Jump to content

Talk:2017 United Express passenger removal/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

It was NOT Republic Airlines staff

See the new section, 4.2 United Master Executive Council The initial edit made it sound as if Republic Airlines had been at fault in the incident. Quoted only the one-sided comment from the United Pilots.

Yes, the airplane, pilots and cabin crew were Republic Airlines. But the airport staff worked for United, and it was United staff who came on board to decide who to remove and how to do that.

Watkins, Morgan (April 11, 2017). "United Airlines's fiasco prompts apology, suspension; officer is put on leave". USA Today,Gannett Company. McLean, Virginia. Retrieved April 14, 2017. a teacher who was returning home to Louisville from Chicago, said that a United manager called the doctor and his wife that they were being asked to leave the aircraft ... United personnel had offered up to an $800 voucher

Dudek, Mitch (April 13, 2017). "Officer involved in dragging man off United flight put on leave". Chicago Sun Times. Chicago. Retrieved April 14, 2017. When no one volunteered, a United manager came on the plane and announced passengers would be chosen at random, including the unidentified man who was dragged off, according to passengers. United employees had no choice but to contact authorities to remove the man

Also confirmed in Victor, Daniel (April 10, 2017). "United Airlines Passenger is Dragged from Overbooked Flight". New York Times. New York. Retrieved April 14, 2017. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what all the shouting is about, have you a reliable source on who the United manager and United Employess worked for as it is still not clear if it was Big United or United Express/Republic. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This guy likes to put everything in bold, and then spam references to his opinion everywhere. Very annoying. Not enjoyable to work on articles when someone's doing this. Adraeus (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


Also agree. Re the "complaint" raised here, I'm not seeing any validity in it. Article clearly states that Republic Airlines staff were on the aircraft and United Airlines staff did the process of deciding who was to be offloaded. Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Overbooking section not needed

This incident had nothing to do with overbooking (or overselling). The flight was fully booked, but not overbooked. This incident was instead caused by a "must ride" situation, where the airline claims that crew must ride on the plane in order avoid the cancellation of a later flight departing the destination airport. I think the "Overbooking" section should be removed and replaced by an explanation of this "must ride" condition. Here are some links http://www.wfaa.com/news/nation/united-airlines-now-says-flight-that-sparked-uproar-was-not-overbooked/430456020 https://consumerist.com/2017/04/11/united-says-controversial-flight-wasnt-overbooked-airline-crew-just-needed-the-seats-more/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/04/11/united-clarifies-flight-3411-not-oversold/100331782/ http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/04/11/united-now-says-flight-wasn-t-overbooked.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl --Westwind273 (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I support this proposal. The presence of an "overbooking" section has always bothered me, as it distorts the facts of this matter. This was NOT a case of overbooking, and the section should be removed. WWGB (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Peter K Burian 11:26 2017 (UTC)
Overbooking is relevant in only one way: early reports of the incident mischaracterized how the incident occurred, and thus defined the initial public response, which was deeply critical of overbooking. However, I don't think an entire section is needed to establish these facts. Adraeus (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The mischaracterization r.e. overbooking should be documented, but it should be made explicit that UA attempted to shoehorn staff members onto the flight late in procedure. "United is sorry it wanted to shoehorn four airline crew members onto Flight 3411 from O'Hare International Airport to Louisville and bump four passengers, including Dr. David Dao. [1] — TPX 14:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest the "Overbooking" section be renamed "Must Ride". The primary focus of the section should be on how Must Ride was the genesis of this incident. Within the Must Ride section, there can be an explanation of how United and the media initially mistakenly attributed this incident to overbooking. --Westwind273 (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that this was not an overbooking situation. However, a national dialogue over overbooking has commenced as a result of this incident, and that needs to be reflected in the article. I don't think that we have to worry about having a separate section on that as long as that is pointed out. Coretheapple (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"Similar incidents" section

The latest additions amount to little more than United bashing. Most have nothing to do with overbooking or similar consequences. I think the section should be limited to other instances of overbooking or passenger removal. WWGB (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This was already in the section above this one.MitchellLunger (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Section now edited to reflect only relevant events. WWGB (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath vs. Responses

What is the difference between the Aftermath and Responses sections? How do we decide where to add information about outcomes? For example, recently United enacted a policy change in response to the incident, but it is also a consequence of their actions. Does that belong under Aftermath or Responses? Adraeus (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

"Through his lawyers, Dao described his ordeal as "more horrifying" than his experience of the Fall of Saigon during the Vietnam War," the article says.

