so that seems the best course. I've placed it at the bottom now -- can't see putting this debunked claim before discussion of the bomber, al qaeda, al-awlaki, obama, etc. It is still too long, but this is a start.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Can one of you please explain the desperation to make sure eyewitness testimony is not documented accurately on this subject? What is scaring you people so much? This guy is one of the victims. He is the reason why we are even writing about this. What if it was you? Would you like people twisting your testimony to fix their agenda? Maybe you can convince me to twist it a well. I mean it would be much better if he was dead, right? Then he wouldn't be able to say anything. I just really don't get it. Help me out here.98.77.194.104 (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, Wikipedia isn't here to make whats-his-face famous. Grsz11 04:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Who, Abdulmutallab? Seriously, give a real answer. The guy is not out to be famous. It the the authorities would release the video, we could make him as famous as the Balloon-Boy guy. Come on. I really am interested in knowing why this is something to be frightened of.98.77.194.104 (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Its incumbent on us to determine the amount of weight to give Haskell, and his debunked statement as to what he overheard (while he was playing a card game with his wife--which in her case required her full attention). G and I think, and I expect most established editors would agree, that even now its treatment is greater than it need be. Nobody is frightened of this -- there's simply not much to suggest it is noteworthy.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC) By "us", you mean you and Grsz11, and by debunked, you mean that it doesn't fit your version even though authorities refuse to provide you proof. Its obvious everything you did was out of fear of people having this knowledge. You don't want people to know what a victim witnessed because it doesn't jive with what you want to believe. No big deal to me. I just don't understand people like you who try to decide what other people are supposed to know.98.77.194.104 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC) By statements such as these, it's evident you are here only to advance some agenda. You've only edited the Haskell section, and have accused other editors of attempting to hide some fact. Haskell's statements are insignificant. He would tell anybody who listened, and they've all been proven false. Are you Kurt Haskell himself? Most likely not. Are you here solely to make sure the article includes as much about him as possible, I tend to see it that way. If you are able to contribute without a POV, then you are more than welcome to. However, if this isn't the case, perhaps there are other articles you would like to edit. Now, I'm aware that your response to this will likely be to accuse me of editing with an agenda. Save it, we've all heard it, and it certainly won't advance your position any. Grsz11 05:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Please do explain that "agenda" you are talking about Grsz11. It is clearly YOU with the agenda. I want to thank you two for opening my eyes to how Wiki really works. Not joking, I really do mean that. I now fully understand "truthiness", and it implications. Its one of those, "you wouldn't eat the sausage if you knew how it was made", moments for me.05:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)98.77.194.104 (talk) You didn't discuss ANY of your edits. You and one other person Epeefleche forced all the edits though and you don't want anyone to know about it98.77.194.104 (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal Jurisdiction

Could someone with legal knowledge comment on the grounds for a court case in the USA when the event took place in Canadian airspace. Is it the nationality of the airplane registration? The nation where the plane lands? Is a passenger prosecuted according to the laws of the state where he disembarks? Some other criteria? Could Canada also prosecute him?

EdRicardo (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01405.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs) 12:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote re Flight 253

I'd like to reopen the discussion on moving Flight 253 to Flight 253 (disambiguation), and redirecting Flight 253 here, as a primary topic. The usual hatnote wording is

"Flight 253" redirects here. For other uses, see Flight 253 (disambiguation).

Comments? Gotyear (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be total recentism imo. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a recentism argument, but whether or not this is the most common reference to a "Flight 253", which I believe it is. Grsz¹¹ 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see how you prove those concepts are not one and the same thing in this case. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is WP:RECENT relevant to the primary topic of a redirect though? WP:PT states "Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term." I'd argue it is a lot more well-known than the two incidents in 1968. The disambiguation will still exist; it will just assume that a majority of readers who type in Flight 253 are searching for this article. If they're not or interested in the other two, the hatnote's at the top. Gotyear (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I have no idea how you would go about arguing it is the most well known, without relying on a recentist argument - i.e. it's in the news, or Ghits. I am very dubious anybody even types in Flight 253 anyway, it is an artificial construct forced on the article by the aviation wikiproject, it does nothing for readers as far as I am concerned, but they are not interested in the slightest in such logic as how to wikipedia chooses its article names. Even if people are remembering it right now, I doubt they will in a year or a decade. Consider how many flight numbers you know right now just by memory (assuming you aren't an aviation nut) - most people don't even get past Flight 103, or maybe 93. The incident itself, in terms of what actually happened, isn't even arguably more historically 'notable' than either of the other two. It is pretty funny to even realise that, in ten years time, the name Northwest Airlines in itself won't even mean anything to the average person, not to mention that that name won't appear on any historical newsreel of the incident either! MickMacNee (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

