Talk:2017 United Express passenger removal/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 2017 United Express passenger removal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

just a few weeks after the leggings incident

Off topic for article Talk page
Sad news it occurred just some time after the leggings incident. Hope our PR people will make United Airlines great again. --Wisdood (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Article title

If this article survives AfD ... United Airlines flight 3411 flies every day. The use of the flight number alone is not sufficient to distinguish this article. Although it is accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Aviation, that guideline only works because after a serious occurrence an airline would withdraw the use of the number, see Flight number#Flight number changes, which in this case is unlikely to happen. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The naming convention will probably need to be changed, most regional incidents have the operating regional carrier in the title and not the partner mainline airline. However can see this issue being a little different since all the publicity is for United, and it's a CS incident rather than an ops incident. --Anti I A (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The article should probably be moved to United Express Flight 3411, but it should not be moved whilst the AfD discussion is running, as doings so creates complications. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

If the article survives AfD, the name should be changed to something like "United Airlines April 10, 2017 Bumping Incident" or something similar. Also, along these lines, the use of the {{Infobox Aircraft crash}} template is completely inappropriate here and should be removed. Darkest Tree Talk 20:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It could be argued that this isn't an aviation incident. Nothing happened to the plane, it just happened on the plane. This is about how a company treated one of their customers. This allows use of "where and what" titling per WP:NCEVENTS#Conventions. In this case the where is "United Airlines Flight 3411" or "United Express Flight 3411" and what is "bumping" (note: lower case). Per the same policy section: "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation . . ." and I do not think this one does. So that gives "United Airlines Flight 3411 bumping incident" unless the press or social media come up with a catchy name for it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lede / incident

A lot of material currently in the lede should really be moved into a section headed "Incident", where the incident itself should be described. The lede should be an overall summary of the article. Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've done it myself. Mjroots (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Good move - well done, thanks DBaK (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it is DUE to add that he was injured and that he bled. This explains why it went viral I think. Could you please restore that?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's in the article under the "Incident" section. Darkest Tree Talk 21:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Due in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

AfD comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I have copied these comments Talk:United Airlines Flight 3411 to the correct location for responses to the deletion proposal which is WP:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 3411. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep this article -- it is likely to have an impact on future of airline booking policies, especially don't delete too soon as I am sure United is sending people to this page to try to get it deleted. j.williams@okeh.net (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep The incident is receiving "significant coverage" by multiple sources and has generated widespread awareness. This meets the general notability standards of wikipedia. Wiki1882 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Keep this article. The incident was a blatent abuse of human rights for the purpose of profit; UAL could have done many things other than what they did, however all likely much more costly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.33.21 (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent article with Neutral POV by The Guardian (passenger forcibly removed)

The Guardian is always first class in its reporting

United Airlines passenger forcibly removed from overbooked flight

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/10/united-airlines-video-passenger-removed-overbooked-flight Peter K Burian (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

In my mind the issue is not whether United was right or wrong, but to report both sides of the story as The Guardian has done. Not to take sides or have any bias. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Navbox

OK, I'm not getting into an edit war, WilliamJE. The template is clearly named {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2017}}. There was an incident on Flight 3411 on 9 April 2017, therefore as long as this article exists,it is appropriate to add it to the navbox and the navbox to this article. Please reinstate both. Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: See my comment about the word "incident" in the section below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hashtags

Hashtags used such as #NewUnitedAirlinesMottos #BoycottUnitedAirlines #Flight3411 #JusticeForAirlinePassengers #Flight3411Justice have not been mentioned in the article.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@I'm on day 4: It is my opinion that the latest Twitter trends are not encyclopedic. We don't need to include each and every Twitter protest on Wikipedia. This is not like #JeSuisCharlie, this is just regular old Twitter "activism". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 05:20, 12 April 201:

@I'm on day 4: 7 (UTC) I agree, Hashtags are not encyclopedic in this case. Alexf505 (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Why delete content that provides a balanced point of view?

I had added this to the lead, and sure enough, it was deleted a few minutes later. Does anyone agree that the lede should contain a mention of the airlines' position?

After a backlash and a drop in the airline's stock price, CEO Oscar Muñoz apologized, saying that "No one should ever be mistreated this way". He told the news media that "It was a system failure" and that "This will never happen again."Rushe, Dominic (April 12, 2017). "United Airlines CEO offers softer apology after stock nosedives". The Guardian. London. Retrieved April 12, 2017."United CEO Oscar Munoz felt 'shame' to see passenger dragged off flight". ABC News. Disney–ABC Television Group. April 12, 2017. Retrieved April 12, 2017. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, another editor did expand the lead and did include the essential part of the content above. Thank you. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

United Airlines Promised Federal Regulators That All Ticketed Passengers Are Guaranteed Seats

Sirota, David (April 11, 2017), "United Airlines Promised Federal Regulators That All Ticketed Passengers Are Guaranteed Seats", International Business Times

United Airlines Promised Federal Regulators That All Ticketed Passengers Are Guaranteed Seats

Federal filings

Was a promise to the federal government violated ?

