Talk:Sully Sullenberger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Chesley Sullenberger)
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 16, 2009Articles for deletionKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 16, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, the captain of US Airways Flight 1549, also runs an aviation safety consultant company and has worked as an accident investigator for the USAF, NTSB, and FAA?

explanation[edit]

I think the {{prod}} and redirection are both premature. I reverted the redirection.

It is not clear to me whether Sullenberger merits coverage. But, a few minutes web searching shows he is not just an airline pilot. Geo Swan (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have decided that his career as an accident investigator, and scholar in the fields of High Reliability systems and Risk Management mean this article is not an instance of WP:BLP1E. Since I started working on this article someone else has redirected it to the article on the accident. And I reverted that rediruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuection. In the interests of collegiality, I wonder whether those who think it should be redirected would discuss their concern here? Geo Swan (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected the page the second time, as it had the prod tag on it I assumed no one was working on it - should have checked the edit history. Having said that given your development of the article and the small amount of Googling I've done I'd still be in favour of the article being redirected with some of the information being merged back into the main article. Whatever his achievements prior to the flight I think it is hard to argue that he was notable two days ago, all references to him before the flight appear to be from his place of work and a conference he was speaking at - they are not independent sources. WP:BLP1E states that "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopaedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them... Cover the event, not the person" (emphasis from source). In this case I don't think that the flurry of news coverage there has been - at this stage - warrants an independent article. Additionally I think having any appropriate information in the main article about the flight would make more sense from the readers perspective, neither article is that large and I don't see the need to send people around different articles looking for information on what is - at this stage at least - essentially one topic. Guest9999 (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that I'm not about to redirect the article again, there's obviously verifiable information about the guy and I doubt the article will develop any negative bias. Guest9999 (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was Sullenberger "notable" two days ago? I dunno. But I suggest this is the wrong question.
Bearing in mind that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally recognized as a weak argument, may I point out that we have lots of articles on individuals who have less going for them than the C Sullenberger of 2009-01-14.
There is no way of knowing, but I think if a well-written article had been written about Sullenberger, based on the references available about him in early January, and someone had nominated it for for deletion, it would have closed as "no consensus", with just about everyone, on either side, acknowledging that based on the references available then, he was on the cusp of being remarkable enough to merit coverage here. There is no doubt in my mind that saving his passengers pushed him way over -- and those references, which document his speaking as an expert on airline safety, totally demolish any WP:BLP1E arguments. On 2009-01-16 we are evaluating whether he merits coverage on 2009-01-16. And I suggest that the only answer to that question is that he does. Geo Swan (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no combat experience, no answers as to why PSA 182 crashed, other pilots would have also landed on the Hudson

if both engines out, he is a good pilot as are many others, the United flight in Sioux city was more airmanship, no one knows their names! but Tom hanks plays him so he is now famous? Juror1 (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“rediruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuection“? what were you saying before the “ection”? A word starting with “rediru”?
(late reply) Rosiedanugbtugn (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subject might indeed be "an accident investigator, and scholar in the fields of High Reliability systems and Risk Management", but he is not notable in those areas. I couldn't find any ghits not related to the crash. Seems to fit WP:ONEEVENT very well. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I urge User:Mufka, and anyone else who continues to think that the claim that there are no google hits about Sullenberger prior to yesterday to recognize a phenomenon they will encounter in every case where an individual plays a heroic role in a remarkable event. Coverage of that event will drown out the legitimate pre-event WP:RS references.
User:Mufka wrote:

I couldn't find any ghits not related to the crash. Seems to fit WP:ONEEVENT very well.

Well, I too did a web search -- and I did find pre-event references, including this one [1] which had a substantial paragraph about Sullenberger, and I had already included them prior to anyone commenting that this article did not comply with WP:BLP1E. User:Mufka, and the others who argue the article does not comply with BLP1E simply didn't make enough effort when performing their web searches; and, frankly, they haven't show enough respect to those of us who did make more of an effort in our web searches, who did find the pre-event RS -- prior to making their assertions that there weren't any. If you are going to make the assertion that there are no pre-event RS, don't you think it might be a good idea to actually take thirty seconds and scan over the article's reference section first?
Please bear in mind, the phenomenon of the recent event almost drowning out the pre-event WP:RS, when someone performs a heroic act, has happened in the past, and it will happen in the future. And I am going to repeat, I urge those who like to mount challenges claiming the authority of WP:BLP1E to bear this in mind. Geo Swan (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That source is from a conference he spoke at, it's not independent of the subject and doesn't go towards establish the individuals notability. Trade conferences are a dime a dozen and speaking at one generally just shows you have experience as part of an industry (if that). If his participation in the conference received third-party coverage that would be a different matter. Guest9999 (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source is from a conference he spoke at. And being chosen to speak at a conference(s), prior to 2009-01-15, erodes the claim that a web search turned up zero RS results for him, prior to 2009-01-15. Surely this is clear?
Was the substantial paragraph biography the conference published written by Sullenberger? That is not unlikely. But I suggest it is safe to assume those organizing the conference vetted the biography. And, I suggest, that vetting puts the bio at a remove from purely promotional, self-drafted material.
Guest9999 calls the conference a "trade conference" and asserts they are a "dime a dozen". The description from that page says:

"HRO 2007 gathers an outstanding group of American and European experts, practitioners and researchers. The purpose is to share and compare experiences, perspectives and research findings in a truly international context."

Note: The description of the conference says nothing about products -- so it is not a trade conference. I would call it an Academic conference. Are academic conferences "a dime a dozen"? It has been a couple of decades since I was on the periphery of the academic world; but my impression was that an Academic might consider attending a half dozen or dozen conferences in their field, per year, and maybe actually attend one or two. Do I agree that this erodes their usefulness in evaluating whether an expert who spoke at conferences had the respect of his or her colleagues? Absolutely not. Geo Swan (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People are going to want to know enough about this guy that he should have his own article. Wikipedia rules are flexible, and WP:ONEEVENT can be broken for cases like this. Be bold! Grundle2600 (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Could someone please complete the AfD? Can't create the discussion page. Simply go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesley Sullenberger and insert 

{{afd2 | pg=Chesley Sullenberger | cat=B | text=[[WP:BLP1E]]. Should be a redirect to [[US Airways Flight 1549]], but not an article on its own.}}

Thanks, 78.34.145.54 (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the reasoning, it should go without question that WP:BLP1E means this article cannot exist. Cover the event, not the person. As an aside, shame on those who are unable/unwilling to get a simple notability rule such as BLP1E. Just do never create an article about a living person notable only for one single event. Just do not. 78.34.145.54 (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Code inserted. Terrakyte (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And listed in today's log. 78.34.145.54 (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. The deletion discussion was closed in an hour as a "snowball keep." The new rule must be" never sleep or doing anything else for an hour, to have a chance to make input". I would have voted for deletion on the WP:BLP1E grounds that he may have been a safety expert before his 5 minutes of flying an airliner to a successful ditching, but he is known only for this one incident and did not have evidence of notability prior to it to satisfy WP:BIO. When the news coverage of the incident is past, in a few months, perhaps someone can renominate it or merge it to the article on the event. On the other hand, perhaps he will write a book about it and be the subject of a "made for TV" movie of the week and gain notability that way. Edison (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edison, generally speaking, I'm right there with you. And I wished the AfD would have been closed as "withdrawn" rather than "per SNOW". OTOH I'm happy just to have made the effort of bringing this issue up. My conscience is clean, so to speak. The mass has spoken, and we all know that AfD is decided solely based on headcount in almost all cases. Do something about it. I really DGAF anymore, i.e. beyond providing my input according to my conscience and to the best of my knowledge. If the system then rejects that input because they e.g. equate having a WP article with being real, then that's the problem of the system. I've tried it, and that's more than most ever achieve. It almost never works out on WP though, but that's primarily a good cause to consider not participating any more. Because that's what is eventually going to happen anyway. Sooner or later, Wikipedia's usership will consist to >90% of people who have no clue about what to write about, let alone about how to write properly. This is the only thing to be learned here: If you're against this indiscriminate, encyclopedia-hating (falsely labeled "inclusionist") onslaught, just deny the system your time and effort. One thing is unfortunately for sure: As more people come in, Wikipedia will never change to the better. Instead, the demographic of its user base will become more like the general demographic: Lots of well-meaning idiots.
As to the existence of this particular article: It's bad (its existence), but there's far worse (articles and existences). 78.34.128.236 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall, the nomination was withdrawn. Dlohcierekim 15:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merger-- absolutely not[edit]