CNN: Authorities were watching different Nigerian

Authorities were watching different Nigerian on Christmas Day flight.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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: not moved —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Northwest Airlines Flight 253 → 2009 underwear bomb plot — The current name, "Northwest Airlines Flight 253", is of virtually no use in locating this article. Only a close follower of the case would find this article that way. 2001 shoe bomb plot shows how another article was renamed previously in an identical manner. The current name is also really not fair to Northwest Airlines, since it could have happened to any airline. Facts707 (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• comment You are probably wasting your time, see previous attempt at trying to move, using pretty much the same logic. Naming it so that readers can find it doesn't carry much currency here it seems, versus slapping a uniform naming convention on it which is only of use to editors. I prefer 'Christmas Day' to 'underwear', but as said, this is probably a waste of time. MickMacNee (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose certainly not the WP:COMMONNAME. The best alternative name was 2009 Christmas Day bomb plot but that failed, so I believe its just best to leave the article where it is.--Labattblueboy (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "Christmas Day bombing attempt" would be a possible name, but let's see how relevant sources refer to the event after some time. With the numerous redirects, finding the article should not be difficult, and we should stick with the most neutral name until there is a convergence of the description of the event in a majority of reliable sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I could be off base, but isn't the OP forgetting the fact that there are redirects, so the official name of this article really doesn't pose a problem for people who don't know the actual Northwest flight number?--67.159.85.162 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: The current title is fine, and in accordance with hundreds of other aircraft accident/incident articles. There is no good reason why the suggested title cannot be converted into a redirect too. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently not, as these move requests keep occuring. I am not sure how or why people think having a bazillion redirects compensates for such a poor system designed for editors not readers. Are they all just assuming the only way people find articles is by a direct entry into the search box? It is not, not in the least. MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Entering 2009 underwear bomb plot in the search box finds the article easily enough without the redirect. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Which has nothing at all to do with my point. MickMacNee (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I want to say support, but I don't think this particular nomination is the best choice. Something using "Christmas Day bombing attempt" would probably be best. In the meantime though, feel free to create redirect(s), since that's what their for.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• More info: There are lots of airplane incidents, but only one (that we know of) used an underwear bomb and only one (that we know of) used a shoe bomb. That's why the other incident 2001 shoe bomb plot was renamed from American Airlines Flight 63. That's why I suggest 2009 underwear bomb incident (please note changed from "plot" to "incident" because the attack had begun and there were injuries). Besides, two other American Airline flights were used in the Sep. 11 atttacks, and two other American Airline flight 63's had incidents: American Airlines Flight 63 (Flagship Missouri), a DC-3 that crashed outside of Centerville, Tennessee on October 15, 1943, killing all on board. American Airlines Flight 63 (Flagship Ohio), a DC-3 that crashed outside of Trammel, Kentucky on July 28, 1943, killing 20 out of 22 on board. I realize this is Northwest Airlines flight 253. Facts707 (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• More info: Furthermore, Northwest Airlines flight 253 was not a single flight, but is a regularly scheduled service. Thus to say "Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was a passenger flight..." is at best misleading right off the lead sentence.

>>Track status of NW 253 from Amsterdam (AMS) to Detroit (DTW)
      26 Jan 2010 - On schedule
      Departed: 8:46 AM, Estimated arrival: 11:27 AM
      www.flightstats.com
<<

