Talk:Delta Air Lines Flight 1989

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Aviation: Accidents

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 (7 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	2,250	2,250
Suspected hijacking	3,581	6,803
Landing	1,233	1,233
Consolidated timeline	1,989	1,989
See also	42	42
References	28	28
External links	551	551
Total	9,674	9,674

Contradictions

This article appears not only to contradict itself, but also other sources:

The article intro states that Delta Flight 1989 had a near-miss with United Flight 175, but then in the next paragraph describes instead a near-miss with American Flight 11
Per the 9/11 timeline at cooperativeresearch.org, at about 8:46 am (EDT) on 9/11, Delta Flight 2315 did have a near-miss with United 175, missing that plane "by less than 200 feet," which almost perfectly echoes this article's "approximately 200 feet." The timeline later states that Flight 175 had close calls with "two other planes" around 8:55, but names one of those as Delta 2315 (previously mentioned having a near-miss with United 175 at 8:46) and the other as US Airways Flight 542.

It sounds like either there may have been two or more similar incidents on 9/11, and the author of this article is confusing information about the events, or there was just one event and the author's information (or that in the 9/11 timeline) is just plain wrong. (Actually, sounds like both sources may be a mite confused on this.) In any case, this should be cleared up as it is a minor, but nonetheless interesting aspect of that day's events. StanislavJ 23:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all, the source, [1], is, in my opinion, unreliable, since it seems to just discuss conspiracy theories. Secondly, the section was originally titled Collision, so that is misleading since it implies an actual mid-air collision. This section (or article, for that matter) should be fixed up so that it does not contradict, does not mislead, and has good sources. --Chaz 01:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

The history of this article is truly bizarre. Originally it stated that Delta 1989 nearly hit American 11. [2] Then it becomes United 175. I've removed all mention of near misses since there's no source given. Evercat 01:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the old article stated that the miss was by about 200 feet, which just happens to be the exact distance given between Delta 2315 and United 175 here. There must be some confusion of Delta 2315 and Delta 1989. Evercat 02:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further info

The aricraft, according to The History Channel, was held on the tarmac at gunpoint for two hours by the FBI and Cleaveland SWAT, and the airport was evacuated. I've added that. --Delta1989 20:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References needed

I added {{Fact}} tags to two locations where I could not find a reliable reference for a couple aspects of the article. Neither portion may be wrong and both look plausible, but I think they do need a reference becasue of their significance in the article. The first is that Boston Center initally became worried because they could not establish radio contact with Delta 1989 and declared that Delta 1989 was a potential hijacking then. The 9/11 report and testimony does not mention radio communication difficulties as a reason for Boston Center to suspect hijacking of Delta 1989. The second is the reason Delta 1989 landed. It seems entirely plausible the flight landed at Delta's direction and that communication difficulties between Boston and Cleveland Centers played a role, but is there a reliable reference to an unruly Middle-Eastern passanger as a reason to land? I will delete these statements if we can't find such a reference in a reliable, reputable source. Thank you. Civilengtiger (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinued?

Was this flight number discontinued after 9/11? If not, then the lead needs to say "Flight 1989 is a..." -- VegitaU (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when this flight number was discontinued, but the August 1, 2008 Delta worldwide timetable does not reflect the use of this flight number, therefore was should continue to be used in this article. Good question! Civilengtiger (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 11??

from the article and also the 9/11 Commission: As noted by the 9/11 Commission report, “[d]uring the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft. The report of American 11 heading south was the first; Delta 1989 was the second”.

I looked it up on the Commission's report because it sounds so wierd. American 11 wouldn't be an example of an erroneous report of a hijack aircraft. I'm not sure what the Commission meant or if this was an error in their report, but the Wiki article could probably make it more clear.

-Don

Survivors

How come the infobox lists survivors when the flight was never in danger? 108.38.35.162 (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the standard infobox for aircraft incidents and accidents. If there were no fatalities, then the infobox will indicate that everyone on board survived the incident/accident. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Delta Air Lines Flight 1989. 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]