A little surprised to see this up for merger/fast after creation. What he did and his background make him extraordinary. Were Wikipedia a paper encyclopedia, we would have to consider culling and merging to the notable event. However, a merge here is not appropriate and unnecessary-- we've plenty of room. I seem to remember somewhere that the goal is to cover a subject as completely as possible. That we can do with two separate articles. BLP1E says a separate article is unlikely to be warranted. This event, the coverage, and the role the subject played, as well as his prior status, raises him to a degree of notability where a separate article becomes essential. Dlohcierekim 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, and the AfD went accordingly. So now we (or rather, I) know. 78.34.128.236 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merger is called for by WP:BLP1E. This is an encyclopedia, not "News of the Week." If it were an archive of "news of the week" people in the news, there would be an article on Piero Calamai, captain of the luxury passenger liner SS Andrea Doria when it sank in 1956. That was a very big story, bigger than this ditching of an airliner. Stories about disasters or narrowly averted disasters should not produce articles about every person mentioned in stories about the event. (WP:BEANS?)Edison (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(notability != body count) As I recall, the captain of Andrea Doria was not notable. We do have an article about Edward Smith. This is not an article about the air-crash-pilot-of -the-week. Had he tried for an alternate air port and crashed in the suburbs, or if he had made some similarly spectacular mess of things, he would not be notable. He becomes notable in that he used his skill, expertise, and training to avert a disaster. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I originally redirected the article but I'm now not so sure, the press attention on him seems to be rivalling that of the event, his picture was on the front page of Yahoo and there are currently several BBC stories about him and any honours he could receive. I still think that the information might be better presented with a merge and his past achievements - however noble - did not receive any kind of independent coverage but it is not going to be possible to objectively look at information available as a whole until after the hubbub around the event has died down. Per WP:NOT#NEWS Wikipedia should examine the historical notability of topics but as was shown by the abortive AfD there is currently a clear consensus to have articles about ongoing events and those involved in them, where such a perspective will be difficult to achieve. Guest9999 (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Sullenberger is somewhat notable for his many achievements, though through his rationale to avoid a crash-landing at Teterboro, coupled with the historic ditching, should by their own merit warrant a separate wiki page. His decisions alone were instrumental in the outcome of the flight. These decisions were made in the space between 3.27 to 3.28pm on the 15th. How many people - unless truly notable - could achieve that much, with 155 lives at risk? I am quite sure that within the course of the near future we will have information that is specifically relevant to one or the other article/s. --Space cadet65 (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the above comments indicate unfamiliarity with general notability and biography policies. We do not create an article to reward someone doing something well,(he ditched without the usual consequence of killing all on board) or withhold an article to punish some other pilot or ship captain who tried to do the same thing but was less successful. An article is not a "Hero Medal" like a ticker tape parade or the "keys to the city." We have articles about people and things which are encyclopedic, not those who are merely newsworthy. The proper place immediately after some major newsworthy incident is the main article about the event. If he is the author or subject of book or movies or if he receives substantial coverage beyond the present news cycle, and the section about him becomes so long as to overwhelm the article on the incident, then by all means have a separate article. For now, the only significant information about him is his conduct during the brief flight and the rescue afterwards. His pre-crashlanding career would never have justified an article, any more than tens of thousands of other pilots with similar resumes. Edison (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know that Wikipedia is not news but people curious about this pilot will be coming here for information about him (as I did). Should we turn them away? Or send them to an article on the event, which they already know about? –xeno (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xeno, iyo, should we give them what they want no matter what they want? People looking for something unencyclopedic (as unencyclopedic as news coverage) on Wikipedia, those people just happen to be looking in the wrong place, and they should be educated about that fact by not having their erroneous expectations catered to. If they then feel like they're being "turned away", that's just a problem of their incorrect expectations. We're not here to be popular, but to be accurate. Oh, and to be an encyclopedia. 78.34.128.236 (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems pretty accurate to me? –xeno (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accuracy also involves the decision process regarding what to host an article about and what not. Everything in the article is fine as far as I can see, but its existence contributes to Wikipedia's already considerable recentist systemic bias, which constitues a major overall inaccuracy. 78.34.128.236 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFD was closed as keep, not merge. –xeno (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With which you mean to say what exactly? And what about my earlier point? Should we drop the charade and just officially declare the encyclopedic goal unattainable? Should Wikipedia be a least common denominator? Most would probably agree, but they're just the majority, nothing special. 78.34.128.135 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the big deal with keeping this article? When you spectacularly crash your airplane, with plentiful witnesses, such as Sullenberger, or Leul Abate, it tends to make you notable. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CV[edit]

EWhy don't people use the Curriculum Vitae Chesley Sullenberger has written himself? It is on the web page of his company, Safety Reliability Methods Inc. It seems stupid not to do that. It is a word file under the section 'Profile' on his webpage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.240.16 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, all his important achievements have been already listed on the article. I don't think the article would look good if we added everything he has done. Also, we shouldn't copy promotional claims in the CV onto the article, as was done earlier, because such claims on a CV are unreliable, because the CV writer is trying to promote himself probably outside of an NPOV context. What does everyone else think? Terrakyte (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the minor detail of the "Copyright 2007 Safety Reliability Methods, Inc. All rights reserved." at the bottom of his web pages, so using it verbatim or significant chunks of it would be a copyright violation. - Fordan (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo "Wikipediers"!...[edit]

(sorry for my not perfect english, I am a frenchman) Bravo for all "wikipediers", for so fast having created this page... No doubt for me... Was absoluty no reason for waiting. The great stuff Chesley Sullenberger was able to do, is not an ordinary stuff, indeed. Just because he was able doing that, he have his place now in the great history of aviation, and as wikipedia is also an encyclopedia about that, it is evident, no debating about that seems necessary he must having an article just for him (and concerning this more subjective criteria, I am considerating him as a "hero" too, of course). From this day, sure, lot of people around the World could be happy finding serious articles of references about this man. I was in this situation of searching... Here in France, at first, I was listening in the radio "Europe1", he was 67... and later at mid-day TV information program of "France2" he was 57... It is a debate here since months about the plane pilots age limitation. So was certainly an important element for considerating a pilot could be a good pilot at 67, if Mister Sullenberger was... So I was trying to have the right age on the net... And discovering a part of articles on online american newspapers saying he is 57, another part he is 67 !... The consensus of wikipediers saying here is he born in 1951 or 52... nearly 57, so... That is so, probably the right answer for my question. I wanted reacting here, because this Wikipedia article is also an illustration of how Wikipedia can be really usefull... It can be like a lighthouse when the Internaut is lost in the darkness of the ocean of mass-medias!... ;-) Y.R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.14.66 (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind words Y.R. Terrakyte (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See e.g. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#NEWS for why --most of the time, anyway-- it is a bad idea to produce an article as quickly as it was done here. 78.34.128.236 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this article and the related US Airways 1549 seem to have done an excellent job of dealing with the proportionality concerns dealt with in WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#NEWS. Both articles keep their subjects in perspective and avoid the detail overload which could create undue weight concerns. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...most of the time, anyway... 78.34.128.135 (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks again for all the dedicated folks who put this together, it would be interesting to see some expansion on his Vietnam years in the F4 encase there were any notable experiences from that time in his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.207.119 (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German or Jewish[edit]

So what's his ancestry? Given his surname, he is either of German or German-Jewish ancestry.