Though there was much mention on social media (and apparently in China) of Dao maybe being Chinese, and that must remain in the article, it would be best to include early in the article that he is from Vietnam (if he is). If it can be verified, the "fact" that he left Vietnam in 1975 as a boat-refugee would be pertinent; that would mean that he's feared for his life before. But this I've only read in a comment on social media.

A point that the article ignores is that Dao was said to have had some run-in with the law a decade or so ago and had to be supervised in his work for a time. Commenting about this ceased fairly quickly, but some were saying that it was United that "leaked" the information which (some said) is actually about another Vietnamese doctor with a very similar name. If it is true that United spread such information, that belongs in the article.

I'm not intending to edit, but obviously some editors are well-informed and involved. This was just some thoughts for them. --Hordaland (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Here are some references to get you started:
Adraeus (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Format

I don't have the time to fix the introduction right now, but I can at least call attention to it. Wikipedia articles generally begin with something like:

"Flight stuff is an article by Wikipedia, written in the spring of 2017."

This article doesn't have that - it jumps right into a description of the incident/controversy. It should have a summary-introduction with bold text and whatnot. Jwood (leave me a message) See what I'm up to 00:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead doesn't have to contain the article title in bold, especially if the title does not lend itself well to be included in natural prose, such as in this case. See guidelines at WP:BOLDAVOID. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Smear campaign

There was a small media smear campaign as a response, which seems to have drawn some hot debate in international journalism circles and Twitter. Not sure if that's notable, since nobody's really getting distracted by the victim-blaming tactic, and there haven't been credible allegations of United buying off the media. Hilarious to see something like that get a no-sell from the audience, though. --John Moser (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That's worth mentioning if it can be sourced. That is, not the allegations against Dao but that they were spread by United as part of a smear campaign. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Coretheapple and Bluefoxicy: - Citation for the smear campaign please? NickCT (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I had the same question, op cit. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, there's no credible allegations of United buying off the media; there are people making such statements, but only because they're nutters—which will remain true *even if they're ultimately proven correct*. There *is* a clear surge of articles everywhere bringing up Dao's history et al, diverting from United, as a media response; it's part of the history of this incident, but not necessarily notable, which is why I asked. Whether United backed it or not, leaving off that information essentially gives the media a pass for engaging in a political game of diverting attention from the events to some trivia limited to perceived-unfavorable background; and I'm not certain Wikipedia is responsible for ensuring those in the media are held responsible for that deviation by history, either. When future generations read this article, five years from now, do we care whether they're informed of the timely context of media publications on a subset of Dao's life history? Is that encyclopedic? If it's borderline, does Wikipedia care about any ethical considerations of if they *should* be informed of United's actions *and* the media's? Clearly we can't and don't want to document *everything* here, because then we'd have to include arbitrary Fark commentary, Reddit threads, et al, which is just dumb. --John Moser (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of the word "incident"