Sagecandor (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

According to aviation analyst Henry Harteveldt, the airline's Contract of carriage favors the company, not the passenger. Involuntary denial of boarding is not uncommon"United bumps more passengers than any other large American airline". The Economist. April 11, 2017. Retrieved April 12, 2017. but removal after boarding because the seat is needed by others is "exceedingly rare". Nonetheless, an airline has a right to do so based on the contract, in his view. "Remember, it is their aircraft and their seat — you're just renting it to get from point A to point B," Harteveldt told Business InsiderZhang, Benjamin (April 10, 2017). "How airlines like United choose who to kick off a flight". Business Insider. Business Insider Inc. Retrieved April 12, 2017. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Voluntary acceptance of being bumped is quite common. Over half a million passengers in the US agreed to be bumped in return for compensation in 2016 but only 8.6% of all denials of boarding that year were involuntary. "United bumps more passengers than any other large American airline". The Economist. The Economist. April 11, 2017. Retrieved April 12, 2017. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

“Including advance-seat-assignment charges among the ‘basic ancillary service’ fees that must be disclosed as part of initial fare displays makes no sense,” the airline wrote to the Department of Transportation. “Every ticket, of course, guarantees a passenger a seat on the plane, with no additional mandatory seat-assignment charges."
Later in the filing, United Airlines expanded on its promise to regulators that it guarantees every ticketed passenger a seat.
“Importantly, every passenger who buys a ticket on a United flight or a flight on any of United’s partners or competitors in the United States will be assigned a seat at no additional charge (though in some cases this will still happen at the gate),” the airline wrote.

International Business Times

It appears this was violated. Sagecandor (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

United Express Flight 3411 was actually Republic Airlines

United Express is the brand name for the regional branch of United Airlines, under which nine individually owned regional airlines operate short and medium haul feeder flights.

Flight 3411 was operated by Republic Airlines. http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2017/04/11/heres-what-happened-united-flight-3411/100333378/

Not sure how relevant that is, since the name United is on the aircraft. Also, it was probably United staff that was involved in the incident with Dao. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If you read the article we already mentioned that it was a Republic flight for United Express and the staff involved were aviation security officers who work for the airport authority not Republic or United. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone seriously suggesting this was not a "United Airlines" incident? The CEO of United is not trying to duck this. It's like a construction project with a primary contractor and subcontractors. If Trump fixes up some real estate, and his contractor hires a labor company to haul the trash - and one of the trashmen is an immigrant from Mexico - doesn't everyone (including Trump himself) agree that Trump hired a Mexican immigrant? (And he can either be blamed for hiring an illegal immigrant or praised for promoting Mexican labor ;-)

I just raised the point, but wish I had not. I am NOT suggesting that United is innocent! MilborneOne is correct; the article does mention Republic; I still don't know who the Manager that came on board before the aviation security officers was: United or Republic staff?

This article says United. United management came on board the flight and used a computer to randomly .... http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/video-surfaces-of-man-being-dragged-from-overbooked-united-flight.html

Peter K Burian (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Apology: when and how much?

The social media outrage over the incident is not just over involuntary deboarding (IDB) in general but over (1) the fact that the man was injured in the process and then dragged down the aisle and (2) the apparently heartless response of the airline CEO, which despite being called an "apology" by TV networks did not include (a) an admission of wrongdoing or (b) an expression of remorse for the harm they caused the violently removed passenger.

I'm checking now to see when (or whether?) the airline will change its "get off if we say so" policy or simply continue to do business as usual.

[On the other hand, if the doctor was a little crazy to defy a lawful order, I wonder whether the airline will say it's a shame he got roughed up, but let that be a lesson to you all. Bet he won't dare!] --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

According to aviation analyst Henry Harteveldt, the airline's Contract of carriage favors the company, not the passenger. Involuntary denial of boarding is not uncommon"United bumps more passengers than any other large American airline". The Economist. April 11, 2017. Retrieved April 12, 2017. but removal after boarding because the seat is needed by others is "exceedingly rare". Nonetheless, an airline has a right to do so based on the contract, in his view. "Remember, it is their aircraft and their seat — you're just renting it to get from point A to point B," Harteveldt told Business InsiderZhang, Benjamin (April 10, 2017). "How airlines like United choose who to kick off a flight". Business Insider. Business Insider Inc. Retrieved April 12, 2017. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Peter, I know all that. What I'm talking about is the "apology" (as the media called it) - which to outraged YouTube posters seemed more like justification. Did you read Charlie Hobart's statement about how the airline was forced into an involuntary deboarding situation? What forced them? Their self-serving policies? Republic's decision to boot off 4 passengers, who were already sitting down? The decision not to offer more money for a VDB (voluntary deboarding)? Inability to find another flight for the 4 crew members? Don't they have a Cessna or a Gulfstream sitting around just for times like this?

