Jump to content

Talk:1960 New York mid-air collision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I've been told (don't remember by whom) that the pilot of the United Airlines flight was trying to crash-land in Prospect Park, but was unsuccessful. On the face of it, this makes sense: the park is a few blocks farther along the path the plane would be taking from Staten Island.  — Anna Kucsma 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I Googled the air crash and found one source (which, I admit, I had never heard of) which says the plane that crashed in Park Slope was indeed trying to make an emergencey landing, but at LaGuardia Airport, not Prospect Park. But Park Slope Reader (a little mare than halfway down, in the "Pillar of Fire" section) states that both potential landing-attempt sites were speculated about as such by witnesses. Neither About.com nor Infoplease said anything either way.  — Anna Kucsma 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both references I have state that the aircraft was far, far too badly damaged for the pilots to possibly have any control of the aircraft. I think laypersons often think that aircraft in distress are "trying to make an emergency landing" when quite often they're just out of control - I remember with the Greek aircraft disaster (Helios Airlines? I'm not sure off the top of my head) a few years ago some bystanders said, "He's trying to get to a safe place to ditch" but when the report came out it was clear the aircraft had been uncontrollable and the pilots were likely unconscious. Maybe it's just hope that pilots are trying to avoid crashing into ground targets. --Charlene.fic 18:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

46 years ago today. -- In memoriam

Perhaps some old fashioned research is needed. I have the CAB accident report and first read it when it was released in 1962.

The collision damage to the Constellation was catastrophic. The damage to the DC-8 included the loss of the No. 4 engine, the outboard right wing, and part of the leading edge of the left wing. Control, if any, was marginal. He was cleared to Idelwyld, never turned final. He was headed towards La Garbage, if that was his plan - and I can't imagine anyone passing up Idelwyld for La Garbage, he didn't make it. Odd are he just kept going until he hit.Mark Lincoln 14:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many accidents, the MSM tries to sensationalize and often include incredibly stupid and absurd statements from ignorant, "eye witnesses," which help them to sell their sleezy newspapers, but which only confuse actual investigation issues. Wiki Editors should never reference such garbage statements, no matter which newspaper or magazine chooses to publish such garbage. We are supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not just another irresponsible Tabloid publication. Thus, I have removed the most egregious statements of that kind, that were in the article. EditorASC (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New York Harbor vs. Lower New York Bay

[edit]

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

There is no mention in the accident report of any wreckage falling in the water.Mark Lincoln 19:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50th anniversary memorial event

[edit]

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

"...a point called 'Preston'..."?

[edit]

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

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

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

The title

[edit]

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

Cause of crash

[edit]

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

Glad to help. I updated information in the accident section and also quoted most of the "Probable Cause" statement from the Official Final Report. EditorASC (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Stephen Baltz" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

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

Mentioning of name of initial survivor in the article

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Baltz (2nd nomination), I restored the name of the boy who initially survived the crash. Everyone who voted says he should be mentioned in this article. I am not sure why User:WilliamJE believes otherwise, being that articles for other plane crashes with only one survivor mention the sole survivor's names. Some even have their own articles. I do not see what is the difference here. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here are just some of the many discussions-

Note two of those discussions concerned sole survivors.

Plus see ANI discussions here[1] and here[2]. There is one exception- the cockpit crew of the aircraft involved....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that my understanding of the subject matter in the article is significantly impaired when a sole survivor is listed as "an 11-year-old boy" vs. "Stephen Baltz, an 11-year-old boy". If anything, including names of insignificant people in the article is more distracting to the reader than the value added. I agree with the consensus described in the linked discussions above. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removing of names is problematic when the subject is a redirect. Per WP:R#ASTONISH, the target should try to make sure to have a mention of the redirect title, to avoid the element of surprise. Local consensus cannot override guideline. Jay (Talk) 07:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just redirected the article to List of sole survivors of aviation accidents and incidents where he is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, not mentioned there as well. Jay (Talk) 15:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and restored. The AfD is very clear on this issue. The "consensus" WilliamJE claims involves other incidents. -- Tavix (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD said merge. It didn't say name. THis is so stupid. @King of Hearts:. The info is merged....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, there really can't be a "merge" without the subject of the merge being mentioned. And the RfD concerned the fact that a redirect existed without any content to support it. Since the redirect exists, there needs to be a mention. -- Tavix (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamJE's reverts

[edit]

WilliamJE has now reverted five different editors who have wanted Stephen Baltz named in the article. I put together a timeline in case this gets escalated:

  1. [3] 108.41.60.144 (talk · contribs) adds his name on 13:12, 21 May 2021; reverted 16:37, 12 June 2021.
  2. [4] Jay (talk · contribs) adds his name (with a reference!) on 11:30, 11 July 2021; reverted 13:16, 11 July 2021
  3. [5] BDD (talk · contribs) adds his name on 13:15, 3 August 2021; reverted 14:12, 3 August 2021.
  4. [6] The Legendary Ranger (talk · contribs) adds his name after the AfD, reverted 14:00, 21 August 2021.
  5. [7] Tavix (talk · contribs) adds his name on 22:33, 22 August 2021; reverted 22:37, 22 August 2021. (And again [8] and [9].)

