Talk:Pacific Wings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

Since the Airport Security Incidents is a recent event, suggesting that the article either get a banner detailing it's a recent event. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.234.99.65 (talkcontribs) 01:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC-7)

NPOV Problem[edit]

The whole convoluted section regarding the various security incidents at Pacific Wings appears to be heavily slanted in favor of Pacific Wings - much more so than the local Hawaii newspaper articles that are linked to as sources for the claims show. In fact, I'll be willing to bet that this entire section was personally written and edited by Gabriel Kimbrell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.0.171 (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I k=just googled several articles as well as the federal indictment and superceeding indictment, and this guy Tam Ho is facing something like 50 years. Nobody at the airline wrote that, it was a federal grand jury. All the other statements the post can be independently confirmed by published newspaper reports and court documents. Is this really "slanted" or do you have a beef with those people. The Grand Jury indictment is pretty scary, and the key witness was a Wackenhut employee who spilled the beans to federal prosecutors. It looks like the victims didn't even testify. The whole case seems to be based on incriminating statements by Tam Ho's own employees. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they are slanted or untrue. What will you say if the guy goes up for 15-25 years? Is the jury slanted? 24.183.203.17 (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the first commenter is suffering to the alleged baiting of Wackenhut guards and others by Pacific Wings employees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.231.120 (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To get rid of the neutrality tag, there needs to be something documented on what motive may have caused this action by Wackenhut. Otherwise, I would reduce this section to the bare minimum - one or two sentences max.Tiktok4321 (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fleet size[edit]

84.157.86.77 added the following to the Fleet section of the article:

Beside that press release from starbulletin mentioned under (5), other reliable sources show only five
Cessna 208B Grand Caravan aircraft, with registrations N301PW up to N305PW. Maybe that article messed
up with a previously owned Cessna 402C, which left alredy the fleet from pacific wings.

I reverted this edit because it was both unsourced (it states "other reliable sources" without citing any) and rather speculative, guessing that the Star-Bulletin made an error. If a more recent reliable source can be cited with the current fleet size, then great and let's update the article. Certainly fleet plans change and we should keep up to date, let's do it without the speculation. -- Hawaiian717 18:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The contributor emailed me and we've had a little discussion. He's pointed me to a more recent reliable source and I've updated the article to reflect a fleet of 5 Grand Caravans. -- Hawaiian717 18:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)