Talk:List of air rage incidents

2021 updates

• https://fox17.com/news/spotlight-on-america/as-air-rage-incidents-skyrocket-some-unruly-passengers-are-back-in-the-air-heres-why — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B038:D560:3D33:F10F:BB2B:6494 (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the link. I was already going to propose that the "recentism" flag at the top of the article, dated December 2018, should be removed. Your 2021 article supports it: "a record number of air-rage incidents in 2021 with airlines reporting more than 5,000 such cases." In my admittedly anecdotal opinion, this sort of obnoxious entitled behavior rarely occured in public ("do you know who I am?" joke was the extreme) decades ago, let alone on an expensive airline flight. In those days, incidents were not publicized by airlines and as seen here, rarely made the news. Extreme concern since 9/11, entitled behavior, and most recently antimasking have caused more incidents and made these incidents "news." Passengers recording the incidents also made it impossible to "hush up." Anyway, I realize I'm not being encyclopedic enough, but the link above gives an indication that the article isn't suffering from "recentism" - there are actually more incidents. I will probably come back around and remove the tag unless someone objects. Ukrpickaxe (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have taken care of this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Names

There's no reason for to include anyone's personal name (if they're alive or might be), in most cases. I'm sure there are exceptions. But a private person who commits a crime, particularly if its just a misdemeanor, doesn't deserve to have this recorded for all time in the Wikipedia such that it'll be a high result in a google search on their name. There's no reason you can't replace "Joe Smith got drunk and attacked a flight attendant" with "A passenger got drunk and attacked a flight attendant". It doesn't take away any useful information. There could be exceptions, such as the person having their own article or other reasons. Anyway, I propose to do this presently absent objection. Herostratus (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll agree that maybe we can do without the names of any living person who pled to, or was convicted of, a misdemeanor who wasn't otherwise notable. Or that one British guy who managed to do it a second time. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree. People's names absolutely should be removed from this article, unless the incident was major or they're already notable for whatever reason (e.g. they have an article already like Gretchen Wilson, or they're a notable person like that one Saudi princess). I'd say the entries could use some less detail while we're at it. Maybe they could be organized in a table, too? AdoTang (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we should keep Gary Lee Lougee's name in the article. First, that sentence is, I think, the longest ever handed out in the US for an air rage incident. Second, I think he's dead now, and has been for some time. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, well, dead, sure, that's different, per Wikipedia:Biographies of dead persons. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Reorganize into table?

The current list as it is isn't disorganized, but is messy. Only some of the entries are easily organized by flight name (in bold, thankfully), many don't list an airline, and don't even get me started on the issues with the dates being all over the place, if a date's even listed at all ("that same week" works, but does it really?).

I don't really know how to make a table through source editing, but I'll just type out what I think the order would be (not finalized, from left to right):

Flight, Airline, Date, Incident (description), References

The table would be like that for each decade. They'd be sortable by year, date, and airline.

Thoughts? AdoTang (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Change article name to “Notable air rage incidents”?

This article doesn’t seem to cover *all* air rage incidents, as many probably go unreported or are not picked up by the media. I’m not sure it would be proper to have the name in its current form. Plus, this article seems skewed to mainly U.S. incidents as well. I would love to hear some thoughts about this. TheYeetedMeme (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If media coverage (i.e. reliable sources) is what makes an incident notable, then it's no different from everything in Wikipedia. It shouldn't be there if not notable and not sourced. So it's kind of a redundant distinction. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Re the latter point: Actually, I think there's quite a lot of British incidents ... almost more than the American ones, TBH (I would conjecture that the most common air-rager is, judging from this list, a working-class Englishman aged 30-50 who has flown almost not at all, or never, before and is so nervous about flying down to Spain (or almost anywhere warm that northern Europeans typically take their winter vacations in the Mediterranean vicinity) on a discount airline who, in addition to getting and taking a prescription anti-anxiety drug, tanks up in the airport before departure and then tops it off with as much more as he can get out of the cabin crew on board inflight before inevitably getting cut off, whereupon he goes completely berserk and forces the plane to divert to somewhere in France).

I did make an effort, in the three weeks of compiling this list at the end of 2018, make an effort to find incidents from all over the globe that could be verifiably written about. But, I limited myself to English-language sources. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:NUMNOTES

@Daniel Case: The relevant bullet at MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32." This is absolutely an applicable exception to "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." Cheers! Holy (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes; this is standard in most styles. However, in the edit you made there are no "comparable values nearby one another", just the solitary "three". Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

". . . three years' probation, 150 hours . . . ." Those are comparable (both expressing units of time with a number and a unit of measure) and they are right next to each other—and then another "three years" in the same serial list at the end of the same sentence. I'm not sure how we're seeing this differently. Holy (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I had missed the "150", sorry. But there are no comparable values in the last sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks—glad I was seeing that correctly. The sentence that we have been discussing is the last sentence in the section. Holy (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that "immediately adjacent" is the standard; "nearby" is the standard. The 150 and 3 are three words apart. The serial items in the list are next to each other. In your previous comment here, what were you saying? You said that you had missed the 150; you didn't say that you had seen the 150 and dismissed it because it wasn't close enough to the 3. If you look throughout Wikipedia at how this style standard is applied (i.e., when it is specifically cited for an edit), you'll see that the standard is a lot closer to "in the same sentence" than "with no intervening words whatsoever." Holy (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Then, if so, why is the example at NUMNOTES strictly a series of numbers of things in the form NUMBER NOUN, not NUMBER NOUN PHRASE as it is here? I have to note that this is contrary to how most other styles handle this (see APA, for instance). Not that we have to accord with all other styles, but usually we have a good reason (i.e., with MOS:% the words are easier for visually impaired readers to make out on an electronic visual display than the symbol; at least that's my impression).