I'm afraid I don't know. I haven't come across any reliable sources that say what his ancestry is. Terrakyte (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has a sister named Mary Margaret Wilson. I have the impression that Mary Margaret is a Catholic name. Of course, she may have converted and taken a new name at baptism. --anon. 68.160.230.107 (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

I'm glad I was not the only one with the foresight to realize that this man will very soon be a household name in America, and not just a footnote in a news story about a plane crash. In the same way that Jeremy Glick of United 93 fame has his own article, Chesley Sullenberger certainly warrants one as well. Jrsightes (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger? Wait a few weeks[edit]

Once this dies down, this thing will be merged. There are obviously some passionate points of view, so let's not get into a "merger battle" here. Let these people, who suddenly have great affection for a man they don't know and likely will forget in a couple of weeks, have their wikipedia page. It doesn't meet the standard for its own article. This guy will have ZERO notoriety once this is done with, particularly considering there were no fatalities. This thing is headed for the main article like you would not believe.

Pilots of downed planes, traditionally, are included in the articles ABOUT the crash. We went through this nonsense with the 9/11 flight articles and it's just important to let the whoopla of this crash die down.

So, leave it now, merge later. I assure you, no one will notice. --Prop21 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This guy will have ZERO notoriety once this is done with, particularly considering there were no fatalities." Uh, it's because of "this guy" that there were zero fatalities! Are you suggesting that he would be more notable if he were not as skilled a pilot and had gotten some, most, or all of the people on board killed? Probably not what you meant, but that is how it sounds. Also, which of the 9/11 pilots landed their planes safely with no loss of life? I'm having trouble remebering that. I'm assuming you mean the pilots of the 4 hijacked planes, and not the thousands of planes that were landed safely that day. For the most part, all of those were routine landings, tho under a lot of time pressure and in some unsual locations. I do agree that we should wait and see if this guy's notability is lasting or not. We have no way of knowing until time passes. Also, the standard here is Notability, not "notoriety" - they aren't the same thing. - BillCJ (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I disagree the notion that this man will have no notability in a few weeks. The man certainly meets notability requirements, and notability is, last I knew, not in any way temporary. However, I agree that we should all remain calm in our discussions, and perhaps have a nice cup of tea. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for using "notoriety" in lieu of "notability." Once the chaos dies down, he'll have neither. People aren't going to look in an encyclopedia for information on "US Airways Flight 1549" by looking up the "Chesley Sullenberger" because no one is going to know his name. A great example of a great pilot who was not so fortunate was Walter Lux, the Captain of American Airlines Flight 191, which crashed in Chicago, killing all on board. Nowhere on wikipedia will you find any article about his valiant struggle to save the flight, his decorated history as a pilot, or anything like that. Lux was doing the same thing that Sullenberger was doing: his job. Both pilots were victims of factors beyond their control and both did the best they could. By this rationale, Lux should have an article as well, right? Wrong, he's in the American Flight 191 file and Sullenberger is on the fast track to the US Airways Flight 1549 article...I'm just saying we should let this die down. Too many new, inexperienced users are participating on these current event articles. We should just let it die down and clean up the mess later. Let's just keep it civil. My point is made. --Prop21 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So go write that article too sparky! Hiberniantears (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring all of Prop21's valid points. 78.34.128.135 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A contributor suggests that those who want to purge this article wait a few weeks, when he or she predicts Sullenberger will be forgotten. Then they quietly merge and redirect, and "no on will notice". I'd like to remind them, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
This same contributor asserts Sullenberger was merely "fortunate" -- and "just doing his job". My own reading of the situation was that the exceptional landing of the plane, with no deaths, and only a limited number of wounded was almost entirely due exceptional skill and the preparation of Sullenberger's background -- and that characterizing him "as just doing his job" is a disservice to the wikipedia's readers.
  • Sullenberger's hobby as a glider pilot -- not part of just doing his job...
  • Sullenberger serving as the chair of the Air Line Pilots Association safety committee -- not part of just doing his job...
  • Sullenberger Masters in Industrial Psychology/Human Factors -- not part of just doing his job...
  • Sullenberger's experience as an accident investigator -- not part of just doing his job...
  • Sullenberger's experience as a Risk Management consult -- not part of just doing his job...
My evening news just characterized Sullenberger's feat as unique -- said no one has ever landed an airliner on water intact. There seems to be no question that Sullenberger's unique background enabled him to save his passengers, not luck -- that only an exceptionally skilled pilot could have accomplished what he accomplished. I can't help wondering whether the skeptics are bothering to actually pay attention to the coverage of Sullenberger, and this event. Our challenger described both Sullenberger and another pilot who died failing to save his passengers, as "victims of factors beyond their control". Again, I can't help wondering whether our challenger is actually paying attention to the coverage of Sullenberger -- who faced exceptionally challenging, and, through his exceptional background, was able to actually maintain control so he could save all his passengers. Geo Swan (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word "skeptics" shouldn't be used as a negative, but on the contrary - to be a skeptic is something you should aspire to be --KpoT (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not expire; if Sullenberger is notable now, per wikipedia standards he's notable forever. Relitigating the issue in a few weeks, based on the same facts and rationales of the current debate, could expose editors to the perception of forum shopping. Better to accept the judgment of current editors and work with them, rather than waiting to implement changes after they go away. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not discount luck. Other pilots who have had to ditch were also highly trained, and highly skilled, and desparately trying to save the lives of the crew and passengers, but might have encountered crosswinds or higher waves. Do not discouint plain dumb lick in a good outcome, and do not assume that other pilots did not give a damn or were unskilled. Edison (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. We shall not discouint plain dumb lick. You have our guarantee. In addition, let me close by saying Neil Armstrong only landed on the moon once. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, notability does not expire, and the breadth and depth of published material about this one particular man easily achieves notability. And if you're worried you'll never hear from him again, let the NYTimes reassure you "Howard J. Rubenstein, the public relations guru, called Captain Sullenberger a “publicist’s dream,” and envisioned lucrative book deals, movie pitches and product endorsements in his future." Joshdboz (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments against merger, and those of others, as set forth above in #merger-- absolutely not, will be as valid then as now. The subject is clearly notable, and clearly we need as separate article. Also, the "not a reward" argument lacks merit. An article is not a reward. However, the fact that he has earned awards and has garnered acclaim and the manner by which he did so is significant enough that that he is notable. Baileypalblue makes excellent points. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 16:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected an early version of this article to the article about the ditching incident; but looking at it now, it seems that Sullenberger was sufficiently notable (visiting scholar, published papers, academic conference presentations, etc.) before that event. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the notion that Sullenberger should be treated the same on Wikipedia as the pilots of planes that crashed and killed everyone aboard: Regardless of whether the difference between the two outcomes was a matter of luck or skill, Sullenberger will be remembered as a hero for a long time because everybody survived while the other pilots are forgotten because nobody did. That's just the way the world works. Luck matters- it always has and it always will. If it was Wikipedia's job to reconstruct history without the influence of Luck, then we should get to work on Al Gore's US Presidency page. (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DOB[edit]

Probably not good enough source, but this indicates a date of birth of January 23, 1951. --Elliskev 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Mr. Sullenberger graduated from the US Air Force Academy (a four-year college) in 1973, his birth date in 1951 is absolutely reasonable. Lots and lots of people graduate from high school at age 17 or 18, and then graduate on schedule four years at the age of 22 or 23. Also, Air Force Academy cadets are only very rarely allowed to lag behind for a year or two (as is common at non-military colleges). An example would be someone who had suffered a serious injury, such as a severly broken leg. 98.67.171.45 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection[edit]