Man, if it was my airline, I'd never call the cops to enforce an IDB on a seated passenger. Not just for the publicity and stock price, but because it's indecent!

On the other hand, the doctor is no Rosa Parks. He was a fool to risk bodily injury by physically resisting three beefy cops. And then to run back on the plane saying, "Just kill me" is insane. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I am not likely to fly United ever again. But I put my personal emotions aside when editing a Wikipedia article.

Munoz handled it badly, until the video went viral and the stock started plummeting. Then he did the right thing. I suppose most big corporations would have tried to weasel out of the responsibility at first. The key is to report all aspects, in chronological order with a neutral point of view. Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Article name should be changed

it's not about the flight. it's about the incident. --79.180.108.246 (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What name do you propose? Most commentators and articles are referring to it by carrier and flight number - i.e. "United Flight 3411". inks ^talk 11:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Add "Incident" to the title: "United Express Flight 3411 Incident" 173.73.211.7 (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Come to think of it, is there an industry standard phrase airlines use for a situation like this that isn't some puffball misrepresentation? 173.73.211.7 (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I've no objection, although it might be wise to wait until the AfD process has completed, and I'd also like for some more experienced Wikipedians to weigh in on this. inks ^talk 12:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree, title should be changed. I floated an option in the text of a revision of the lede: "United Airlines passenger incident". An alternative to that could be "United Express..." The year "2017" might be included as the first word in a new title. I do not think the flight number need be in the title; that would be too similar to the standard way of titling articles describing an airplane operational "incident"--the less-serious version of an "accident". Many headlines in the sources include the word "incident," but I haven't yet seen any real trend toward a pithy "common name". It seems to me the word "passenger" needs to be in the title. DonFB (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

AGREE with this suggestion: Add "Incident" to the title: "United Express Flight 3411 Incident" Peter K Burian (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The word should be in lower case - United Express Flight 3411 incident - if that is to be the new title of the article. Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm hoping this article gets moved or merged. Would anyone like to work with me create an article on Involuntary deboarding? Or at least make a section in Overselling about how passengers are offered cash money or travel vouchers for voluntary deboarding, but can legally (?) be kept from boarding or kicked out of seats at the airline's sole discretion? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

My understanding was that once you've been put in a seat on the airplane, you cannot be bumped like this. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the current version of the article Hyperbolick? The DOT has not said that an airline cannot remove a passenger.

The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) said it was reviewing the incident. "While it is legal for airlines to [involuntarily] bump passengers from an oversold flight when there are not enough volunteers, it is the airline's responsibility to determine its own fair boarding priorities," the agency said in a statement.[51]

On April 12, the USDOT stated that it was "reviewing the involuntary denied boarding of passenger(s) from United Express flight 3411 to determine whether the airline "complied with the oversales rule."[52][53]

AND Taking another view, a BBC news reporter wrote that United was "technically" within its rights to forcibly remove the man.[20] According to aviation analyst Henry Harteveldt, while it is "exceedingly rare" for a passenger to be removed from a flight after boarding, the airlines have a right to do so based on their Contract of carriage. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-airline-choose-who-kick-off-flight-united-american-delta-2017-4 |title=How airlines like United choose who to kick off a flight |Remember, it is their aircraft and their seat — you're just renting it to get from point A to point B}}

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Late Arrival of Republic Airlines Flight Crew

Does anyone know why the flight crew that was needed in Louisville on Monday morning arrived just before the scheduled departure of Flight 3411? Had they planned to take an earlier flight to Louisville? These questions are relevant to the overriding question of whether United had a legal right to involuntarily de-board any passenger. Rodneysmall (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Right and wrong

I don't think any of the expressed social media outrage was about a perceived violation of law or even of the forcibly removed passenger's legal rights per se - rather, it all seemed to be about the unfairness of the practice of involuntary deboarding of a seated passenger, in general as well as in this specific case. Even the CEO called it "horrific". --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

From reading the article, it sounds like the outrage was about the morality of the treatment of Dao, not about the fact that people were selected to leave the plane (the latter of which was a common occurrence). epicgenius (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Then the article is well-written, because that is the main issue. People are waiting and wondering whether the airline will change its policy in any way. While that is not the purpose of writing a Wikipedia article, that's how the chips may fall. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with epicgenius : From reading the article, it sounds like the outrage was about the morality of the treatment of Dao, not about the fact that people were selected to leave the plane (the latter of which was a common occurrence).

