Talk:Air Line Pilots Association, International

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

Reasons for removal of 'USAir Flight 5050 controversy' section

The ‘USAir Flight 5050 controversy' section was deleted due to multiple issues. First, the text violates the ‘one-sided argument’ section of Wikipedia’s Cherry picking policy, which states that “a one-sided argument (also known as card stacking, stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and suppressed evidence) is an informal fallacy that occurs when only the reasons supporting a proposition are supplied, while all reasons opposing it are omitted.”

In addition, this is a minor event in ALPA’s history and violates the ‘balancing aspects’ section of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, which states, in part, that “an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject....”

Finally, there are citations that don’t support the text. The sole source for the first sentence, which is critical of the conduct of ALPA representatives following the September 1989 crash, is a 1988 FAA document. The next sentence, “ALPA reps sequestered both surviving pilots and refused to reveal their whereabouts until such time that any testing for drugs and alcohol would be useless” cites a New York Times article, but there is no such declaration in the Times piece, only that a member of the National Transportation Safety Board “suggested that the cockpit crew might have sought the counsel of their union, the Air Line Pilots Association.” The next paragraph cites a Los Angeles Times article, but again, there is nothing in the article that supports the accusations that the union acted improperly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAtP8019 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is not supposed to be.

Prior to my adding the section that deals with the very clear contradiction between ALPA's stated policy of supporting drug and alcohol testing of pilots who survive an accident, and what ALPA pilot representatives actually did in such a case, this article was nothing more than what the rules say it should NOT be: A SPAM PAGE for ALPA, erected and maintained mostly by ALPA COI editors.

Thus, in my view, this article should have been deleted a long time ago. Yet, I elected to compromise and to try to expand it into a genuine encyclopedia article that deals with the subject matter in a valid, neutral, non-POV, non-COI way, with both pros and cons that actual history tells us about.

Not too long ago, I found that another editor removed some very pertinent and notable information that helped to display the contrast between what ALPA SAYS it's drug policy is and what it ACTUALLY is, as demonstrated by the actions of ALPA representatives, when two of its members survived a fatal airline accident.

The fact that ALPA has long claimed to support drug testing of surviving pilots following an accident, was removed. The fact that ALPA representatives acted in contradiction to that stated policy, was removed. The fact that the pilots -- when they finally were presented almost 46 hours after the accident (because ALPA representatives kept them sequestered so they could NOT be promptly tested for drugs and alcohol), AND that the pilots refused to give blood samples, even at that late date, because their ALPA legal counsel advised them not to give blood samples -- was also removed. That was quite improper: no good reason was given for removing such vital and notable information.

Thus, I am restoring those facts along with valid WP:RS citations to support them. I have compromised and refrained from use a citation that I think was an excellent article which faithfully stated the actual facts about ALPA's representatives deliberately interfering with that accident investigation. I did so because the other editor claimed it was not a valid WP:RS citation. I disagree. It was a well-written article that was every bit as professional as what the NYTimes puts out. But, I decided to not make that an issue and used instead, other WP:RS citations to support the facts about the flight 5050 investigation controversy.

Please do not revert or eliminate this vital information again. This article does NOT need to be reverted back to another union spam page, in violation of WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." "Spam is the inappropriate addition of links or information to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting an outside organization."

That is all this article will be if we revert back to just positive statements about ALPA, put there mostly by its COI SPAM editors. EditorASC (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air Line Pilots Association, International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004121727/http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR90-03.pdf to http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR90-03.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]