Talk:Small aircraft crashes into building in New York City

So what time did it happen??

I have been using BBC News 24 live as my source here. --News 24 19:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Main Article

Can I just ask for clarification? Is this the main article for this story? --News 24 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

yes. tag any others u see with the merge tag, {{merge|Small aircraft crashes into NYC building}}.  —Doldrums (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it. I'm watching Sky News by the way, and added the address of the building as reported by them. - Lee Stanley 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks guys. --News 24 19:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

All breaking news articles are fit to be on the main page. See Wikinews:Breaking news. —FellowWikiNews (W) 20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Origianl reporting

The following section contains a summary of reports from Television news, where a reliable source cannot be cited

BBC News 24

• 20:55 (UTC) - 2 people are reported dead
• 20:55 (UTC) - fighter jets have been scrambled over several US cities
• 20:55 (UTC) - a no fly zone is being enforeced over NYC

It doesn't count as original research if you're watching a prepared news report. Now, if they actually showed footage of the event, or if you were watching a press conference, that would be original research. This is not. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

once again, apologies for being a newb. Articles I have been involved in in the past have asked that this sort of thing go in, as per this comment. Guinness2702 20:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, everyone's a newbie once. Anyways, what constitutes "Original Research" has mixed interpretation — personally I feel that if you're watching a prepared report in which a journalist is feeding you news, then it's not really original. However, watching live reports isn't exactly a documented+archived thing either. So the best compromise would be to cite the news show on the article (not as original research) then have some sort of notes put on the talk page. —this is messedrocker (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think all of the above has now been confirmed by sources - the BBC web article has this now, so do we need the original tag anymore? (hint: I added that tag only because of the above) Guinness2702 20:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to get some photos, but it's started raining hard and whatever sunlight there is will have disappeared before I arrive. ▪ NeoAmsterdam^Talk_Edits 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Interested in more info as to type of plane

If I was in America I could probably obtain it myself by phone. Anyone want to do this one?

Rename

I propose a rename to "Cory Lidle killed in plane crash" Guinness2702 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The way the mayor was just talking it was 2 people from within the appartment that have died, but there is a lot of reports about Cory, but nothing confirmed yet?

Teterboro Airport

It says that the plane left the Teterboro airport in florida. The only Airport under this name is in New Jersey. I would go ahead and change it, but other where else in the article it says that the pilot was planning a trip from New York to Florida. ANy one have any info clearing this up? 67.87.250.210 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Teterboro is a common departure airport for private/corporate aircraft in the NYC Metro Area. Why the route from TEB into NYC when its northeast is anyones guess. Rob110178

Wikipedia has an image of the plane in question:

[[1]] Wikipedia has a picture of the plane in question. --Sfullenwider 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Rhodes Conspiracy or Controversy?

In response former teammate Arthur Rhodes said, "He [Lidle] is a scab. When he started, he would go 5 1/3 innings and (the bullpen) would have to win the game for him. The only thing Cory Lidle wants to do is fly around in his airplane and gamble. He doesn't have a work ethic. After every start, he didn't run or lift weights. He would sit in the clubhouse and eat ice cream." 128.62.97.75 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing POV words such as "terrorism".

As per my explanation here, I have removed POV-words from this article. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 03:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I put one of them back. "terrorism" on its own is not a "POV-word". Indeed, we don't really have such a concept in wikinews. -- IlyaHaykinson 04:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In this context The White House has said that there has been no change in the (terror) alert threat and that President Bush is being updated constantly., the word terror reflects the POV of the White House. Hence I have removed the word in the interest of NPOV. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 09:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

u make a quote misleading, not npov by removing bits from it.  —Doldrums (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Then just remove the quote. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

so we can't quote Bush ? it's strange for me Jacques Divol 12:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC) My apologies, i misunderstood yout meaning. sorry Jacques Divol

No problem! PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 12:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

PVJ, I do not think you understand the definition of "POV" correctly. In this case, the government of the US has an alert system about "terrorism" — however they define it. By saying that the "terror threat alert" has not been changed, one does not push any point of view — one is reporting that the US alert that deals with threats it perceives as terrorism has not been changed. In addition, please do not bite the newbies by protecting the page. We only protect the page when there's persistent vandalism, and a couple of back-and-forth edits are not vandalism. -- IlyaHaykinson 16:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's not exactly a NPOV violation because the "terror threat alert" is what it's called. —this is messedrocker (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What the US defines as "terrorism" may not be considred "terrorism" by many others. As such, we should not push the US POV. Are you willing to refer to it as "jihad threat alert"? PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 16:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The US will define terrorism the way it defines terrorism. That's not what Wikinews cares about. However, there is something implemented by the US Department of Homeland Security called the "terror alert". What do they constitute as something worthy? That doesn't matter. The point is that apparently the terror alert in the United States is not changing. —this is messedrocker (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

At Wikinews, we do not have a mandate to establish the ultimate truth. We are here to report the facts. If a politician calls a rival a "fascist pig", we will publish that, even if we disagree with the characterization or the terminology. If the US government has an alert that it calls a hurricane alert, but we believe that it just reports on strong gusts of wind, we will still call it a hurricane alert. Similarly, in this case, we need to report the actual situation and not a politically neutral version. Your actions of removing certain words because you disagree with your interpretation of what they mean are indeed pushing a point of view, and a strong one at that.-- IlyaHaykinson 16:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. Why call it terrorism? Why not qital fi sabilillah? I understand your efforts to "report what they say" but am unsure of whether your resolve will remain unshaken if/when we have to quote what Mr.Laden has to say about Americans. If you can guarantee that you (or anyone else) will not object to us refering (where appropriate) to certain people as "infidels", "Zionist pigs", "paper tigers" etc. etc. I may consider your arguement. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 17:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