I protected the page from moves, given the tendentious nature of the comments on the talk page. If consensus decides that the page should be merged into the actual article on the crash, that's fine, but I see a fair amount of single issue editors on this page, and that's enough for me to add move protection for the mean time. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just amend my last, given that chronologically my last two edits on this page (a response to Edison, and then this move protect) were not related. Edison (or any other admin) please feel free to remove the move protect, and know that I was not referring to your comment as tendentious. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

move protection change needed[edit]

The article should be moved to Chesley Sullenberger III, shouldn't it? Chergles (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since he's presently the only Chesley Sullenberger that we have an article on, it's probably ok where it is. –xeno (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Designate the air crash as a stand alone section[edit]

I'm just wondering if it should be apart from the commercial pilot section, since this is probably responsible for almost all of the views of this page. The crash is sort of pushed into that section, when it's certainly notable enough to warrant its own part. JMO, but I think the article would be more 'workable' that way. Sky83 (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements[edit]

To all those who want avoid a deletion, I recommend improving upon various points in the article such as his education, his experience as a pilot, and of course US Airways Flight 1549 in a little more detail. In which this would be of some value rather than his notability as a "hero". Or else, in time, this article should be merged.--68.73.93.168 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I agree that more info should be added regarding his education, and general pilot experiences, but I've been unable to find such info yet. I am hesitant to agree to adding more text about the flight itself, since I am afraid this article could develop into a big focus on the flight that way, which is a purpose I believe should be reserved for the US Airways Flight 1549 article. I believe that this article should focus on his life in general, and not focus on the flight, since the other article exists for that.Terrakyte (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am working to obtain verifiable detail on his military assignments to ensure the facts are correct. The USAFA Association of Graduates publishes a directory annually, only available to members, which lists each graduate's assignments. The information is self-reported and reverified annually, but since it is not available to the public, other sources would have to be used to corroborate. He graduated from the US Air Force Academy on June 6, 1973. According to the directory, he attended USAF Undergraduate Pilot training at Columbus AFB, Mississippi from 1974-1975. He attended Replacement Training Unit (RTU) in the F-4D at Luke AFB, Arizona in 1975, in the 426 Tactical Fighter Training Squadron. He was assigned to RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom, in the 493 Tactical Fighter Squadron, in 1976, and completed USAF Squadron Officer's School through the Correspondence program the same year. In 1977, he was assigned to the 428th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Nellis AFB, Nevada. This was a three-unit move, called "Ready Switch," in which F-111A aircraft at Nellis AFB moved to Mt Home AFB, ID, the F-111F aircraft at Mt Home moved to RAF Lakenheath, and the F-4D aircraft at RAF Lakenheath moved to Nellis AFB. In 1979 he completed his Master's of Public Administration at the University of Northern Colorado, and in 1980 resigned from the Air Force to join US Airways. In his own CV, he states he had "...experience in Europe, Pacific and at Nellis AFB." I can't verify where he obtained his Pacific experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Nishimuta (talk • contribs) 15:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"While in the Air Force, he was a member of the official aircraft accident investigation board." The citation for this is the UK Telegraph reference 15. There is no such thing as "The official aircraft accident investigation board." An accident investigation board is appointed for every major aircraft accident. On his Safety Reliability Methods website, he states he has participated in several USAF and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)accident investigations. Recommend the sentence be changed to read "While in the Air Force, he was a member of several official aircraft accident investigation boards." Anyone agree? Mike Nishimuta (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On non-notability[edit]

Someone said:

Just do never create an article about a living person notable only for one single event. Just do not.

So should we delete the article about Hinkley too? He only did ONE thing in his life, and he only did it for 8 seconds. He didn;t even kill anyone.

So what's the difference between Sullenberger and Hinkley here? Are incompetent assassins given the "notability" honor even though they did essentially nothing at all? Or is heroism just not as "notable"? TechnoFaye Kane 11:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said that. Maybe I was a bit too strict there: My comment should be viewed in the context of the huge recentist systemic bias on Wikipedia. The general tendency is that someone will instantly create an article without spending a nanosecond's worth of consideration for long-term notability and encyclopedic value. Most of the time, the fate such articles face is that either they are brought to acceptable quality quickly, or never (since usually, the interest of those very same types who created the article during the initial media buzz rapidly fades synchronously with the mainstream hype). However, this article is clearly in the first column of acceptable content. Nevertheless, I'm not quite sure though why people so vigorously oppose it be a section in the parent article, at least until the parent article becomes overlong (see also WP:SPINOUT).
As to John Hinckley, Jr., it was so long ago that the reason someone created the article is not inconsiderate recentism by our editors (which is what bugs me personally about rapid article creation for current news items). Another point is that living people should never be called names anywhere on Wikipedia, so you may want to refactor your comment. 78.34.168.97 (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't filter out event protagonists that warrant national attention. I wonder if John Wilkes Booth would be notable if he had not assassinated Lincoln. If you wait for history to filter out the non-notables, we miss the opportunity to capture information that may not be available years later. -- jwalling (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, if we don't wait a few days before creating an article, we might miss the media hype — and who wants to write an article about yesterday's news, right? Also, why "warrant" as opposed to simply "get"? 78.34.129.171 (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warrant: Justification for an action or a belief; grounds, - to warrant: To guarantee or attest to the quality, accuracy, or condition of. Wikipedians are able to use judgement and distinguish between hype and substance. Obviously, every news story is not notable. By your criteria, the actors of 911 were not notable for weeks or perhaps months after the event. That makes no sense to me. -- jwalling (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call by Obama for a Job?[edit]

Have you heard that Sullenberger is going to take a Job in the Obama Administration? It seems that is gonna be an important job or at least for public view —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adwikistrator8 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources?? - BillCJ (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, easy, before such an offensive claim about my user. As you have seen (this add mine is prior) to the Obama assumption, and Sullenberger was a special guests in first camera planes (positions for privileged persons).

Second is not a prank, but a discussion, (by the way, is this is not the correct place, answer to this in my page, but please don not erase it!, it looks like vandalism, a user ANONYMOUS erased and I had to set it back.) I have red this in an spanish blog (serious blog), I came to the wiki and not found any source , so came to the disscussion , found nothing too, so I ask. ¿what is the prank about it? Sorry if for you looks like a prank, but at least don't use my non contrubtions in the english wiki with this nick as an argument, doing that is a mix of argumentum ad hominem,plus post hoc, ergo propter hoc and non sequitur, not and real argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adwikistrator8 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Here is a man who was just doing his job. Doing what he is expected and paid to do. That alone does not make a hero. NorthernThunder (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally WP:BLP1E if you ask me. JBsupreme (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people have done or had one notable event in their life and history has remembered them for a lifetime. It would be a blow if this article was removed in my opinion. As a reader of wikipedia myself I find the backround info about him intresting and something that can be improved upon.Knowledgekid8718:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He did his job pretty uncommonly well... most pilots don't have to deal with all engines suddenly being disabled (nor end up as well when they do). We'll see if he is quickly forgotten, but I'm guessing more than even odds that he isn't. Wouldn't surprise me in the least to see a couple things named after him, at which point we would definitely want an article on him so people could learn about the reference. Sort of like Arland D. Williams Jr. (several people involved in that crash have their own articles actually). There is definitely a tendency to create too many articles on news events, but I think this is an example of one which is probably appropriate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this incident is comparable to some of the so-called war heroes of the past. Anyway I think it was decided by someone somewhere that he had been notable before this - he just would probably never have been mentioned without the crash/splash. The article seems in good shape and to contain enough information at any rate for someone supposedly non-notable. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 17:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd say that Sully is as notable as Al Haynes and that the article fully meets all criteria to remain on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Library book[edit]

