Talk:Plane Stupid

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

Fair and balanced article?[edit]

I do not think that this article is fair and balanced, it projects a single sided view of Plane Stupid, and lacks any critique of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

New Section[edit]

So I was looking up Plane Stupid, given that they are now barricaded on a runway at Aberdeen airport to protest Donald Trump's planned expansion of the airport that is linked to development of a golf resort. I'm just putting it out there for a devout wikipedian to update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, although it's not quite "Trump's" expansion. bridies (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


This article needs some major cleanup. The main section of it ("History") is a complete mess, poorly written and a proseline. This section also seems to be strongly in favour of the group, not giving fair weight to the opposition they've created or those against them. A lot of people have been angered or upset by the group's actions (both inside and outside the airline industry) and, although I accept that they have a point to prove and believe they are acting in the correct means, it needs to be highlighted that their actions are controversial and not to everyone's favour. Someone who knows something about the organisation, but can talk about it from a non-biased point of view should effectively rewrite this article, keeping the necessary information but losing the 'fore mentioned points. Greggers (tc) 13:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the protests section with sub-headings - Is this enough to remove the proseline tag or do you think the information could be better presented in another way? Gavint0 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The headings for each protest seem pretty heavy for the content of each one (only a few lines). Prior to the 11th Jan the history section certainly a ProseLine. On 11th Jan 09 the protests were grouped by year which seemed to be a big improvement - did that not address the ProseLine criticism?. Individual protests and other historical content was discussed under the year heading. When the history section was changed to 'protests' on the 13th Jan it eventually resulted on non-protest content (such as Ken Tobias) being moved to the controversy section on 14th Feb which seems inappropriate. Was the history/year structure not better? PeterIto (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I have renamed the 'protest' section as 'history' so that other non-protest information can be included (for example the Ken Tobias incident)PeterIto (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that this article needs more cleaning - the history section should be rewritten as it's getting too long. Ideally we would write the history in prose and not have it as separate points. Sections could be made for airport protests, infiltration (as there are now 2 accounts of this) and some others (not sure what). I've reordered the history section because it was stupid having the founding of the group at the bottom and most recent events at the top. Smartse (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality template[edit]

This group is clearly on the fringe of environmentalist groups. Instead of resorting to peaceful lobbying and political representation to address their concerns, they partake in radical acts of vandalism, violence, and obstruction. I'm all for environmental protection, but I want it carried out peacefully and rationally. Unfortunately, rationality is not in the vocabulary of Plane Stupid. Ericster08 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to have been written by the group themselves! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the template should now be removed as it does say in the article that there action is controversial. If not, what should be done so it can be removed. Thanks, Yotcmdr (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I`m not sure if the group can be (or where?) accused of selfishness for actions at stansted. That would suggest that they had something to gain from disrupting passengers whereas the group is about stopping climate that selfish? Perhaps inconsiderate would make more sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I added that sentence to add a more NPOV and I'm generally a supporter of the group's views. It's cited from the Telegraph (who I would expect to have a negative viewpoint towards them). Gavint0 (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Whilst it's a great start (and I'm truly glad it's been added), I'm not sure two or three lines can really be considered descriptive enough to dispel the neutrality dispute. It currently sounds as if there's some controversy but generally they're in the public's favour. I know of few people who's favour they are in, and I'm middle class. So, my personal opinion would be to keep the template. Greggers (tc) 22:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree (I kind of expected that answer). I'll keep on editing and looking for sources (references) from other different point of views. Yotcmdr (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Further updates done. Gavint0 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Nearly 15 lines on controversy, should be enough to call it more neutral. Opinions? Yotcmdr (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I have added more criticisms for each action to the relevant section where I could find it and moved the critisms from the controversy section to the relevant action. We now have critism from the DfT, the industry, journalists and judges etc! Can I suggest that we remove the neutrality template in about 48 hours if no one objects on this page in the mean time?PeterIto (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice work, thanks. Gavint0 (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I have now removed the tag. The article isn't perfect, but I think the tag is no longer justified. Do please add criticism as appropriate rather than replace the tag if you feel it needs more. PeterIto (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of talk page[edit]