PVJ, we do not call it terrorism. The US government calls it that. If Osama bin Laden decides to have an "infidel alert", and its level does not change, we will have to report that the "infidel alert level has not changed". Again, I think you may be confusing an editorial with a news article: an editorial actually calls people something. A news article reports what other people called something. We are not in the business of editorializing. -- IlyaHaykinson 17:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the threats on my talk page NPOV guy. I wouldn't have revisted this page had you not linked to it. If you wish to block me please do so. I've been civil and I've been fair in asserting my edits. I will not change this article again regardless of whether or not you insist on reverting my edits. As far as I'm concerned you've made you're point. I can not win. If I insist you will block me. I'm just glad I see other people support my view. Good bye internet friend....64.192.249.2 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we make a simple solution to the problem and just make the headline Plance crashes into NYC High-rise, or Baseball star dies in NYC plane accident, or something to that effect. There's really no need for that "- terror alert level unchanged". Plus it looks weird in the headline. Just my thoughts. Storm5guy 20:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have changed the title. The "alert" is irrelevant since there has obviously been no further incident in New York. I have also changed "NYC" to "New York City" so that users who are not familiar with American/Western slang will find the title easier to understand. And to maintain NPOV, I have removed "terror" from the article. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 06:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Good move on the title, that's definitely less confrontational. As for the article, I put the word back in to reflect the name of the alert system. -- IlyaHaykinson 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

PVJ, I notice that you keep tagging this article as NPOV and saying "see talk page", but yet you haven't commented on the talk page since several days ago. I think I've justified my point well. I also notice that I'm not the only one who completely disagrees with you on this issue — plenty of other people have reverted your change. -- IlyaHaykinson 15:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the word "terror" is POV, and in this case reflects the POV of the White House. We should 1) Not use the word "terror" or 2) Mention the subjectivity of the word "terrorism" in the article. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 16:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And what was 9/11 if it was not a terrorist attack? Jason Safoutin 16:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It was an act of matyrdom, not one of terrorism. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are very wrong. Very very wrong. And for you to insult Me, and every user from the US is not welcome. I think your hate is too much for Wikinews. Jason Safoutin 16:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If my "hate" is too much for Wikinews, you are welcome to ban me. But I suggest you see this first. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not here to be in a cock fight, but look before you speak. Jason Safoutin 16:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice record. However, I am over three months "younger" than you on Wikinews. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Makes no difference to me. Jason Safoutin 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just calm down Jason, you seem to be getting a little too upset. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

PVJ, re "the word "terror" is POV, and in this case reflects the POV of the White House" I honestly do not care what you think about the word terrorism. I respect your opinion on the matter. I also appreciate your point of view as it reminds the rest of the editors that we should pay attention to the words we use. However, in the field of reporting, we must call things by their proper names. The United States government appears to define "terrorism" in some particular way. It may be correct or not, it may be insulting or not. However, they have some definition. They use this definition for their alert system. They do not have a "general alert system", or a "martyr alert system", or a "alert system for people attacking with bombs". No, the alert system is about terrorism, as a term, in whatever way they define it. Terrorism is a word. Terrorism is also a concept. While I think that it is inappropriate for Wikinews editors to call people terrorist — it would mean that we are making the judgment call — it is unavoidable that some other people will call certain things using the moniker "terrorist". We cannot censor their words, or their names for things. It would not be journalism. True names must be given to things, even if you disagree with them. -- IlyaHaykinson 17:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Quoting sources directly will be better for NPOV in the long run. Keep the word "terror" in the article. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 02:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Double Redirect

Someone should make a decision to do something one way or another. The state this page is in is causing the link from the home page to go to a double redirect which in effect makes the link appear broken to unfamiliar users of wiki resources. I've put my editor's hat aside because I've been threated and called uncivil and labled a vandal. Therefore, I'm no longer going to represent my postion, nor contribute to the resolution of this discussion, nor edit on WN. But I do think the link on the hoome page should at least connect to one form of the article or the other while your discussion remains unresolved. Not sure if you folks noticed that or not so I thought I'd point it out in case someone wants to correct it. 64.192.249.2 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Residents

From WP: Among the residents is novelist Carol Higgins Clark, who lives on the 38th floor. CBS Radio interviewed her after she returned to the building to find the commotion outside. New York Mets third-base coach Manny Acta also lives in the building, though he was away when the accident occurred.--Gkklein 02:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Belaire Condominium, 12 October 2006.jpg

Please replace the crash image with Image:Belaire Condominium, 12 October 2006.jpg. Thanks. Siebrand 09:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

done. –Doldrums(talk) 11:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding Category:Michael Bloomberg

This article is missing the Category:Michael Bloomberg tag, may someone with sufficient permission please add the tag. Cocoaguy (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Done--Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please replace the second image (File:100 1498.JPG) in the article by its duplicate File:Belaire_Condominium,_12_October_2006_(100_1498).JPG, as the first one will be deleted from Commons soon. --Túrelio (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Tyrol5 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)