In the article, it says "A few weeks following the crash of Flight 1549, it was revealed that Sullenberger lost a library book (on professional ethics) in the plane. When he called the library to notify them of the lost book, they waived the usual fees." I agree this is interesting, and gave me a bit of a chuckle, but I think this info is a bit too trivial for inclusion into this article. Does anyone else agree? 86.153.98.74 (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To avoid confusion, I am the person who removed the info earlier (the removal was reverted). My IP seems to have changed since that time. 86.153.98.74 (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It gave me a chuckle too. Sure there are minor undue/relevancy concerns, but its sourced, so why not let others have a little moment of amusement? Joshdboz (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say because it doesn't belong here. Wikipedia is not here to "let others have a little moment of mild amusement". I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that waived fees over a lost library book merit inclusion.Mk5384 (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The merit is in the topicality of the library book: that a skilled pilot had a book on professional ethics actually on the plane when he ditched it.CharlesKiddell (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An error in dates, etc.[edit]

Regardless of what some sources may say, Sullenberger Did Not fly F-4s for the Air Force starting in 1973. That statement is not even reasonable. He graduated from the USAFA in May or June of 1973. Next, a graduated cadet intending to become a pilot would spend the rest of 1973 and all of 1974 (at the least) either preparing for flight school or attending undergraduate flight school (where the trainer jets T-37 and T-38 were used), and not flying combat airplanes. As a matter-of-fact, other sources state that Lt. Sullenberger attended undergraduate flight school at Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi in 1974 though part of 1975 (it is a course that take at least 12 months to complete). So, the earliest that he could possibly possibly engaged in flying the F-4 Phantom II combat fighter was 1975. Just quoting a source that makes obviously erroneous statements does not cut it, and it is nothing to be proud of. Some common sense needs to be used, also.98.67.171.45 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Commercial Pilot Certificate rating in gliders" exist?[edit]

"He holds an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate for single and multi-engine airplanes, and a Commercial Pilot Certificate rating in gliders, as well as an expired flight instructor certificate for airplanes (single, multi-engine, and instrument), and gliders." This sentence seems screwed up to me, but I am not knowledgeable in the area. Geo8rge (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, a commercial pilot certificate would allow him to take passengers in a glider in return for "payment or reward". Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, although there's additional steps besides obtaining a Commercial certificate to carry passengers for hire (FAR §91.147, things like a letter of authorization from the FAA, drug testing, etc). It's also a prerequisite for obtaining a flight instructor certificate, which is why (or at least a reason why) I suspect Mr. Sullenberger got his. - Fordan (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve O'Brien[edit]

I've commented out the following unsourced sentence: "Passenger Steve O'Brien, when sitting in one of the life rafts with Sullenberger, observed him to be so calm and seemingly unaffected by the crash that he mistook Sullenberger for one of his rescuers." The audio at [2] conveys something to this effect, but it doesn't precisely confirm the sentence. Can anyone locate a better source? Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early life[edit]

It is stated that he was "a first chair flute". I'm not sure exactly what this means. Is the musical instrument meant by "flute? If so, what is a first chair? Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That simply means that he was judged the best flautist in his band or orchestra. The second-best would be awarded "second chair," and so on. Their rankings affect their seating arrangement, hence the "chair" aspect of it all. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to Wiktionary:first chair in case there's any future confusion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salary and Pension?[edit]

Is it notable that before the accident his salary was cut 40% and his pension (from USAIR) was terminated? [3]Geo8rge (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Known for?[edit]

The guy is certinaly not notable for being the CEO of Safety Reliability Methods. It should say something like "The Captain of 1549" (roughly). If there will be no objection I'll do this soon. Guy0307 (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hometown[edit]

The crash section states that his hometown is Danville, CA, then later states it as Denison, TX. I assume Danville is his current place of residence, while Denison is where he grew up, but some distinction should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.94.49 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interview[edit]

Sullenberger is interviewed on todays' BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme. It is available on the BBC iPlayer for a week after transmission, if anyone is interested. The interview started about an hour and three quarters into the programme. The 'listen again' button on the programme page [4] will go live after the programme finishes in just over an hour from now. 86.150.103.168 (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining why he matters[edit]

This is a bit of a drive-by (fly-by?) comment as I just happened over here, but a couple of things struck me as I read the intro and quickly skimmed the rest of the article:

1) The introduction does not at all communicate why "Sully" is such a big deal—namely that he was lionized as a hero basically by the entire country. Someone reading this in 10 years will get no sense of that at the outset. Rather they'll know he is an international speaker and wrote a book, and also ditched an airplane which saved lives, but they'll have no sense as to how people reacted to that event. That's the critical thing with this fellow, and I think it should be mentioned in a sentence or two in the introduction.
2) Related to the first point, the body of the article lacks critical context important for future readers. There's a reason why "Sully" created such a stir beyond his heroic actions as a pilot. The U.S. was smack in the middle of a horrific economic crisis (and on the verge of a new presidency), and quite frankly people were in the mood for a hero, as was repeatedly noted in the aftermath of Flight 1549. Had the same event happened two years earlier Sullenberger almost certainly would not have received nearly as much attention (though he still would have received a lot, of course). I'm sure there are many, many sources which can attest to these ideas, and I think they are absolutely central to understanding Sullenberger's notability/legacy.

I'd be willing to try adding in some material along these lines, but I'd be interested to hear feedback from regular editors of this page first. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit in the Lead's explanation that he saved those lives is the fact that this is why he is noteworthy, and therefore merits an article. Further details on how people reacted are further down in the article body, though I suppose we can summarize (albeit very briefly) some of the accolades he received and the public figures who praised him.
As for the more general point about the relationship between his fame and the economic crisis or the public's need for a hero, we would need reliable sources for this, and they would have to establish that this viewpoint/interpretation is widely held, in order to satisfy WP:V and not violate WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH. If you know of such sources, go for it. :-) Nightscream (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox details[edit]

I think we should change the infobox format to person because the aviator one does not have a parameter for "birth date".. the closest one is "lived" but that makes no sense because he is still living. Anyone have opinions? Tinton5 (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoסע — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.138.89 (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Data visualization[edit]

A data visualization company has produced a wealth of materials for visualizing many aspects of Flight 1549, including a quite impressive CGI video of the entire flight. Should this be added to the External Links? [5] --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material on court case in need of sourcing[edit]

I have moved the following unsourced material here until it can be properly sourced per WP:NOR/WP:V. It was recently added without any source to clarify or provide details on the, the nature of the dispute, or for the quotes attributed to Sullenberger's. In addition, although I corrected most of these elements, for future reference, please do not capitalize words that are not proper nouns, like "mid", "federal court case", "integrity" or "jury". In addition, there is no need for "The jury disagreed with Sullenberger to be italicized, and colloquialisms of unclear meaning like "no dog in this fight" should be removed in favor of more clearly paraphrased wording:

In mid-May 2008, Sullenberger acted as the first witness in a federal court case involving his labor union, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) v. The Former America West Pilots. The case was heard in the Arizona District Court by Neil Wake. Although Sullenberger testified that he had "no dog in this fight" he continued that in his opinion, final and binding arbitrations should be ignored if the majority party finds the ruling unsatisfactory. During his testimony, Sullenberger equated the refusal to comply with a duly authorized, and mutually agreed upon arbitrator's ruling to possessing a form of personal "integrity". The jury disagreed with Sullenberger. The jury found that a final and binding arbitration ruling, was in fact, "final and binding". The USAPA was found guilty of violating its legal duty to fairly represent all US Airways pilots. The jury returned its guilty verdict in under 90 minutes. USAPA is appealing the decision and this case will be heard on December 8, 2009 in the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco.