I have reorganised the talk page to take all the neutrality comments under the neutrality heading, including the 'radical group' comments and then moved all of the comments that related mainly to structure under the 'cleanup' heading. I don't believe that I have dropped any comments and hope that this has been helpfulPeterIto (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Non violent?[edit]

The assault on Lord Mandelson wasn't non violent. That no one has been convicted doesn't mean that violence wasn't committed. As such, the statement of non violence should be removed. MikeHobday (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That one individual committed one act of what could be construed as violence (I disagree it is), amongst numerous peaceful protests, isn't enough to brand the organisation "violent" especially when their stated aims are "non-violent" and when reliable, third party sources call them "non-violent" (WP:V, verifiability not truth, etc). Also, if your talking assault as in the legal definition I'd think it pretty important that someone was convicted (per no defamation policy etc). bridies (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
No one's arguing that the organisation should be labelled violent. The question is whether they can be labelled non-violent when one of their key actions was not a non-violent one. We're weighing one very brief, albeit reputable, source saying they are non-violent with a clear piece of video suggesting that this is not always the case. If Plane Stupid disavowed violence, they would have regretted the incident. Logic suggests that non-violence is no longer fundamental to their ethos.MikeHobday (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Uh no. I'm weighing one reputable source against your opinion and speculation; I could look for more but there's no need for me to bother. Mandelson himself, as well as the police, dismissed the incident and I don't see anyone calling it "violent", never mind questioning whether it is enough to call their other "peaceful" protests into question. bridies (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Aberdeen Airport[edit]

Regarding the medical flight, as you will see from my source, from Plane Stupids site itself, paragraph 2, lines 3 and 4 admit that they recognise the air ambulance flight was in fact real, and not a rouse, a user has deleted the piece about this, i have reinstated it, as it is fact, confirmed by Grampian Police, BAA, and also Plane Stupid themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroMcA (talkcontribs) 19:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Leila Deen[edit]

The fact that the named subject of the article on Leila Deen was photographed and televised committing an instance of simple criminal common assault against a senior member of the British Cabinet under the Labour Government during the Brown ministry (Peter Mandelson (The Lord Mandelson; Baron Mandelson)), by throwing onto his person the contents of a cup of green custard, for which she was neither sentenced to any term of imprisonment whatsoever, fined, nor even actually convicted in a court of law of the actual criminal offence (merely a Police caution), does not by that particular act give her sufficient note in her own right to warrant an article for herself (WP:1E). My assertion is supported by a general absence of mention of her name in British news and in the British press after the event in the year 2009, with a corresponding virtual death of editing activities on her article during the subsequent years. Moreover, the article was created only after the event, and not before. The article is also full of trivia, unsourced information, and also self-published, non-independent and otherwise questionable sources, not to mention also obscure cited Internet-based (and Internet-only) sources which are now dead links. And being now the Deputy Campaigning Director of Greenpeace USA is, quite frankly, neither here nor there, under WP:LINKEDIN, since Wikipedia is after all ultimately a general encyclopaedia, not a directory of environmental activists (except without the direct personal contact details), is it?! In short, no-one had heard of her before, and after the proverbial fifteen minutes of fame, almost no-one has heard of her since. I don't see, without other motives, why a simple merger and redirection for a biography for a virtual non-entity can ever become controversial! I mean, she is hardly Lee Harvey Oswald, is she?! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. She has received coverage since 2010 for leading Greenpeace UK's campaign against fracking, among other activitites. She also received attention for her activism with WDM before the 2009 incident. A merge with Plane Stupid would not reflect the coverage of the rest of her campaigning outside that brief period. And no, I don't have a COI. You seem to have a strong antipathy to the subject though. Fences&Windows 13:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Support I've had a look at the sources and had a search for more and as far as I can tell, the only sources where she is the subject are those relating to the 2009 incident. The more recent ones e.g. are of no use for demonstrating notability and therefore 1E applies. If we can't reach consensus here we'll need to go to AFD. SmartSE (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

What's the group's premise?[edit]

I haven't delved too far into this, and maybe some of this got left on the NPOV floor somewhere along the line, but: why is the group protesting airport expansion? Maybe this seems self-evident, but it'd be informative if some statement of cause (pollution by the airplanes themselves, market saturation, overdevelopment, ground traffic congestion, all of the above) were outlined. Or is it just "planes are stupid"?--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)