But it should also have a benefit: airlines will be less likely to try to remove passengers who are already on the airplane. Some passengers will jump at the chance to do so for $800, and that's fine. (My wife and I did that a few years ago, and it was great; we actually got a check for $1600, not vouchers.) But if they refuse, then the airline will not persist. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Having never experienced any of this myself (I usually ride with jetBlue, which has a much lower ejection rate), I think it sounds like one of the silver linings of this backlash, in that airlines would fix their ejection policies. Or maybe not... epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Add to list of accidents and incidents

Can you please add this to the "Aviation Accidents and incidents page? It makes it easier to find. Carlitos Carrisoza (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Carlitos Carrisoza: Some earlier comments on talk are from Wikipedians who frequent aviation related articles, and object to the use of the word 'incident' on the grounds that it has a specific meaning in the airline industry. The argument is: this wasn't something that happened to the aircraft, it simply happened on the aircraft. See also this diff. It's probably something that could be discussed further on Talk:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents if you were interested. inks ^talk 03:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

The {{Infobox Aircraft crash}} is used, but it's not a crash. May {{Infobox event}} be used instead? --George Ho (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft accident, Aircraft crash, Aircraft incident, Aircraft occurrence, Airliner accident, Airliner crash, Airliner incident, Airshow accident, Mid-air accident, aircraft hijack and airliner accident all use the same template, so it's not exclusive to crashes. I've renamed the infobox to use a more 'correct' template name (but the same template layout etc will remain). inks ^talk 00:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh... I didn't know that it redirects to "occurrence". --George Ho (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Inkypaws: Please be aware that the International Civil Aviation Organization (a United Nations body) gives a definition of "accident" and "incident" in the context of civil aviation (see Aviation accidents and incidents). An "incident" is "An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation". This event is therefore not an "incident". I suppose this article might use the word "incident" as a WP:COMMONTERM but I think the inclusion of the word in an infobox is unwise if that infobox is to be applied to things that aren't (ICAO-defined) "accidents" or "incidents". Similarly, this event should not be included in a template specifically titled "Aviation accidents and incidents". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Shhhnotsoloud. I think it's inappropriate to use the infobox, and also I think it should be removed from the Aviation accidents and incidents 2017 navbox. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 05:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Whilst it may not be ideal, it is the best infobox we have AFAIK. As for the navbox (see above), I've commented it out, which is probably the best way to prevent editors re-adding it. I accept consensus is against its use and thank those who have commented here and elsewhere for their input. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

May the "Fatalities" and "Survivors" parameters be removed? Having those parameters look silly at best. BTW, the article title now includes "incident". --George Ho (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Wykx (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Whilst the survivors bit does look a bit silly, losing the injured removes important and relevant information from the infobox, which is why I've reinstated it. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Your comment reminds me of Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 386, of which the case may fall outside of the definition of incidents. (It is a case of mass food poisoning from aircraft meals, eventually killed a person). It technically does not involve the operation of the aircraft. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

David Dao

It seems that United posted the details of a different David Dao to the one involved in the incident. Turns out that the passenger involved was not the one convicted of drugs offences. Guys and gals, we need to be mindful of WP:BLP issues over this. No doubt this will be reported in the press, and careful wording of how the article covers this will mean that we comply with BLP. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree entirely, although it may have been the Louisville Courier-Journal and not United that first made the claims. inks ^talk 10:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected. So, we could report the misreporting of the offences, or simply leave it out for now - I'm leaning towards the latter at the moment. Should this have major repercussions for the newspaper concerned, then it would be appropriate to mention it. Mjroots (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think the misreporting is relevant, both to this incident and to the wider issue of victim blaming. And also agree that there's not enough known just yet to reliably include it. inks ^talk 12:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Did United repeat the misreported information? Has anyone retracted? 173.73.211.7 (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This situation continues to develop: United Airlines CEO offers softer apology after stock nosedives ... "“No one should ever be mistreated this way,” Oscar Munoz wrote in a note to employees Tuesday, one day after video posted by fellow passengers showing police dragging the man off the plane went viral." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/united-airlines-shares-plummet-passenger-removal-controversy Peter K Burian (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

United CEO Oscar Munoz felt 'shame' to see passenger dragged off flight "This will never happen again," Munoz told ABC News' "Good Morning America" in an exclusive interview. ... "The aviation security officer in question is on paid administrative duty pending an investigation," a spokesman for the Chicago Department of Aviation said Tuesday. (Sure, foist the blame on the little guys!) http://abcnews.go.com/US/united-ceo-oscar-munoz-felt-sham-passenger-dragged/story?id=46746594 Peter K Burian (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

United Airlines won't use police to remove overbooked passengers, apologetic CEO says ..."We're not going to put a law enforcement official... to remove a booked, paid, seated passenger," REUTERS at http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/united-airline-ceo-1.4067069 Peter K Burian (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The Transportation Department affirmed on Tuesday that it was reviewing the “involuntary denied boarding” of the United passenger. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-likely-is-it-for-airline-passengers-to-get-bumped/ Peter K Burian (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots and Inkypaws: - Is it still accurate that Dao was misidentified, or was that a false report? We may want to add elements of his biography to this article now that David Dao is deleted. NickCT (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