Facts707 (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with all of that, personally. It wouldn't bother me in the least to have the article moved to "2009 underwear bomb incident", all I was really getting at was that I think "2009 Christmas Day bombing attempt" has a more... professional sound to it, I guess.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 09:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  Might even sound excessively professional, given the level of professionalism of the perpertrator...  Cs32en Talk to me  14:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  heh... incidentally, considering the fact offered by Facts707 (talk · contribs) above, if/when this is moved the admin doing the move ought to not leave a redirect behind so that someone could create an article at Northwest Airlines Flight 253 dealing with the actual scheduled flight (and pointing to this article). Somehow, I don't think that Northwest would appreciate us claiming that their scheduled Amsterdam → Detroit flight is "the underwear bomber route" (although, a little of that is probably inevitable... does anyone know if they've changed the flight number?)
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 14:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  It's daft, but its an annoying by-product of this flawed nc system. Wikipedia writes about incidents, not flight numbers, but titling the article as a flight number is and always will confuse some people new to the pedia. MickMacNee (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Anyone who watched the news could reasonably have known that on which flight this accident happened, what's "virtually no use"? If this article is to be moved then the current title would be redirected to the new one anyway, what's "not fair"? It's the standard nomenclature for aviation incidents. Could use a redirect from 2009 underwear bomb plot or 2009 Christmas Day bomb plot, but no real need of moving. Blodance the Seeker 04:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  That is an argument that in a years time simply becomes completely null and void. MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• But I don't see the point of moving this to 2009 underwear bomb plot, instead of redirect it from there. I did not participate in the shoe bomb plot discussion or I would have !voted oppose too. It is standard to name aviation incidents after their flight number(unless they do not have one such as military planes, or multiple planes were involved as in Tenerife airport disaster), why should it be renamed? If it is for people who don't know the flight number, a redirect will serve exactly the same purpose. Blodance the Seeker 02:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Review the previous discussions for all the extremely good points made time and again why a move would be beneficial and leave the flight number as the redirect, but first, you have to really and truly understand all the different ways a title is used by readers, and note I said readers, because I have as yet never seen a single person give a good argument as to how a 'standard' naming convention helps them, as opposed to editors who know it off by heart and are so used to it, they simply never even bother to question it. Titles are not simply about redirection, they have numerous roles where choosing a name that registers for all time is better than an artificial construct or something they know this week. Take a look even at the talk archives of Tenerife disaster, you seem to acknowledge that's a no-brainer, yet I was involved there too, and someone actually tried to impose this daftness of a convention to give it a super long double flight number name even on that article, because 'its standard'. It had all the same arguments too that it didn't really matter, because the redirects will sort it all out. MickMacNee (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not really going to happen based on the news over the past week. The reports I have seen have almost exclusively used Northwest 253 to describe the flight. So it would appear that the current name is, at present, the most commonly used based on my small sample. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

ABCNews reports pre-boarding account true

• As part of the additional scrutiny, federal agents are conducting extensive background checks on every passenger who flew to Detroit on the Northwest flight in case one of them might have been sent as a "spotter" on the mission. Federal agents also tell ABCNews.com they are attempting to identify a man who passengers said helped Abdulmutallab change planes for Detroit when he landed in Amsterdam from Lagos, Nigeria. Authorities had initially discounted the passenger accounts, but the agents say there is a growing belief the man have played a role to make sure Abdulmutallab "did not get cold feet."

Last page of article, Female Suicide Bombers May Be Heading Here From Yemen.98.77.196.141 (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The section about the pre-boarding account of the Haskells near the end of the article should be merged with the portion I added now, which is integrated into the chronology followed by the article.--NYCJosh (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

When was it merged?

an Airbus A330-323E operated by Northwest Airlines, which had merged with Delta Air Lines the year before. Had the attempt succeeded, it would have surpassed American Airlines Flight 191 as the deadliest aviation occurrence on U.S. soil and tied Iran Air Flight 655 as the eighth-deadliest of all time. The incident was also the second in 2009 involving an Airbus A330, after the crash of Air France Flight 447 on June 1. This was also the final accident/incident involving Northwest Airlines as it closed down a month later when it merged with Delta Air Lines.

this suggests that the airline merged a year prior, but then the wording at the end said it merged again, not that the merge was finalized. Can someone fix this? My username: mrdeleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdeleted (talk • contribs) 21:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"screaming about Afghanistan" witness referring to separate incident on Christmas Day (CNN)

There were 2 incidents on Christmas Day both on Northwest/Delta flights from Amsterdam to Detroit. Only WXYZ in Detroit reported this which was covered on CNN. However, lots of online articles incorrectly attributed the "screaming about Afghanistan" to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Eye witness describing man "screaming about Afghanistan"- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4I-73JJleo

CNN report from 12/25/2009- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK3iZ08UNjw

Transcript:

MICHAEL ROSENFIELD: We have also learned about another incident, also on board a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit this afternoon. Another passenger was arrested on that flight as well. Federal officials and local law enforcement here don’t think the two incidents were connected, but it also did happen on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. A passenger was yelling pro-Afghanistan statements, anti-American statements as well. He was throwing food on passengers in the back part of the plane. He was taken into custody, but law enforcement officials here on the ground tell us they think that it was just a drunk passenger. They do not think these two incidents were connected. Live in Detroit, I’m Michael Rosenfield. Back to you.

ALI VELSHI (CNN ANCHOR): Mike, was that a — was that a Northwest flight as well coming in from Amsterdam, or was that a different flight?

ROSENFIELD: Yeah, that was also a Northwest Delta flight also coming in from Amsterdam to Detroit. Another incident on that case. But again, law enforcement officials think that they were not connected. But, uh, pretty coincidental that both happened on the same route on the same day.

