Talk:Air Force One photo op incident

Updates

I won't edit this because of the editing tag, but this article gives a lot more information about the incident,[1] for example the name of the White House official who approved it, the fact that local law enforcement were notified but asked not to inform the public, the way the news spread (by youtube video), and the statements of outrage made by Bloomberg and Obama. I think we should nail down what actually happened first, and avoid undue coverage of all the recriminations - talk is cheap and politicians and news outlets do a lot of talking. But a few choice quotes might be helpful: "felony stupidity" is pretty quoteworthy. It's too early to tell but I'll guess that this story has legs, as they say, and that people will remember the incident for many years (i.e. it's pretty notable). Regarding the name, I'm guessing that the popular media will find a clever name for this within a few days. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Also, if you think of a better name for the article, please feel free to change it. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The under construction tag means that anyone who wants to can add to the article. The more info the better!Grundle2600 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. The "under construction tag" indicates that one or more editors are working on this article stub. Only an in use template would ask editors not to interfere for a certain time while one editor is working on major changes (to avoid edit conflicts), although it doesn't prohibit editing by others.

Basically the "under construction tag" was created (by Wikidemon, if I'm not mistaken) to prevent premature AFD nominations or simply said, to give potential legitimate articles a chance to evolve beyond their initial creation.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I got confused there. Still think there's a lasting notability concern here. It's really seems to run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS, and perhaps belongs under 9/11#Long-term effects as a subheading "Psychological effects". –xeno ^talk 22:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to opinion that even so it's news right now it will (in this case) overcome and override wp:crystal in no time. As for merging it into the 9/11#Long-term effects section of the main article (which I checked and considered before commenting and when I became aware of this article in the first place), I just don't see a real "fit" in there. Grundle's example and comparison to Orson Welles' The War of the Worlds below might be a bit farfetched but (in my opinion) still a valid comparison and a reason to keep it apart from the main article. Potential merging could be still discussed in a week or so if sources won't raise the notability to a higher level.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking this is more like The War of the Worlds (radio). Grundle2600 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on several wikipedia articles, plus lots of real life stuff, and I just wanted to avoid a speedy delete on the article. I like the idea that the under construction tag says it can be removed if the article hasn't been edited in several days. Several days is long enough. A few hours is not. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies, I got it confused for the {{inuse}} tag. –xeno ^talk 22:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology. It's easy to get confused because there are so many things here! Grundle2600 (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've penned 9/11#Psychological effects with relevant bits from this article, please expand/improve as necessary. –xeno ^talk 16:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New title

I changed the title to Air Force One photo op controversy.

Grundle2600 (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed it again, this time to Air Force One photo op scare. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC) )

Technically, it's only Air Force One when the president is aboard. And it's a good idea to discuss renaming such articles forst, especially one that's up for AFD. Thanks to the double move (to a worse title!), only an admin can revert the move now. I'm reveting back to your first choice, so please discuss this,a nd try to achieve a consensus on a new name before mkaing up another new title. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree that a discussion is necessary before a move. However, since I wrote approximately 100% of the article, I didn't think a discussion was necessary. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, your thinking needs a bit of an adjustment then, as you do not own the article. It also isn't usually a good idea to rename articles during an AfD anyways. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I know I don't own the article. In fact, I wish other people would add stuff to it! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see it more as a notable incident rather than a real controversy.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Me too. That why I changed it from "controversy" to "scare." Perhaps changing it to "incident" might be a good idea, but I won't do that without some agreement from other editors. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Incident" is probably the best term for now. - BillCJ (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cost of mission

One editor keeps deleting cost of mission, saying this is "Original Research" and not relevant.

The cost is the cost, if there is a reliable source for it, it is not original research.

Neither is it original to cite the cost as part of the controversy (this is an article with "Controversy" in the title). If it cost $10MM to fly around the Statue of Liberty it would certainly be more controversial (huge waste of taxpayer dollars during a recession etc), that if it cost $10, or than if it cost $370,000 but they were planning to fly the plane that number of hours anyway, just for practice.

Erxnmedia (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The "controversy" is over the public not being told about the excursion, thus raising 9/11 fears. The "controversy" is not about teabagger protests gov't spending for the excursion. Placing it here constitutes original research, as it makes it appear that the cost is a part of the controversy. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue the cost is part of the controversy.[2][3] — Matt Crypto 19:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A talking head and a blog are not reliable or sufficient sources. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And? I never suggested they be used as sources for the article. We already have reliable sources for the fact it cost US$370,000. However, you seemed to be objecting that the cost is not part of this "controversy". The links were evidence, as part of the discussion on how to write this article, that the cost is indeed part of the story. Here's another, "The incident continued to reverberate in New York and Washington today with two senators demanding an accounting of how the flight was approved, its cost and procedures aimed at avoiding a repeat" (emphasis mine) [4]. — Matt Crypto 21:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A single senator, known for complaining about the costs of everything under the sun, still doesn't quite cut it I'm afraid. There is no controversy about the cost of the flight. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, however, we're keeping the fact in the article. — Matt Crypto 05:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I am the public. I was there. I am not a teabagger, I pay my taxes. I am nevertheless concerned about the cost of the mission, it is controversial for me. It wouldn't be controversial to me if something worthy of being secret was done under the covers, but everybody insists that that is not the case. Erxnmedia (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What is controversial to you is of no relevance whatsoever, unfortunately. This is an encyclopedia that reflects what other sources have so say on the matter. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody here know what teabagging means? You might want to stop using the term... in this context, at least... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In this context, "teabagger" was either a derogatory comment, or an inadvertant (though perhaps common) misnomer, for protesting taxes a la the Boston Tea Party. Btw, groups like POGO make a living deriding the goverment for military spending, even publically stating that they were "happy" when Gates announced that the USAF would curtail further production of the F-22 Raptor. I haven't heard if POGO's complaimed about this incident as yet, but I would somehow doubt that they have. You don't shoot your own. :) - BillCJ (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, when you make a claim about "the public" and then exclude me, when I was there, and as if I am not a member of the public...it's just illogical. I think you are just WP:POV which is normal for Wikipedia articles of this nature (see for example Joe the Plumber), but such a sense of entitled self-righteousness still leaves me perplexed when I encounter it. The existential fact of the matter is this: We are both members of the public, and if we argue about whether it is controversial or not, the argument itself renders the issue under discussion controversial! In this respect we are just as much in evidence as any other written publication. Erxnmedia (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use the talk page to complain about other editors. Wikipedia is for adding noteworthy, neutral content about things to inform the reader, based on what reliable secondary sources have to say. It is not about adding your personal opinion of things. The existence or nonexistence of a controversy would be determined by significant media coverage of the fact that a controversy exists. It cannot be inferred from Wikipedians disagreeing, or argued logically based on underlying circumstances that a particular editor disagrees with. Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, I think the cost of the flyby is a relevant fact, if worked properly into the prose. My argument cuts both ways. The mainstream press saw fit to cover the cost in connection with the event, so they have decided that it is worthy of noting in connection with the incident. Just as we shouldn't add extraneous details just to express our personal opinion they are important, nor should we remove details that the sources consider important just to express our opinion that they are not. Although mentioning the $300K cost of the flight could be seen as a complaint about government waste, the cost of things is also a fairly normal fact that the press reports about things - when they cover a car or an airplane, or a sandwich, they often say what it cost so as to give people a sense of magnitude. It is what it is. Wikidemon (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Where are the photos? When are we going to see them?

We know that White House and Air Force photographers shoot digital. How long before we Americans see these photos that cost us $328,000?