To repeat my comment from #Infobox above ... 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". This article might use the word "incident" as a WP:COMMONTERM but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and in an article about aviation matters, ignoring the conventions of the aviation world would not be sensible. The word incident should not be used in the article title, or the navbox, and the event should not be included in lists/navboxes/categories etc of aviation "accidents and incidents" unless the title of the list/navbox/category etc is changed to "accidents, incidents and occurrences" Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Rwxrwxrwx and MitchellLunger, should "incident" be dropped from the title, so we can do the RM instead? Sounds like adding "incident" is controversial, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC); now move-protected. 06:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The opening comment here reflects my previous suggestion that the article be named something like: "United Express passenger incident". That would be a use of 'incident' in its "common" meaning, rather than in its more technical aviation meaning. My view is that the flight number need not be included in the title, although it could be. Also, as I prev suggested, use of the word "passenger" in the title will provide readers with a quick and clear sense of the type of incident involved, and help avoid misinterpretation that the article is about some type of flying 'incident'. DonFB (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't calll it that. I would call it 2017 United Airlines Overbooking Event. MitchellLunger
'Overbooking' could work as well-recognized common name, but appears to be inaccurate, since overbooking did not actually occur, according to more recent news coverage. DonFB (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Shhhnotsoloud: COMMONTERMS says: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. If "incident" is inaccurate, what do you suggest? George Ho (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
What about 2017 United Airlines Oversold Flight Event?MitchellLunger (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Consider: "United Express passenger removal" (might insert "Flight 3411" before 'passenger'). DonFB (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
United Express Flight 3411 Passenger Removal sounds good to me. Let's wait for others to chime in though before we move the page.MitchellLunger (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: and others: Can I make sure I understand correctly - the proposal is to replace 'incidence' with 'occurrence' in the page title (United Express Flight 3411 Passenger Removal makes a good title) and infobox, but allow the use of 'incidence' in its common term in the body text? Secondly, is your preference to try and enforce (over time?) exclusion of this article from lists/navboxes/categories etc of aviation "accidents and incidents", or to adjust lists/navboxes/categories to include occurrences? I could easily see a long term cycle of category addition/removal because people just don't read the talk page - perhaps adjusting one aviation-related navbox to include occurrences would prevent other additions? inkstalk 05:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The infobox change is minor so I've just done it. inkstalk 05:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Inkypaws:@George Ho: The offending word is "incident" when used in an aviation context. "Occurence", "event", "incidence" (if that's correct English), "scandal", "event" are all fine. "Passenger incident" would be fine too imo. Regarding a category/infobox/list, they could be renamed so as to include "non-incidents", or non-incidents should be excluded. Changing the navbox is now fine; having this article in something called Category:United Airlines accidents and incidents isn't. I don't want to be too prescriptive about it, and won't actively police it; my participation here is to advise others (hopefully helpfully!). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Can we just remove Category:United Airlines accidents and incidents? Put this article in the parent category? NickCT (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@WWGB: With regards to the infobox title, we discussed it here and I clearly indicated this talk page discussion in the article page and the edit summary. You changed it back to 'incident' with no discussion here, with edit summary "this field always matches the article title, if you do not like it, request a page move". It's not a matter of how much I like it, it reflects consensus. The template documentation states that the name field is for the occurrence's commonly-known name, and can be used if that is different from the article name. So saying that the name field always matches the article title does not appear to be accurate, and it seems odd to move a page just to change the title of an infobox. So I'm restoring the agreed 'Passenger Removal' wording. Please continue to discuss here if you disagree. inkstalk 11:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no "commonly-known name" to use instead of the article title, just one that a few guys made up here. WWGB (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
With respect, "there's no commonly-known name" is entirely different to "infobox and article titles must always be the same." What is the point of us trying to comply with WP:CON if experienced editors just ignore it when they see fit? inkstalk 11:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
By the definitions normally used by the aviation project this was an incident so no reason why the infobox and article title cant be the same. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, I don't see any "consensus" here for the article and infobox to have differing titles. WWGB (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: on the contrary, by the definitions normally used by the aviation industry, this was not an incident. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If any contributor is worried that readers might confuse our involuntary deboarding incident with a near-miss or crash, we can use an adjective to limit the meaning of the word (duh, I teach English to school-age children). Or we could substitute a different noun; my favorite is controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we can substitute "controversy" too. United Express Flight 3411 incident sounds like the aircraft itself had an incident, not the passengers. epicgenius (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Suggest removing and just going back to the original, simpler, title. United Express Flight 3411. Simpler is better. Sagecandor (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Since the article is move protected, we can go to WP:RMTR and then request the title change there. Any one of us? George Ho (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC); okay. 17:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe sit on it for a little while. Sagecandor (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sagecandor: please see the Article title section at the top of this Talk page about why just the flight number is not sufficient as a title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Are there any other articles in existence now at this present point in time today by that title? Sagecandor (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sagecandor:That's not the point. A flight called UA3411 happens every day. This article isn't about flight UA3411, it's about a thing that happened on the UA3411 flight on Apr 9. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there an already existing Wikipedia article about the flight called UA3411 that happens every day? Sagecandor (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant. "The title indicates what the article is about" WP:Article titles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Relevant. Most popular shortest title by this name on this subject. Will be for the next thousand years unless there is another event in the future on the flight. Sagecandor (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the word "incident" either because it reads like politically correct double-talk, but the word fits your definition. The safety of the aircraft's operation was impacted when airline staff called on the city's aviation police to deliberately assault a passenger to effect his extralegal removal. A number of passengers voluntarily left the flight after the incident, and the flight was grounded for some period of time and could not get underway. Adraeus (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Adraeus. Sagecandor (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
How "a little while", Shhhnotsoloud? Seems that there was no consensus to insert "incident". George Ho (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Here are two definitions of incident from Wikipedia incident (plural incidents) An event or occurrence ... An event that may cause or causes an interruption or a crisis https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incident Peter K Burian (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's see. A paid passenger gets a "concussion, broken nose and damaged sinuses and lost two front teeth" and it's a mere incident? Really?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not the New York Post or the National Enquirer.
Yes, there may be a better word than incident. There is a discussion about exactly that in the Talk topic Did we agree to the title: SCANDAL?. (And there was consensus that "scandal" is not the word to use.) One user just suggested controversy. Yes, that might be a more suitable word than incident. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Here are two definitions of incident from Wikipedia incident (plural incidents) An event or occurrence ... An event that may cause or causes an interruption or a crisis https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incident Peter K Burian (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, controversy might be the right word. Controversy: a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.