At this stage I believe that the reports of misidentification are themselves mistaken. However, I'm also unsure how much is appropriate to include here, as there are a lot of BLP considerations (e.g. WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLP1E). There is also the matter that victim blaming is completely inappropriate anyway, and the past history of the victim is not relevant to this incident. If that information is included here do we become complicit in it? Thinking aloud, what might work is a section on how the Courier-journal was condemned by other news outlets and victim support groups for trash-digging, but it would have to be sourced from articles that do not contribute to further victim blaming, and that would be tricky. Having said that, if you have found some sources, feel free to see if you can make it work. inks ^talk 00:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Inkypaws: - Largely agree with your sentiments. I think we should only add 1) really basic and non-contraversial bio information (e.g. marriage status) and 2) biographical information which is likely directly relevant to this incident (e.g. his reprimand for "anger management"). NickCT (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would only be inclined to support confirmation that he is a licensed and practicing physician, and only then to provide context as to why he refused to leave. Details about his personal life I think are not relevant to this article, the long term impact of which is legislative (US law), procedural (United and probably other airlines), and academic (racial discrimination) - which would be much more interesting to write about. Details about his past I would argue are too close to victim blaming, as there is no testimony from other passengers or indication in the videos to indicate that he escalated the situation, the CEO stated that the passenger was not at all at fault, and the actions of the police officers involved have been criticized by their superiors. Just my opinion but hope that was useful. inks ^talk 01:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Inkypaws: - Respect the opinion Inky, though I always cringe a little when people say "not relevant". Relevance is subjective.

I usually assume that notability is relevance (i.e. if sources have noted it, then it is relevant). It seems like a more objective measure for inclusion. NickCT (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't say for certain whether the person with the convictions and the person in the incident are one and the same. Even if they are, I'm failing to see what the convictions have to do with the incident. Best to steer well clear now, and thoroughly discuss the issue iff it becomes clear that they are one and the same. Any info about the passenger included in this article must be in compliance with WP:BLP and reliably sourced. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - I'm not proposing we add biographical information about convictions. Read my 01:30, 13 April 2017 comment. NickCT (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is any consensus yet. So, should we have a section about David Dao? Most newspapers are not mentioning his personal life at all. The few that do, just rehash the following from The Associated Press:

... is a Kentucky physician who was convicted more than a decade ago of felony charges involving his prescribing of drugs and spent years trying to regain his medical license. According to records from the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure, Dao went to medical school at the University of Medicine of Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam, graduating in 1974. He was licensed in Kentucky with a specialty in pulmonary disease.

His legal troubles started in 2003, when his medical license was suspended after an undercover sting operation at a Louisville motel for allegedly writing fraudulent prescriptions.

According to the documents, the licensing board had learned that Dao had become sexually interested in a patient and hired the patient as his office manager. That man later said he quit his job because Dao "pursued him aggressively" and arranged to provide him with prescription drugs in exchange for sex. http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/man-dragged-from-united-flight-is-a-doctor-with-criminal-record-1.3364293 Peter K Burian (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

USA Today, one of the few that included any background, and not much: Dao was trying to regain his medical license when he worked at the practice from August 2015 to August 2016, Nadeau said. Dao had surrendered his medical license in February 2005 after being convicted of drug-related offenses, according to documents filed with the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure last June. Broadcast and print coverage of Dao's arrest, conviction and sentencing made his name familiar to some Kentuckians. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/2017/04/11/david-dao-passenger-removed-united-flight-doctor-troubled-past/100318320/ Peter K Burian (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless he sues the airline, why don't we respect his family's express wishes and say as little about his (past) personal life as possible? (Do you need a link for the local paper which reported this request to respect his privacy?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Uncle Ed; we do NOT need a section about David Dao's personal life. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we ought to have a short and sweet bio paragraph. Something along the lines of what USA Today thought was appropriate. NickCT (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I added this to the Social media section that discusses anger in Asia about alleged racial discrimination. That is the only section where it is relevant. The Los Angeles Times has confirmed that Dao is "David Anh Duy Dao a Vietnamese American physician based in Elizabethtown, Kentucky". Pierce, Matt (April 12, 2017). "No, the media did not identify the wrong David Dao as United's passenger". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 13, 2017.

Peter K Burian (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting article "No, the media did not identify the wrong David Dao as United's passenger"

What a mess ... there are two Dr. Dao apparently, but the one the media has reported about is the correct one. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-united-david-dao-20170412-story.html

Courier-Journal reporters then gathered Dao’s records with the state of Kentucky, which confirmed his address and his age, and then they checked with Dao’s community. Reporters went to Elizabethtown and spoke to people who knew him and confirmed that it was the same David Dao on the plane. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised there are no Dao biographical elements in the article. Is this b/c there used to be a David Dao page? NickCT (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it was deleted. epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirected is different from deleted. NickCT (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: - the original article was deleted. A new redirect was then created. The original article could not have been turned into a redirect due to very serious WP:BLP issues, as discussed at WP:DRV and talk:David Dao. Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - The person who closed the DR on this article seemed to suggest we should merge content from the old David Dao article. NickCT (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: - what Black Kite actually wrote was "OK, I don't think this needs to run any longer. There's a certain point where the fine definitions of SNOW and the far more important issues of BLP converge, with the latter overriding it. As it appears that the article on the flight will be probably be Kept (or at least close as No Consensus) then deleting and Redirecting there is an obvious close - let the debate continue at that AfD". The article was deleted and a new redirect was created. This is entirely correct due to the very serious WP:BLP issues involved. That policy takes precedence over almost everything else, including any attribution issues. It is possible to restore the history of the article, but I'm willing to bet that every edit will need oversighting, so why bother? Admins and editors with higher privileges can still see the full history if they wish to. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - I'm not sure you're reading my comments. I said "The person who closed the DR on this article" (i.e. the article whose talk page we're now on). Not the person who close the DR on David Dao. But either way, Black Kite didn't say David Dao "could not have been turned into a redirect due to very serious WP:BLP" issue. That seems to be your interpretation.