Nightscream (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An old stager.[edit]

We definitely need more of those men, to show us youngsters how to handle the flying ladies (A320 and so on... .. ..). Best Regards --MaurizioBochum (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooted Matters[edit]

The recent publication of "Highest Duty," an autobiographical work by Chesley B. Sullenberger, moots a considerable portion of the above contentious discussion. The hottest issue at present ought to be the "me, too" book called "Fly by Wire". Written by William Langewiesche," the author believes this work is "fair" because it vacillates between openly trashing Capt. Sullenberger and damning him with faint praise. A comparably "fair" guess is that Mr. Langewiesche will not get a decent night's sleep until a photograph on his Wiki demonstrates that he is (hubba hubba) beefcake compared to Sully. It must be awful to write "me, too" books out of a sense of inadequacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.60.165 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science of Human Factors[edit]

The field sounds reasonable, but could somebody please provide a little more academic rigor, such as a reference or a wiki link?--Jarhed (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that passage entirely, since the cited source never mentions any of that material. Nightscream (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Heroes[edit]

Captain SULLENBERGER has received a great deal of praise (including this page), and rightfully so, but we seem to have forgotten that his First Officer Jeffrey B. Skiles, was also on that plane, doing his part. ¿Where’s his page? It re-directs to the page on the crash. Not even a paragraph to himself.
I submit that this should be addressed. It’s an injustice that he’s been ignored outright, especially here, a site that pretends to be a record of events and facts. If SULLEN BERGER “deserves” his own page, so does anyone else making a significant contribution to “his” success. I’m not advocating that every passenger on every ferryboat that responded should be mentioned- Even the captains of the ferryboats and other emergency responders should only be referred to as groups (I’m a Coastie myself, and I submit that the Coasties who responded at most should be referred “personnel form Coast Guard Station X”). But SKILES’ contributions had a measurable effect on the event.174.25.42.71 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON[reply]

  •  Done

Sullenberger at WEF[edit]

Sullenberger is an invited speaker at the World Economic Forum currently taking place in Davos, Switzerland. Link Could someone add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.221.86.168 (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

An Easter-egg wikilink to 15 minutes of fame in the second sentence? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.208.203 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.208.203 (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 98.157.96.2, 12 April 2011[edit]

Under the commercial pilot section it says that he has 27,000 hours of flying experience. I'd like to point out that the reference used for that says that he has 19,000 and also in his autobiography, Highest Duty (which is fairly recent), on page 40 Sully says that he has 19,700 hours.

98.157.96.2 (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Bility (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sully hired by CBS[edit]

Chesley Sullenberger has been hired by CBS News as an aviation correspondent. Link 130.49.235.177 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Walked cabin twice": but the rear was full of water?[edit]

(Repeated, from Flight article, since this is mentioned in both places.) A small point, and not to decry Sully's amazing heroism one whit. I'm just curious how far back in the plane he was able to walk, before he exited the aircraft. According to flight attendant Doreen Welsh, who was seated in the rear at impact, the rear cabin of the plane began filling with water immediately. She said: "by the time I left there, it was [up to] here [indicating her neck-level]." (Video, fast-forward to 05:13.) She sent passengers scrambling over the seat-tops, to make sure they got out OK. Yet the WP article states: "Sullenberger walked the length of the passenger cabin twice to make sure everyone had evacuated..." The plane was at a very low angle -- maybe 5 degrees?, just eyeballing some photos, one can crudely guess the maximum water-line. If the icy-cold water was several feet deep in the rear, even if Doreen meant 'neck-level' while she was seated or she exaggerated some, then much of the cabin would have been flooded with at least some water. The full length of the A320-214 plane is 123 feet (35.6m), someone who remembers geometry can do the math. So: how far back did Sully walk, and how deep in the water did he wade? Up to his knees? His thighs? His waist? I don't recall seeing pics of him as he boarded a rescue boat or shortly after. I'm guessing he was able to get maybe half-way, just past the wings? Benefac (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit to clarify, per above. Benefac (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps use better focused main picture[edit]

File:Chesley_Sullenberger_honored_crop.jpg is slightly out of focus. Jidanni (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chesley Sullenberger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chesley Sullenberger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chesley Sullenberger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Crash" vs "Landing"[edit]

In the section about the ditching in the river, the operation was referred to as a crash. It was an Emergency landing. I chose 'landing' over 'ditching' for ease of reading. Tapered (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chesley Sullenberger. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Injuries[edit]

There were personal injuries. This entry should be updated with the correct information found on the linked flight entry or the sentence indicating no injuries should be removed. Mkenigson (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fix word[edit]

'he encounter incredulity' should read 'he encounters incredulity' 66.81.105.177 (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2017[edit]

Add a space after the first comma in the following paragraph:

A library book,Just Culture: Balancing Safety and Accountability was in Sullenberger's luggage left behind in the cockpit. When Sullenberger notified the library that the water-damaged book had been recovered, it made a point of waiving any late fees. Bloomberg presented Sullenberger with a new copy along with the Key to the City of New York. 216.243.38.26 (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Excelsior! EEng 08:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chesley Sullenberger. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture[edit]

Dilbert comics also refers to Chesley Sullenberger: http://dilbert.com/strip/2010-02-10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.46.66.164 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead (2)[edit]

The first section of the lead is a damn mess and efforts to revise it have been reverted, so here we are.

  • is a retired American airline captain celebrated for - "celebrated" should be changed to "known" to maintain a neutral POV
  • on the Hudson River off Manhattan - redundant since there's a link, "Manhattan" should be removed
  • after the plane was disabled by striking a flock of Canada geese immediately after takeoff - run-on and too much detail
  • all 155 people aboard survived - that number isn't even included in the article (in context of survivors)

173.73.10.191 (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • To deny that the subject was celebrated would be indeed nonneutral.
  • The Hudson is 300 miles long, and only a small part is adjacent to Manhattan. I don't know what link you're talking about.
  • Personally I'd drop the immediately after takeoff and the # of survivors [6] because the sentence as it is is a bit unwieldy, but they're certainly not out of place. Contrary to popular misapprehension not every single thing in the lead has to be found elsewhere in the article.
EEng 00:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The number of survivors is indeed in the body of the article. In any event, it is indeed reasonable to include both it and the date of the event in the Lead. Removing it was not an "improvement", as you called it on my talk page. If you felt it a problem that it was in the Post-flight accolades and publicity section instead of the Flight 1549 section, I went and added it to the latter, and made sure to update the dead link in the citation for that section. I also addressed your other concerns. Hope that helps.
"Known" is indeed the standard word used, and not "celebrated". Nightscream (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 155 is indeed in the article now, because you just added it; but as mentioned it's a myth that everything in the lead has to be in the article proper. Known may be the standard word, but this is not the standard situation; abundant sources attest that the approbation giving the subject was of an extremely unusual nature. EEng 00:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search yielded only event articles using the phrase "celebrated for". In regard to your "myth" comment, per MOS:LEAD: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need sources literally using the phrase celebrated for, we need sources reporting or reflecting celebration i.e. great appreciation and praise, and those are thick on the ground. EEng 04:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are endless references that use the phrasing "known for" in context of the incident. That phrasing does not discredit him and is a NPOV. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that known for does not discredit him, but it understates the admiration and renown (which is the meaning of celebration in this context) given the subject. You persist in thinking we're supposed to parrot sources' vocabulary. If you'd like to return to the "hailed as a national hero" wording that was in place for the four prior years before "celebrated" was substituted two years ago, I'd be OK with that. EEng 05:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would make some sort of sense if the 'celebration' continued, but all the sources for that are from around 2009. Known for is NPOV future-proof. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He may pass out of public consciousness someday too, in which case he wouldn't be known anymore either. EEng 06:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Future-proof to a reasonable extent, and it seems you agree that celebrated for isn't current. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: how about rewording the sentence to something like