But I suppose one might ask is this article about a prolonged dispute? Who knows; perhaps it will be. Although, given the promise by United never to do it again, the whole issue may just die down very quickly. (And I doubt that any other airline would try dragging a paid passenger off an airplane after this David Dao situation.)
Peter K Burian (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Using your reasoning, the shooting of Michael Brown should be renamed "Michael Brown controversy." This would clearly belittle the nature of the subject. Maybe that's your goal, but for the rest of us, this article is about a corporate airline illegally using a police force to commit assault and battery of a passenger. Controversy is a byproduct of the incident, not the incident itself. Adraeus (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

In another topic, there seems to be consensus that this was not an Aviation Incident. If so, how about an entirely different title? e.g. United Airlines forced removal of ticketed passenger Peter K Burian (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

There was no consensus for changing the title yet again. The use of "incident" is correct and short, and changing the title to something wordy and/or overly specific won't improve the article. WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Adraeus (talk)
@Adraeus: Per my comment at the very top of this section, in an encyclopaedic entry about an aviation topic, the use of "incident" (alone) is not correct. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Shhhnotsoloud: Per my response to your comment on 13 April 2017 at 19:39 (UTC), it is correct. Adraeus (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • cmt - It's better to be a precise as possible, without necessarily being overly antiseptic. And, actually, controversy would seem to indicate that in some quarters the circumstances that occurred are viewed as somehow justified, but in actual fact such (obviously fringy) voices would seem quite difficult if not entirely impossible to locate. at all, in the present case. Indeed, I suppose no editors here argue the situation here fails to pass into the realm of its being universally considered scandalous. (Eg I started to compile the following.... until my fingers got cramped):
  1. "Munoz later defended his staff’s reaction, implying the customer deserved a beating for being “disruptive and belligerent.” The Chicago Police Department, hardly the most trustworthy law enforcement organization in the country, claimed that the man “fell” and struck the armrest. (According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Police Department, which is separate from the Department of Aviation police, released this statement despite the fact that their officers were not involved at all.) These statements were rightfully excoriated in the press and in people’s social media feeds. The scandal sparked discussions..." - TNewRepublic
  2. "Racism Allegations in United Airlines Scandal Fire Up Chinese Social Media" - Variety
  3. "The Deeper Scandal of That Brutal United Video" - the Atlantic
  4. "trolling United over its passenger-removal scandal" - Daily Mail
  5. "Buffett did not immediately respond to Fortune's request for comment on the United Airlines scandal." - Fortune
  6. "The United Scandal Has a Message for Democrats: Americans Want Consumer Protection" - Slate
  7. "The United Scandal Probably Won't Stop You From Flying United" - Bloomberg

    What you guys really argue is that some less seemingly judgemental word carries a more neutral tone. Am I correct? And, our bending over so far backwards in service of appearing NPOV I guess is perhaps kinda endearing. (Silly, too, IMHO, but... ).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Since this debate has, for the moment, resumed, I'll refloat (and diversify) my previous suggestion:
"Flight 3411 passenger removal" OR, "United Express passenger removal" OR "United Express Flight 3411 passenger removal". Descriptive, and no 'incident', 'scandal' or 'controversy' controversy.
DonFB (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Passenger removal controversy would economically convey the most precise info, IMO. (I suppose just passenger removal would be OK too, though. Still, I hold that the word controversy is usefully descriptive: After looking for examples of commentary believing the events somewhat justified, I found this nuanced one):