Your interpretation is also that WP:BLP overrides pretty much everything. It does not. Verifiability, notability, neutrality are the core policies here on WP. NickCT (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I see someone has added a section about Dao; he has a criminal record that I am not keen to get involved in, See http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-united-david-dao-20170412-story.html Peter K Burian (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: - Yeah. We should be careful how we handle that. Should probably get consensus here before adding potentially negative biographical info. NickCT (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

And while we are here, there is also no relevance in adding Dao's refugee status or his wife's occupation. None of that is relevant to him getting beaten up. WWGB (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@WWGB: - Relevant? I'm not sure. Notable and verifiable, I am.

What's the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia again? NickCT (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

What's notable about being a refugee, and being married to a doctor? WWGB (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Ask the dozen or so news outlets that have noted it? NickCT (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, articles of this nature generally include short blurbs with basic bio information (e.g. Shooting of Michael Brown). And before you say it, yes, this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. NickCT (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know that a relatively isolated, non-fatal arm-dragging incident was equivalent to one of many fatal shooting of black Americans, but whatever. The point being made is that Dao is still a living person so BLP still applies. epicgenius (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: - I'm sorry, but could you point out where I said that these cases were equally tragic? If not, please retract your comment. I don't think the cases are equally tragic and did not imply that was the case. Don't put words in peoples' mouths.

Regardless, if these cases do share any equivalence it's purely in the sense that they involve public outcry over use-of-force.

The only point I was trying to make was that if a short Michael Brown biographical section is appropriate in that article, why isn't a short Dao biographical section appropriate in this article? NickCT (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: Sure. In this part of your comment - articles of this nature... (e.g. Shooting of Michael Brown) you said that both were of equal nature. Thus, while you may not have said, or meant to imply that the cases were equally tragic (which is not what I said either, by the way), they are also not of the same nature. Your comment, however well-intentioned it might be, did give off the impression that the two incidents could be treated the same, but they're not. One is a relatively minor injury and one is a death. epicgenius (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: - Saying two things are "of the same nature" does not imply the things are equally tragic. As I explained, these two events are similar in the sense that they both led to public outcry over use of force.

You clearly made an incorrect and somewhat insulting inference. Apologize. Strike. Move-on. NickCT (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my comment, but since I misinterpreted yours, I think we're even. epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Well sorry for any misinterpretations on my end. NickCT (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for my erroneous interpretation too. epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So, should we have a section about David Dao? Most newspapers are not mentioning his personal life at all. Here's what The Associated Press says about him:

... is a Kentucky physician who was convicted more than a decade ago of felony charges involving his prescribing of drugs and spent years trying to regain his medical license. According to records from the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure, Dao went to medical school at the University of Medicine of Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam, graduating in 1974. He was licensed in Kentucky with a specialty in pulmonary disease.

His legal troubles started in 2003, when his medical license was suspended after an undercover sting operation at a Louisville motel for allegedly writing fraudulent prescriptions.

According to the documents, the licensing board had learned that Dao had become sexually interested in a patient and hired the patient as his office manager. That man later said he quit his job because Dao "pursued him aggressively" and arranged to provide him with prescription drugs in exchange for sex. http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/man-dragged-from-united-flight-is-a-doctor-with-criminal-record-1.3364293 Peter K Burian (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

USA Today, one of the few that included any background, and not much: Dao was trying to regain his medical license when he worked at the practice from August 2015 to August 2016, Nadeau said. Dao had surrendered his medical license in February 2005 after being convicted of drug-related offenses, according to documents filed with the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure last June. Broadcast and print coverage of Dao's arrest, conviction and sentencing made his name familiar to some Kentuckians. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/2017/04/11/david-dao-passenger-removed-united-flight-doctor-troubled-past/100318320/ Peter K Burian (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

What has any of that got to do with being belted by an airport cop? WWGB (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@WWGB: - Again, not our place to determine relevance. Only our place to WP:BALANCE all the sources on the issue. As Peter K Burian notes, not many papers are reporting on Dao's bio, so I'd argue we keep it short and sweet (i.e. 3-5 sentences). That seems balanced. NickCT (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@WWGB and @NickCT Pls add your vote to the David Dao section here in Talk. You will note it is being debated there. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I added this to the Social media section that discusses anger in Asia about alleged racial discrimination. That is the only section where it is relevant. The Los Angeles Times has confirmed that Dao is "David Anh Duy Dao a Vietnamese American physician based in Elizabethtown, Kentucky". Pierce, Matt (April 12, 2017). "No, the media did not identify the wrong David Dao as United's passenger". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 13, 2017.