And frankly I think that for consistency (the reason for this) it would be better to use figures rather than spell things out all the way (the way most styles prefer in situations like this), so I'll do that instead of dragging this discussion out. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparent nonsense

"He was arrested on landing, pled guilty to the charge, and was sentenced to a month in jail, most of which he had already served." What does this mean? How can you have already served a sentence before it is given to you? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4059:9FF2:59B4:7993 (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

See time served. Or, rather, credit for time served. Since people don’t always make bail, judges in those cases usually credit the defendant with whatever time they have been held prior to trial. Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

---

List of air rage incidents → List of aggressive incidents on airplanes – While some sources use the "air rage" phrasing, I think a more neutral title makes sense here. This article seems to be more broadly about incidents (usually aggressive incidents but not always described as "air rage") on airplanes. An example of a list named like this would be List of incidents at Walt Disney World. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. There are lots of "incidents on airplanes" that do not fall under the scope of this article: equipment malfunctions, hijackings, bird strikes.... Note that we already have List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft which uses a very different definition of "incident". Dekimasuよ! 06:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Dekimasu: Do you have an alternative naming suggestion? I'm open to other options. I just don't think it's ideal to say "air rage" as part of the title when a good chunk of the sources don't use that phrasing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  By my count,

  • 42 refs use "air rage"
  • 33 refs do not use the term
  • I cannot double check if ref 7 and 12 do or do not because it's paywalled (someone else might be able to figure this).
  • Refs 8, 9, 19, 23, 53, 77, and 82 are deadlinks

  I gave up counting after the 2003 section because this is a lot to sift through and I think that's a representative enough sample to prove that the sourcing regarding the term is mixed. I think there's enough here to consider whether or not the page should be moved. How about List of aggressive incidents on airplanes instead of simply "incidents"? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Again, it seems like hijacking would be included in that case. We have articles for Air rage and Road rage because those are the common names for the behavior involved (and Air rage is also the parent of this article), so I don't think I agree that a more neutral title is necessary here. But kudos for going through so many of the sources. Dekimasuよ! 09:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'd argue that slightly less than half the cited sources using the term itself to describe the behaviour is an argument against the common name angle. I admit I don't have any other good ideas on title name apart from what I just proposed. Maybe the scope of the list could just be clearly defined with a hatnote? Something like "this article is about aggressive incidents from passengers. For incidents regarding hijacking or terrorism see..."? I'm assuming we have a list article like that somewhere but I can't find it. If we do go this route, List of airplane incidents should probably be a disambiguation page between the three list articles. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I created this list specifically after an article about an incident (the one on Qatar Airways where the Iranian woman used her sleeping husband’s fingerprint to unlock his phone, found the evidence of the affair or affairs she suspected, and started beating him with it, getting the whole family put off at Chennai) that I had created was deleted, and it was suggested that I create a list instead.

  The proposed new title, its other deficiencies notwithstanding, would not accurately reflect the content, as not all air rage incidents have taken place on airplanes—-cf. Zhengzhou Airport riot, IMO the worst air rage incident ever, with a couple of thousand angry Chinese destroying the passenger terminal they were trapped in over New Year’s. Also there’s that rich guy in Cambodia who shot out the plane’s tires on the tarmac after it landed and the Indonesian official who ordered the police under his command to block the runway so the flight he couldn’t get a seat couldn’t land). Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Would you be willing to expand on the its other deficiencies notwithstanding part? I'm okay if the page is not moved but I do think it's reasonable to discuss these things given what I wrote above. If we decide not to do something, it helps people in the future to read all the reasons why we didn't. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  That’s all the other arguments above: that it’s rather vague and will confuse readers, and that COMMONNAME still points in favor of using „air rage” (I suppose we could append some of the language you suggest …) Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  My count above was regarding whether or not the cited sources actually use the term "air rage", not how we describe the content in this list itself. I concluded that plenty of the sources cited here do not actually use this term. Unless I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say here? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  That I still don’t think renaming the article is a good idea because „air rage” is too associated with the concept in the public mind for any renaming. Does a source actually need to use the term? Isn’t there some accepted ATA definition? Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not least because Wikipedia is international and "airplane" is an Americanism. But also because the current title is most descriptive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I had no idea it was only used in North American English. I suppose we could use "aircraft" but eh. It's probably for the best if it's not moved. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  We in the Commonwealth (outside Canada, as usual) say "aeroplane". "Aircraft" is neutral, but I agree it's best not moved. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  „Airliner” is actually the consensus term for aircraft built, and mostly used for, passenger transport. We use it in category names on Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I suggested aircraft because airplane states that it is a is a fixed-wing aircraft that is propelled forward. I do appreciate knowing what Commons does. Anyways, it's pretty clear that consensus is against the move in different ways and I don't mind it being closed early. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose "Aggressive incidents" may be confusing, about whether it refers to verbal or physical altercations. It doesn't improve the title. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose "aggressive incidents" is much less natural the current title. Plus, the current article is consistent with Air rage. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:55, 13 August 2024 (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.