... ... ... Mr. Dao may have been completely justified in his outrage. The police response may have been completely inappropriate. But we do not have the luxury of deciding that we do not wish to comply with orders from law enforcement, even if we are completely in the right. And the police do not have the luxury of neglecting to enforce their own orders because someone emphatically expresses their desire to be left alone. Your innocence, mistreatment, inconvenience or potential police misconduct is something to be dealt with at a later time. The subsequent legal process can vindicate the victim and punish the wrongdoers. But during the initial confrontation, you must comply. And if you choose to go a different route, you will lose every single time, at least for the moment. Sometimes, the aesthetics of a police encounter caught on video do not shine the best light on law enforcement. There is the perception that excessive, perhaps completely unwarranted force was deployed. The proper handling of any physical encounter involving the police is subjective. And video doesn’t always tell the whole story. Protecting citizens from unwarranted abuses by the state is one of the cornerstones of a free society. It is critical that we hold law enforcement accountable for any misconduct and demand the most fair and humane treatment from the police and the justice system. But before we rush to condemn the police every time they use what some perceive to be excessive force, we must ask ourselves what alternatives did they have? If they ask you to do something and you refuse, they will then tell you to do it. If you still refuse, they must make you do it by force or we cease to be a nation of laws. Mr. Dao has won in the court of public opinion regarding his experience with United Airlines. There is a good chance that he will win in a court of law. There is also a good chance that some of the officers involved will be the ultimate losers in this ordeal. But in the brief few moments following the request for him to vacate his seat on the airplane, there was a zero percent chance that David Dao would come out the victor. -- Joseph Billelo, Townhall

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, the map is not the territory. The controversy is not the incident. This article is first about the territory, the incident, the actual thing that happened. Using "controversy" in the title is simply inappropriate. There is also no NEED to change the title. None whatsoever. When another incident happens on this same flight, perhaps then but not now. Adraeus (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
For a completely uninformed-about-the-incident reader ten years hence the present title would be quite opaque. Hence, for improved transparancy WP would be better off to go with eg "2017 United Airlines removed passenger battery incident" ( / "---- -- --- controversy" / "----- -- --- scandal". Even merely: "----- -- battery"). My 2 cents.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
We'll cross that bridge ten years from now. Adraeus (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
"United Airlines removed passenger battery" sounds like the Energizer Bunny or Westworld. WWGB (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"United Express passenger removal, 2017" or "2017 United Express passenger removal" Szqecs (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No infobox, more descriptive title

There is a consensus emerging here that this article does not fit with all other articles about air accidents and incidents (not in the List of air accidents nor in the Air accidents template). The UA fiasco was not a matter that the NTSB or similar agencies would take an interest in; it did not affect flight safety nor security (the security guards who directly caused the incidents were not related to flight operations). This article is much in the same category as the Nut rage incident, and should be treated in the same way, i.e:

– No infobox
– Similarly descriptive title without flight number, e.g. 2017 United Airlines overbooking incident