That's also NPOV future-proof (even should opinion on the man or his action somehow change in the future, the fact he received that award won't); it avoids the clumsy appending of "all 155 people aboard survived" (presuming the lead-worthy information is that no one died, not necessarily the exact number of people on the plane); replaces the run-on clause with more relevant information (that is reflected, with sources, in the article body); same with the award: info already in the article at the Post-flight accolades section including a source; and clarifies the admiration/renown given the subject for his actions. The award itself is prestigious and not often awarded (scroll down for the entire list of folks who have received it) so I would not consider it UNDUE to mention in the lead either (the sole other concern I could think of), though YMMV I suppose. AddWittyNameHere 07:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion, I support it. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and happy to hear so. :) @EEng and Nightscream:, what do you think? AddWittyNameHere 07:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's the Hudson and then there's the Hudson.
Way better. Some peacemaking do-gooder always has to butt in and spoil the fun.[FBDB] I'd add back off Manhattan since we don't want the reader forming the wrong mental image (see right). Also, all landings are after takeoff; getting struck by a flock of birds while still on the taxiway would make a fun video but call for no heroics. The impressiveness of the landing was magnified by the low altitude at which the emergency arose, which I think is why the immediately was in there before, but I believe the significance is lost on nonspecialist readers even with that word. I'd therefore lose the entire after takeoff (also eliminating an odd after ... after). EEng 11:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Off Manhattan' is fine by me, it just wasn't in the sentence in the lead at the time and that's what I based the new sentence around. "After takeoff" is important here, however: takeoff is the entire phase of leaving the ground and getting into the air, not just the exact moment the plane comes off the ground. As such, a birdstrike during takeoff can have fatal results as well. See e.g. Ethiopian Airlines Flight 604. AddWittyNameHere 15:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EEng: "The 155 is indeed in the article now, because you just added it"

No, it was in the article before, and I even specified which section mentioned it. Didn't you read this when I said it?

And I am aware that not everything in the Lead has to be in the article's body. But the Lead summarizes the articles most salient points, or "basic facts", and the date and survivor count are certainly salient, basic facts related to Flight 1549.

"Known" is the word commonly used in regards to Wikipedia's notability policies, which govern the opening description of article subjects. What cited sources use is irrelevant to this. No one is arguing that the word "celebrate" discredits anyone or is non-neutral, but is not the word most in line with how the Lead is written, with WP:TONE, with WP:WEASEL, etc.

Being awarded the Master's Medal is not what he is known for. I've worked on his article for years, and don't recall that award's name offhand. Nightscream (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about the 155. I misread the diff. EEng 17:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be thirty lashes for you. (Just kidding). Nightscream (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the survivor count was not directly present prior to your edit. Unproductive discussion though. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Date is salient, hence me keeping it in the sentence. That there was no loss of life absolutely is as well. The total count of people on board is important, certainly—but is it important/salient enough to be in the lead of the article on the pilot making the water landing? I mean, this article isn't first and foremost about the crash itself—that has a separate article of its own, where the info certainly belongs in the lead. It's about the pilot who safely ditched the plane into the Hudson.
My suggested wording doesn't say he's known for being awarded the Master's Medal. It just says 1. he was awarded it and 2. the placement in the lead suggests this is a pretty big thing; those two don't add up to "okay so that's what he's known for", they add up to "okay, so that's a pretty important fact about him". Which I feel it is. However, I'd be happy with replacing "who was awarded the Master's Medal of the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators for [...]" with "who received multiple awards for [...]" if you'd prefer that. AddWittyNameHere 15:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Some thoughts (assuming we add back Manhattan as above):
  • I think we can condense for the successful water landing of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River off Manhattan without loss of life to simply for landing US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River off Manhattan without loss of life. The success is evident from no-loss-of-life, that it was a water landing is evident from the river.
  • I still wonder whether we can't skip the after takeoff. Essentially we're telling readers in the know (most people won't appreciate the subtlety) "the bird strike didn't occur in the worst possible phase – takeoff per se – nor in the best phase – at altitude – but in the 2nd-worst-but-still-pretty-bad phase, during the climbout after takeoff." The lay reader will be sufficiently impressed by the simple idea of landing on a river with both engines out, and can find out more either later in this article or in the Flight 1549 article.
  • Finally, I'd reword a bit re the bird strike and change was awarded to the simpler received. See below.
I'd therefore suggest
Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger III (born January 23, 1951) is a retired American airline captain who received the Master's Medal of the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators for landing US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River off Manhattan, without loss of life, after both engines were disabled by a bird strike on January 15, 2009.
EEng 17:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on 'after takeoff'. While I'd prefer it in, I can appreciate how it might go over the heads of most lay-people, whereas people familiar with the broader subject matter would know to look for the information and thus are capable of finding it later in this article or the flight's article, and those familiar with the specific subject matter would already know it (and probably won't be reading this article anyway). Combine with the sentence being rather long, I can weakly support keeping it out (but would certainly not object to keeping it in either).
Something about the date placement in that suggested sentence looks off to me. Possibly the fact that it's not fully clear this way whether the date refers to the ditching or the award. Somewhat unavoidable in a long, complex sentence like this one, but I feel it's more ambiguous now than in the other versions (my suggestion & current article version).
How about
(I'm also still open to replacing "received the Master's Medal [...]" with "received several awards [...]" if that phrasing turns out to have a larger consensus going for it)
AddWittyNameHere 17:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All fine. I prefer naming the one medal to a generic "several awards". Hmmm... For a moment there I was thinking we could just say is the retired American airline captain who landed US Airways Flight 1549, but that makes it sound like he did the landing when retired. EEng 17:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"is the retired American airline captain who, prior to his retirement, landed US Airways Flight 1549"? (Reads kinda "well, obviously" though, even though like you said, it actually sounds like he did that while retired if one leaves it out) As to naming the medal, agree but depends on what Nightscream thinks. I'd rather have a slightly less preferred improved version up there with consensus than either my most-preferred version without consensus or the currently-live version. AddWittyNameHere 17:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that the fact that he saved all people on board is certainly a basic fact for the Lead. It's the reason why he's "celebrated". Nobody would've called it the Miracle on the Hudson, or lauded the guy if he ended up just saving himself, or himself and a plane filled with syphilitic donkeys. This is why the fact and the survivor count is important.

I don't have a problem with the Master's Medal being mentioned in the Lead per se. I have a problem with it being mentioned in the opening sentence, to the exclusion of and before mentioning what he did that makes him notable. That's what the Lead, and specifically, the opening sentence, are supposed to do. A general mention that he was showered with accolades in the second or third paragraph of the Lead is one thing, but specifying the exact award, and in the opening sentence, rather than the description of what he did, is not reasonable, IMHO.

I'm okay with removing "successful water landing" and since there is a more streamlined way to convey the same stuff, though I think we need to specify the survivor count, for the aforementioned reasons. I propose this:

Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger III (born January 23, 1951) is a retired American airline captain who landed US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River off Manhattan on January 15, 2009, saving all 155 people aboard, after both engines were disabled by a bird strike.