Caption

Am I the only one who finds the caption of the lead pic ("... surrounded by emergency vehicles just after it landed in Detroit.") odd, given that the pic only shows two vehicles?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It was cut off at the small resolution :( Feel free to reword it, as I am lacking a better caption.  fetchcomms☛ 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

General flight route vs. Specific flight that crashed

I think the title of this article should be changed. This article is titled simply "Northwest Airlines Flight 253". As such its topic could be:

• 1) Information regarding the general regularly scheduled flight route between Amsterdam and Detroit that Northwest Airlines used to run or
• 2) The specific flight following that route which crashed.

However this article, as written currently, is only about about the specific flight. Someone could be searching for information about the general flight route and the title of this article doesn't make it clear it's not about that.

I think there are two possible solutions:

• 1) We could change the title of this article to "Northwest Airlines Flight 253 Plane Crash".

• 2) We could have this article be about the both the generally scheduled flight route and the flight that crashed since they are obviously intimately related. If we do that, however, I think the article should at least start out with a paragraph about the flight route in general before getting into the specific flight that crashed.

Lawyer2b (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Accidents for an explanation on that point. This article shouldn't be named after a flight number at all, and especially not this article which wasn't even using a Northwest liveried plane, but try convincing various people that the aviation incident style guide is utterly useless to the reader, and is actually totally at odds with how titles are chosen for every other topic on the pedia. But that's another story. MickMacNee (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the archive, two requested moves have already failed. The plane was Delta liveried but was still officially a Northwest flight. Feel free to add whatever info about the original route to this article--the route no longer flies for NWA 253 though, I believe. If you look on other similar accident/terrorist attack articles, they are similar to this one.  fetchcomms☛ 03:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The route status is irrelevant, Wikipedia does not write articles about flight numbers or routes. It is one of the many hopeless aspects of this pointless naming convention, that people continually think the intro has to be about a route, because that is how any normal reader reads it. That is probably why some articles are probably wrong, as they get mistakenly 'corrected' by casual editors. And I know all about the Delta issue, I've mentioned it enough times in those failed move requests, but again, in no small part due to this crazy naming convention, whenever it is clarified in the article, somehow it finds its way out again. MickMacNee (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Vcites broken

Somebody went through with apparently a script and converted almost every "cite" to "vcite" without changing cite's firstN= lastN= syntax to vcite's authorN= syntax. So the vcites, especially with multiple authors, lack any visible author attribution. Arg! Fixing this, I think, is an important precursor to good article status. --Lexein (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dangit, thought I caught all of them through a regex (I didn't use a script because I'm too fail to write them :x). I'll get this done right away! —fetch·comms 00:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, I hope. I must've forgotten to run through those numbered params through my regex. It was earlier suggested that I use vcite templates in order to reduce the page size (see FAC page). —fetch·comms 01:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks - much better. It would be a boon if you published that regex (& the name of the tool used) somewhere. Good regexes are a pain to write, and are so often lost in the mists of time. Vcite's claimed value is in reducing cpu burden on WP servers vs cite - the effect on page size is minimal IMHO. Vcite's use of square brackets is improper, but it's fine otherwise. --Lexein (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall the code any more... I stole it from some site earlier :( —fetch·comms 20:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Al Qaida??

"The flight was the target of a failed al-Qaeda bombing attempt ". How do you "know" or document the claim that it _was_ an "al-Qaeda" attempt? Nunamiut

Because we have used reliable sources to back that claim up later in the article. Citing material in the lede that is already sourced later on is not required, as the lede is a summary. —fetch·comms 14:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091228181141/http://www.trouw.nl:80/nieuws/nederland/article2949021.ece/_Nederlander_overmeesterde_terrorist_.html to http://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/nederland/article2949021.ece/_Nederlander_overmeesterde_terrorist_.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120111232801/http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/how_al_qaeda_airline_fiend_used_wfuNdDKEWp5ljA7t6cfxcK to http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/how_al_qaeda_airline_fiend_used_wfuNdDKEWp5ljA7t6cfxcK
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100227024929/http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/travel/ct-met-airport-body-scanner-20100223,0,3580465.story? to http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-met-airport-body-scanner-20100223,0,3580465.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Northwest Airlines Flight 253. 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.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Abdulmutallab_Indictment.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.com/Blotter/female-suicide-bombers-heading-yemen/story?id=9636341
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-met-airport-body-scanner-20100223%2C0%2C3580465.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=834
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314162954/http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HolderLetterMcConnell_Abdulmutallab2.pdf to http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HolderLetterMcConnell_Abdulmutallab2.pdf

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) 09:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)