--Deeday-UK (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose both suggestions - The infobox, whilst it may not be ideal, appears to be the best one available. That said, I'm willing to consider any suggestions for alternative infoboxes that are put forward. IMvHO, the article title is fine as it is. Redirects can be freely created from likely alternative titles. Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I support change of title (per my comments in other sections above) (and abstain re infoboxes). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
We don't need to vote on everything, but oppose both. United CEO Oscar Munoz and the United pilots union both used the word "incident" to refer to this event. Nearly every article and broadcast has referred to this event as an "incident." What happened was an "incident," regardless of what a tiny minority of Wikipedia editors have convinced themselves. Not "fitting with all other articles about air accidents and incidents" is expected of such a unique moment in the history of air travel. Outliers exist. Adraeus (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Adraeus: I don't get your point: my proposal does include the word incident in the title. What I'm saying is that this event is too different from the rest of aircraft crashes, hijackings etc. to be clumped together with them, and that the infobox doesn't add much either, just like it's not necessary for the nut rage incident. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Deeday-UK:
1. The article is titled "United Express Flight 3411 incident." Was there another incident aboard United Express Flight 3411? You say "2017 United Airlines overbooking incident" is descriptive, but that's much less specific (also inaccurate) than the current title.
2. I don't see any reason to remove the infobox. The infobox provides facts about the incident at a glance.
3. It is perfectly okay for incidents to be different from each other, regardless of the extent of those differences. Again, outliers exist, and they shouldn't be treated like they don't. I'm sorry the nature of the incident doesn't neatly fit the pattern that editors of that list have come to expect, but maybe their expectations, not the outlier articles, need to change.
Adraeus (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Definitely support. This article needs to be renamed so that it is clear that is an airline incident and not an aircraft incident. It is laughable that there is an infobox here comparing it to aircraft crashes and incidents. Remove the flight number from the article title, it is completely useless. A similar article about an altercation that happens to be in a vehicle (The Bus Uncle) does not have an infobox and I would recommend removing it here as well. --NoGhost (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
There was an injury, a distraught family, a financial hit, a loss of public trust, procedural changes, regulatory oversight, calls for legislative hearings, and a pending lawsuit—all of the same consequences as of a crash. In addition, there was assault and battery, abuse of police power, and breach of contract. The Bus Uncle does not have an infobox, but it is categorically dissimilar and does not remotely compare to this case. This article has far more in common with the 1955 National City Lines bus incident, except the victim in that moment in US history was not beaten and dragged half-naked off the bus. Adraeus (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure. Use of the flight No. in the title sux, per Wikipedia:CRITERIA. But... What about the wisdom of crowds? and doing what the h*ck we feel like sometimes, all this 'tertiary source' business be d*amned! If it hasn't become a shorthand for the event in reliable 2ndary sources maybe WP itself can help enliven the English language. Hallo Joseph Heller.

    [Real (link)]: "Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta...said federal investigators found new recruits at the Chicago Police Academy, 1300 W. Jackson Blvd., were shown training videos that were decades out of date and included unconstitutional teachings on the use of force." [Me]: The training film's voiceover intones, 'If shutterbugs are nearby, turn 'em your best profile, officer!' After their having viewed the antiquated film, trainees expressed excitement about trying out some of its techniques on the mean streets of O'Hare International. Windy City gendarmie trainee Paulie Skallick said, 'The part was pure genius about how to professionally subdue a person slumping in a chair by making it seem sloppy their face comes in contact with the armrest. Such pretended accident stuff is so good. A regular Flight 3411.'"

    [Me again]: "The Gulf Cartel, narcotraffickers overseeing the indispensable border crossing above Matamoros, follows the dictum of the American Mafia, 'Keep a low media profile, if possible, in the communities in which one seeks control. Zetas, a patchwork of gangs of street criminals across Mexico, however, follows the dictum of Flight 3411: Make big public relations clusterfutches in communities infiltrated by these pirate factions whenever possible."

     --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

    "[Chicago Police]: 'His head subsequently struck an armrest causing injuries to his face. The man was taken to Lutheran General Hospital with non-life threatening injuries.' [Columnist]: It was just the kind of statement you'd have expected to read from police 10 years ago, back before such altercations were routinely captured on smartphone video and discrepancies between official versions of stories and the accounts of citizen witnesses could be brushed aside as he-said-she-said. But now we can see for ourselves. No, the man was not yelling prior to being wrestled from his seat. No, his facial injuries were not caused because he 'fell.' ..." - Trib. link

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. Agree with both Adraeus and Mjroots in their above comments. Title is descriptive and also, importantly, simple. Infobox is helpful to readers to introduce quick key facts about the topic. Title should stay as is, unless in the future there is another incident on the exact same flight number, which, to date, there has been none of the same exact number. Infobox should remain, as all information contained therein is factual and not in dispute. Sagecandor (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No one will be fired

That doesn't sound right: "No one will be fired." It makes it sound like he's defending what happened - I mean, still defending. And did he come out and say this, or was it a response to a question - or what?

Buried in the Chicago Tribune article we find this:

United has announced that it will no longer call on law enforcement to remove passengers from flights unless there are safety concerns. It also said airline employees will have to book seats at least an hour in advance, to avoid bumping passengers already on board the aircraft.