Nightscream (talk)

This is getting good, but I still can't help feeling that it reads like he just happened to be on board and rushed into the cockpit to help. How about this:
Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger III (born January 23, 1951) is a retired American airline captain who, on January 15, 2009, landed US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River off Manhattan, saving all 155 people aboard, after both engines were disabled by a bird strike.
Interposing the date somehow separates the retirement from the event, methinks. EEng 18:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me. Support. AddWittyNameHere 21:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something must be wrong -- everyone's agreeing. I'll review the thread to see if there's some way I can throw a monkey wrench into it. In the meantime, a small point: while there's controversy, there's an increasing awareness that for LPs (with some exceptions) we shouldn't give full birthdates, just birth years, for privacy reasons. I don't want to get into a big argument, but can we leave it out here? EEng 00:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, Nightscream hasn't agreed yet to your minor tweak of their proposed sentence, but I doubt that'll be a problem (it's just a tweak in word order after all). As for date of birth, it's not exactly relevant to his notability, is it? Year, or month-and-year, should probably be sufficient as far as informing readers goes. That said, his birth date is literally all over the internet (biography.com has it, we have it, google has it, imdb has it, famousbirthdays has it, takemeback.to has it, hell, there's about a dozen horoscope sites listing it.) If the aim is privacy, we're a bit too late I'm afraid. AddWittyNameHere 00:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The emerging practice, for other than full-fledged public figures, is to give the full birthdate (including month and day) only, in general, if the subject himself clearly wants it public, otherwise to take the conservative approach of year only. While in this case it may seem silly, I'm trying to practice this wherever possible if only to help other editors see that year-only is a viable alternative. EEng 01:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. If the aim is not so much "preserve Sullenberg's privacy" as it is "set correct example to help preserve other folks' privacy that is actually still preservable", then yes, it would make some sense and I would support, but am not particularly optimistic about chances of it actually sticking—with the information so ubiquitously available, I suspect well-meaning drive-by editors will add it back in frequently. (The emerging practice you describe makes sense, I suppose, though I'd personally like to see an in-between option of month-and-year for not-full-fledged-public-figures where a relevant connection between age and source of notability exists, e.g notability due to participation in or winning a contest/competition/etc. with an age cut-off and similar such things) AddWittyNameHere 01:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem needless in this case, but I don't really care either way. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with EEng's 18:53, 9 August 2018 proposed version. Nightscream (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I done it [7] -- please check me. But then I had a further brainstorm, subject of course to the approval of my esteemed fellow editors. [8] EEng 18:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Less commas, I like it. Something that came to mind is that the current version reflects that only he was responsible for the landing - perhaps we should add a mention of Jeff Skiles (or reword). 173.73.10.191 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had that thought too, but I think Skiles would be happy with this wording. EEng 19:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing "saved" to "helped save" - that way other parties are accounted for. [9] 173.73.10.191 (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point both of you, but the current version can be read like "well, so-and-so saved but he helped them do it". How about "who was the pilot in command of the crew that, on January 15, 2009, saved [...]"? I'd wikilink pilot in command, but airline captain just prior in the sentence already links there. Also maybe "all 155 people aboard" rather than "the 155 people aboard"? Essentially means the same but while the latter implies those were all people aboard, the former outright states it. AddWittyNameHere 23:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that only the flight crew saved the passengers is a bit discrediting to the involved first-responders. The current version is fine IMO since it goes on to say that he performed the landing, but I'll wait and see what others think.
EEng claimed that "all" strains a bit [10], perhaps they can elaborate on that. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just my uncanny stylistic intuition. EEng 01:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. My aim was more to have the flight crew part apply to the "by landing [...]" part but due to sentence construction, you're right that it'll equally apply to "saved". How about "who was the pilot in command of the crew that, on January 15, 2009, helped save [...]", then? Re:all, I'll wait for EEng's elaboration then. AddWittyNameHere 01:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Re-pinging EEng due to originally missing a capital on the second E above. AddWittyNameHere 01:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, at this rate we might be able to move on to the article's second sentence by the first snowfall. How about we press into service the underappreciated semicolon:

Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger III (born 1951) is a retired American airline captain who, on January 15, 2009, landed US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River off Manhattan after both engines were disabled by a bird strike; all 155 persons aboard survived.

Skiles helped in essential ways, but I think no one would dispute that S landed the plane. EEng 01:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That semi-colon was one of the first things to go near the top of this thread, actually, so yeah, un(der)appreciated probably. At least in this guise it would serve a purpose. Support this version. (And you are right that we're spending a bit too much time on a single sentence. Take this as my "disengaging from further discussion over sentence #1 unless major changes are proposed; enough time spent looking at the darn thing on a word-by-word level") AddWittyNameHere 01:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing no objection I'll install that last version. EEng 22:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox feature image[edit]

Capt.SullyWikiPic

I recommend we update the feature image on the page in the Infobox to a more recent photo of Captain Sullenberger. This is a good option – — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apvediting (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Republican?[edit]

Is the infobox description of him as a Republican still accurate? He has been a vocal Trump opponent, and in recent interviews says he voted for Democrats.

Skrelk (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sullenberger is a registered Republican. He's just a never Trumper. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 February 2021[edit]

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: Moved. Strong consensus with only one opposing. However, opposition is based on ngrams. But ngrams are limited to book references which may be more formal than reliable news sources. In any case, no other participants were swayed by the NGRAM data. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 00:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chesley Sullenberger → Sully Sullenberger – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Most sources call him Sully. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Description as diplomat[edit]

@Nightscream: reverted my removal of diplomat from the first sentence. [12] Sullenberger is not notable as a diplomat and it doesn't appear as though the position he holds is generally considered notable. His ambassadorship is just small element of his significance and doesn't need mention in the first sentence because Sully is a pilot before he is anything else. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: That does not mean that it is the only thing to be mentioned in the lede. That simply isn't the practice on Wikipedia. Look through any number of articles, including featured articles: Ted Kaczynski, Harriet Tubman, J. R. R. Tolkien, Emma Watson, Julianne Moore, Buzz Aldrin, John Adams, Derek Jeter.
Kaczynski did not become notable, and is not generally known among the general public, as a mathematics professor. Nor Tubman as a political activist. Nor Tolkien as a poet. Nor Watson as an activist. Nor Moore as an author. Nor Aldrin as a fighter pilot. Nor Adams as an attorney. Nor Jeter as a businessman. But all of those things are mentioned in the opening line of those articles, all of which are featured articles. Nightscream (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12-year old IQ test[edit]

I'd like to remove the sentence "When he was 12 years old, his IQ was deemed high enough that he was allowed to join Mensa International", cited to Fox News, per the guidance on handling trivia. As the guidance on trivia is subjective and largely up to editors' discretion, I'd like to offer my rationale and seek feedback here first, to ensure there's consensus for doing this.

I think the unspecified high IQ test from his childhood is an unencyclopedic factoid that adds no valuable information to article, and produces a hagiography-like tone. While Sullenberger is a hero, we wouldn't normally include such information in an biographical article and it seems inconsistent to do so here. I can understand why tabloid media such as Fox would dig up such a factoid -- readers want to idolise an incredible act of heroism -- but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and our policies say we should be selective in the information we choose to include. I'd point to the guidance such as summary style, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and the 10-year test as examples that support my argument that a childhood IQ test is not noteworthy. Keen to hear others' thoughts. Jr8825 • Talk 19:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fox is greenlit for non-political and science topics. I don’t see a reason to remove it. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 15:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my objection isn't the source itself, it's that I think it's non-encyclopedic information (per the guidance I linked in my last sentence). I thought this upon reading the sentence, not because I saw the source that was used. I think the fact we're relying on a tabloid source strengthens my concern that it's trivia (it might be newsworthy information, but it's not encyclopedic; if broadsheets don't report it, this reinforces the idea it's not important information), but it's the not the main cause of my view that it's trivia. Jr8825 • Talk 15:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sullenberger first became notable for act that denoted a high level of professional skill and coolness under pressure. Noting that he scored high enough on an IQ test at a young age to join Mensa would seem to be relevant to a biography on such an individual. In fact, I would include it in a bio of any notable person, so long as the source is okay, and there are no objections to it on that basis. I don't think it's unencyclopedic. Nightscream (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it appears I'm outnumbered on this -- I feared this may be the case, which is why I opted to raise my thoughts here rather than making the change per BRD. I recognise the encyclopedic value of any specific factoid is a subjective judgement. I accept the status-quo should stand if most others think it's valuable, even if I disagree. Thanks for your feedback, @Nightscream and@Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Jr8825 • Talk 16:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy[edit]

Sully Sullenberger is seen signing a hat owned by Quagmire in Season 19, Episode 12. —2607:FEA8:1420:A700:C5E8:6B4C:48FC:A17A (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sully_Sullenberger&oldid=1214110250"