Peter K Burian (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Customers Not Cargo Act

Customers Not Cargo Act [1]

Likely legislation will arise or at least proposed legislation as a direct result of this notable event. Sagecandor (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Public domain government documents:

Sagecandor (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The article discusses this in the Legal section: the contract between an airline and its passengers is the Contract of carriage Peter K Burian (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a bigger issue for a new Wikipedia article?

Anyone can be kicked off an overbooked flight against their will. In 2015 alone, 46,000 customers were involuntarily bumped from flights, according to the Department of Transportation. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/travel/united-customer-dragged-off-overbooked-flight/index.html Peter K Burian (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Airlines most likely to be bump you off your flight - http://www.themalaymailonline.com/travel/article/us-airlines-where-youre-most-likely-to-be-bumped-off-your-flight#sthash.kxgjU4YX.dpuf Peter K Burian (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That may well be the case. What is different here is the manner in which the bumping off was done. Mjroots (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Major airlines bumped 359,376 people in the first nine months of 2016, and only 8% of those were involuntary. ExpressJet Airlines had the highest rate of involuntary bumps per passengers at 1.58 per 10,000 passengers. United Airlines, by comparison, has a rate of 0.45 involuntary bumps per 10,000 passengers — that includes 47,199 voluntary bumps and 2,874 involuntary bumps. The policy causes headaches for consumers, but as Hudson at FlyersRights.org notes, it’s completely legal. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-you-too-could-get-dragged-off-a-plane-if-the-airline-overbooks-your-flight-2017-04-10 Peter K Burian (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Getting bumped: Airlines often oversell flights, bump passengers — here are the rules of the game http://news.nationalpost.com/life/travel/getting-bumped-airlines-often-oversell-flights-bump-passengers-here-are-the-rules-of-the-game Peter K Burian (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I have revised the article, adding specifics about being bumped and how often it occurs and how common Involuntary Denial of Boarding was in 2016. In the Similar incidents section, with solid sources. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be very confused by the terminology.

Carriers frequently ask travelers at the gate prior to or at boarding whether anyone would be willing to exchange their seat for some amount of compensation. Travelers who accept are said to be voluntarily bumped from the flight.
However, sometimes airlines will effectively cancel tickets; those affected travelers, having been provided no other option and who remain entitled to compensation, are said to be involuntarily bumped from the flight.

Federal law does not use the word "involuntary" to mean "physically assaulted and dragged off the plane." 46,000 passengers were not dragged off planes after boarding them. In other words, "involuntarily bumped" is not synonymous with "kicked off."

Airlines actually have no legal right to unilaterally remove already-boarded and already-seated passengers, except in the event that a passenger is unruly, intoxicated, or on a terrorist watch list, or violates specific rules in the airline's contract of carriage. In this case, United had no reason to even request that Dao give up his seat.

Also, the overbooking discussion is a red herring and is only relevant because this incident was widely misunderstood and mischaracterized as a consequence of that practice. Adraeus (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Similar incidents section looks weird DO WE NEED THIS SECTION?

Someone added content in a weird manner. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Apparently somebody all the references in this section also needed to be bulleted. I fixed it.MitchellLunger (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You beat me to it MitchellLunger; I was doing exactly that edit when you were. Great minds think alike. btw, Is the guitar incident relevant at all????

Frankly, I wonder whether there is actually any value to a section about similar indcidents. (Is the leggings situation even similar?) What if 500 people all get newspaper articles discussing their being asked to leave an aircraft? Would we cover all of those? Peter K Burian (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of similarity, the leggings incident is relevant if only because of the timing and that nearly all articles about the assault reference it as part of United's growing PR problem. Adraeus (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Commentators have stated in print and TV media that this goes to a culture endemic throughout the entire company of customer-does-not-come-first, unfortunately. Sagecandor (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The section only makes sense if it is in a "Context" section. Otherwise we have the main United article that describes similar incidents. epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Sagecandor (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So, @Sagecandor and @epicgenius what specifically are you recommending? I am certainly open to a different approach, as my post above suggests. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The guitar incident is relevant to this because it was similarly a massive pr disaster for United. MitchellLunger (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: I think we could keep as is. epicgenius (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Did we agree to the title: SCANDAL?

Most of us agreed to call it an incident, but a scandal? I do not agree with that word. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The repeated moves are certainly unhelpful, and the latest move replacing incident with scandal was not discussed at all on talk, which is pretty disappointing. inks ^talk 23:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well we might need to get an Admin involved, but if there is a strong consensus, we could get it moved back to Incident, and then get it protected so only an Admin can move it again. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, the title, once again, is INCIDENT thanks to MitchellLunger who does not seem to actually exist; no such User page.