I've never seen so many editors fighting a single editor's crusade to remove a mention from an article. -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not escalate

[edit]

Come on, now. In case you feel it would help, go take a long look at WP:BRD. We're in the discussion part of it, and it's just pointless and self-destructive to just blindly revert people and threaten them with "in case this gets escalated". While you're at it, take a good look at the AFD you (Tavix) are using to defend the insertion of this non-notable person's name into this article, especially the closing statement. Here is the link. In case you don't want to click through and re-read that, I'll copy that closing statement here, with my own bolding added for emphasis on what I think you should be paying attention to: "The result was merge to 1960 New York mid-air collision. If the merge is attempted and there is a clear consensus at the target to reject mentioning his name, then this page may be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6 as an implementation of the RfD consensus that we shouldn't redirect to a page which doesn't mention the subject. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)". So please don't try to use the AFD as a justification for reinsertion. So far, only WilliamJE and I have voiced an opinion about the consensus, but that consensus exists and I, and many other people, support that consensus. For the record, I, too had content reverted by WilliamJE under this consensus before I was aware of it: [10]. I found it frustrating to have my well-referenced content removed, but the more I read about the past discussions, the more I understood it. There are well-founded reasons why this consensus exists, so please don't go and re-add the content thinking it's just a personal battle between you and one other person. If I see it, I, too, will revert it per this consensus. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for comments: Stephen Baltz

[edit]

Should Stephen Baltz be mentioned by name in this article? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some background, see the section above, and related discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 17#Stephen Baltz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Baltz (2nd nomination).

  • Include by name - in reverting the addition multiple times, WilliamJE referred to a general consensus that individuals who are not notable are not normally mentioned by name in articles on aviation accidents. There is strong evidence that Baltz is notable per the WP:GNG: the tale of Baltz being thrown from the plane and initially surviving is retold by prominent sources decades after the event (2002, 2010, 2018) and a memorial plaque commemorating the crash victims emblazoned "STEPHEN BALTZ MEMORIAL" was erected at the hospital where he later died ([11], [12]). However, Baltz is notable only for this incident, and per WP:BIO1E we normally write about individuals notable only for one event in the article about the event, which is this one, and so he should be mentioned here. Indeed he already is mentioned here, just not by name.
To put it a different way, readers do look for information on Stephen Baltz (110 readers searched his name in the 30 days prior to the RfD nomination above). We do these readers a disservice by not including his name here. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include by name exactly per Ivanvector. Baltz is "WP notable", we just don't have a an article on him per WP:1E. -- Tavix (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include by name The story of Baltz is notable given he was the sole survivor (briefly) of the airplane crash. He also has a brief wikipedia article. I support including his name in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the name. There have been two AfDs for Stephen Baltz - the one in 2007 closed as Keep, and the recent one closed as Merge. Given that, I don't see why the name should not be mentioned here, or in any other article relevant to the subject. Whether this is an aircraft accident page or not, is immaterial. Jay (Talk) 06:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mention Clearly this is a case of WP:1EVENT Baltz died a half day after the accident. 120 plus people died in the crash. Is he any more important than a person who lived a minute, 5 minuetes, or not at all after the accident. Nope. He was a passive participant in the tragedy no more no less and he did nothing prior to the accident to meet GNG. Saving the redirect seems more important to some editors than improving the article. Naming Baltz, or any of the luckless 120 other people does nothing for the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources disagree with your point of view on this, and NPOV demands that we reflect the views of reliable sources and not suppress information because we think it's not important. Baltz and his brief survival after the crash are mentioned specifically in all coverage of the incident that I have seen, from the day of the crash 60+ years ago right up to the Roundabout Theatre retelling in 2018. The only publication I've come across that doesn't mention Baltz by name is Wikipedia. There's another writeup here (also linked in the article) which suggests that people who are the sole survivors of plane crashes are notable in their own right, owing to how rare it is to be the only survivor of a fatal commercial wreck, and Baltz is credited as the first known sole survivor even though he died the next day. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include by name. He's notable enough to be mentioned per sufficient sourcing, so he's not just a name on the list (the case where the usual prohibition against such information comes from - just a list of names but with no further details). SnowFire (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include by name For notability his name should be mentioned. Sea Ane (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include by name As others pointed out the (overwhelming?) majority of sources mention him in relation to this therefore this should be reflected in the article. Cealicuca (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include by name, as he is described in sources like the New York Times 2002 piece: The Day the Boy Fell From the Sky and other sources and also has memorials for him covered in sources: [13], [14].--Astral Leap (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC) strike sock[reply]
  • Comment So Wikipedia is a tabloid not an encyclopedia. Click bait is mistaken for news coverage. Trivia, is given weight out of portion to its importance. An eleven year old is notable just because he died. We all die....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As described by reliable sources, he's notable for being the first person to be the only survivor of a commercial airline wreck. The sources describe him that way despite him dying the next day from injuries sustained in the crash, but it's not up to us to interpret or judge what reliable sources clearly consider to be an important part of the story. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include by name, clearly sourced and notable enough for inclusion. This one looks ready for a close. Retswerb (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960_New_York_mid-air_collision&oldid=1196028687"