So how about instead of repeating the kind of headline that gets people to click (and gets money from the advertisers) we do some actual writing? I suggest:

Instead of looking for someone to blame, United decided to make changes in its system. Two announced changes are:
  1. it will no longer call on law enforcement to remove passengers from flights unless there are safety concerns
  2. airline employees will have to book seats at least an hour in advance, to avoid bumping passengers already on board the aircraft

Not that any of this gets the CEO off the hook for his initial exculpatory statement - "sorry, we had to" doesn't cut it in the public's eye. But on the other hand, he didn't double down or dig in. He's making actual changes. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps tonedeaf. However a CEO can't oversee a business organization that apparently possesses such a fine grain to its rules covering just about every possible occurance only to punish some unfortunate employees who did nothing but follow the same. Rather, what would be expected to be done in such a case would be to more finely tune said rules. Viz., no, not for the cash-strapped airline to up the top price offered to buy back tickets (as in the current case, per Wikipedia, "US$400 in vouchers for future travel, a hotel stay, and a seat on a plane leaving more than 21 hours later") but for it to: (_i._) Make hella sure employees show up for boarding at a reasonable time & (_ii._) Whatev else, d*mn well not to call on anyone such as um the Chic. Aviation Dept.'s finest.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Cash or vouchers?

The article currently states that passengers were offered vouchers (not cash) as an inducement to be bumped. I think this is correct, but I've noticed that a lot of media outlets are reporting the opposite, or at least being very misleading about it (e.g. "Passengers were offered $400 to take a later flight...") I noticed that even the BBC article cited in that paragraph does not say "vouchers". Does anyone have a source for the claim that it was vouchers and not cash offered?

(And yes, I do think there's a big difference. The news articles are trying to make it sound like United was really trying their hardest to get volunteers and making cash offers that reasonable people would accept. In reality I believe - but I'm not sure - United was offering vouchers with lots of fine print that most people would balk at.)Ceresly (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

In "Aftermath" > "Social media"

The following sentence does not read well. Perhaps "at" before the 2nd quote should be "that"? But the 2nd quote needs attention, too.

An article in Reuters said that the ire in Vietnam grew "after it was reported that Dao's origins were not in the Southeast Asian country's old enemy, China," and at "allegations over Dao's past reported in the United States as irrelevant and possibly racist.

As the sentence is long, the unnecessary words "Southeast Asian" can be removed.

--Hordaland (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. Also I don't really see the need to mention the sources in the body of the text. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Incident > quotes attributed to Dao

it currently reads as "Shortly afterwards, Dao managed to re-board the aircraft, repeatedly saying, "I have to go home."" why is there no mention of him also saying "kill me now"? this really reads like it is downplaying how stupified Dao was after he was able to get back on the plane. he was incessantly rambling both "I have to go home" and "just kill me now". he was not in a good state of mind and that is not shown from the text. though one would instantly ascertain that from watching any of the videos of him after he reboarded. Blahtherr (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I imagine those words can be included. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Similar incidents

I see that some text I put in concerning a Delta incident (a man was kicked off a plane for using the bathroom) was removed. I agree that this is not a "similar incident" per the subhead, so I won't quibble with the removal given thta. However, the source referenced the United episode. Perhaps we should reframe the section so as to include heightened scrutiny of passengers removed from planes. Not synthesis as the sources themselves make that very point. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Is Actively being vandalized

Hi Wikipedians, looks like this article is being vandalized by IP user 212.140.124.52 several times recently. SWP13 (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Money or vouchers?

From the article: "United and Dao reached a confidential settlement on April 27. At the same time, the airline announced ten policy changes in response to the incident, including increasing the amount of money to passengers "bounced" from flights to up to $10,000 (...)."

I've looked at several sources and not found specified whether this "amount of money" is cash or vouchers. This is an important difference. For people who fly a lot, vouchers = cash. For those who seldom fly, the offer is nowhere near cash -- in some cases it is worthless. Hope you (someone, anyone) can learn which it is and add it to the above. Thanks. Hordaland (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

My research indicates they offered vouchers. Specifically the link below. CNN interview with two passengers. Go to 3:06 in the video. Passenger John Klaassen says, "They were offering $800.00 in United dollars which isn't a whole lot, because it's only for United... it's only for air travel." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xiPOqR_pQM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.216.11.5 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_United_Express_passenger_removal/Archive_2&oldid=1071117225"