Anyway, I am happy. Incident is the suitable title, but if another user moves it to Scandal again, this will be an edit war and we will need to take action. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, blimey - can we please agree on no more page moves without consensus? ... being bold is a fine thing, but those recent moves were just a mess. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree in this case given the history there shouldn't be any more undiscussed unilateral moves. In fact, I strongly suggest the WP:RM process is followed. Users are not require to have user pages, MitchellLunger definitely does exist. If a user doesn't exist, visiting their user page e.g. for the moment User:THIS user DOES NOT exist AnD hoPEfuLLy never DoeS will give a warning like "User account "THIS user DOES NOT exist AnD hoPEfuLLy never DoeS" is not registered. If you wish to use "THIS user DOES NOT exist AnD hoPEfuLLy never DoeS" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username." The alternative is to check out the user's contrib history e.g. for here Special:Contributions/MitchellLunger. Of course a user doesn't need to have a contrib history (if you want to know for sure if a user exists with that name, check out the user logs Special:Log/MitchellLunger) but if you're wondering about their actions, they must have contribs. Nil Einne (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I've move protected the article at admin level. Any further proposals to move the article may be done through WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's as much of a "scandal" as it is a "controversy". It wasn't technically an aviation incident, because the plane wasn't flying; it hadn't even left the gate. The main point of the article is how people feel about the airline's involuntary deboarding policy, particularly its (now-amended) policy of calling security men to remove a peaceful, seated passenger by force. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm... yeah, perhaps controversy is a better word. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

How about moving it to United Airlines overbooking incident? This event is more on a par with the Nut rage incident than with all other accidents normally titled "XYZ Airlines Flight 1234", so it could do with a more descriptive title. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the current title is better, because it is more specific (there may be others, perhaps). Definitely no "scandal" in the title. Coretheapple (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Where are the other 13 threads that were in the Talk section a few minutes ago

Someone "archived" the other 13 topics and the discussions in those threads. What does that mean? Where are the views that Users posted? Peter K Burian (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

More at Talk:United Express Flight 3411 incident/Archive 1, Peter. --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, --George Ho But how the heck would the average User know to look for it? On the face of it, those discussions are all gone. At the very least there should be a final thread: HOW TO FIND ARCHIVED TALK DISCUSSIONS. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Page archiving is fairly common in wikipedia hence the archive box near the top of the page and a handy search window, nothing lost. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh and please stop shouting it is bad manners. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

MilborneOne means using CAPS and bolding at discretion, right? George Ho (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks George Ho, I was trying to suggest to User:Peter K Burian from doing just that. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

With pleasure. Let's have some cup o' tea and biscuits sometime. ;) George Ho (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Race/Ethnicity of the Other Three Passengers Involuntarily De-Boarded

We have heard lots about David Dao, but little about the other three passengers who were involuntarily de-boarded. Were they all non-Hispanic Caucasians? If so, that would undercut the speculation that Mr. Dao was singled out for de-boarding because of his ethnicity. On the other hand, if they were all minorities, that would tend to support such speculation. Rodneysmall (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Chicago PD is notorious for violence especially against minorities. I certainly wouldn't leave out an allegation of racial bias by the mainly white officers that threw out the passengers. Beatitudinem (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Three were all asians 24.30.242.108 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The three other passengers weren't mentioned since they left peacefully, which is not notable in itself. So, the ethnicity is irrelevant. Also, we are not going to use this page as a coatrack for talking about racial bias, although it may be true. epicgenius (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well yeah obviously they left on their own accord after seeing what happened to poor Mr. Dao. Beatitudinem (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

IIRC at least one or two had already left either before Dao was selected or while they were still arguing with Dao (i.e. before they came close to a forceful ejection). But I do agree this is all irrelevant unless there are sufficient reliable sources discussing the issue. Nil Einne (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that the race/ethnicity of the other three passengers forced to de-board is irrelevant, as the treatment of Mr. Dao has provoked outrage in China. One of the above posters claims that all three were Asians, which if true would seem to be a big coincidence, based on United's assertion that the selection of passengers to be de-boarded was random. However, I can't find any evidence to support that poster's claim. So, it would be instructive to know what the facts are regarding race and ethnicity. Rodneysmall (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I must object to the claim that the selection was random. It's based on status, fare paid and check-in time, not random. In practice this means casual flyers, not elites get bumped.Loren Pechtel (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In my view the race is relevant only in the Asia section. It is Asians who are claiming race was a factor. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I added this to the Social media section that discusses anger in Asia about alleged racial discrimination. That is the only section where it is relevant. The Los Angeles Times has confirmed that Dao is "David Anh Duy Dao a Vietnamese American physician based in Elizabethtown, Kentucky". Pierce, Matt (April 12, 2017). "No, the media did not identify the wrong David Dao as United's passenger". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 13, 2017.

Peter K Burian (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)