Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 327

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Northwest Airlines Flight 327 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

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 articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cleanup[edit]

A lot of this information was taken from Annie Jacobsen's website. My problem with that is that she is arguing that she was correct, against others who are arguing against her, so she automatically writes to be somewhat defensive. Parts of this site are cited completely on what she said, not from official sources. User:Arjunsharma 19:33, 29 November 2006

WHAT?[edit]

WHat evidence points otherwise Warfwar3 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that the FBI says that they were Syrian band mates on the way to play in San Diego is one thing... But, I've changed it to make it more neutral. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 01:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THanks, I started this article and am surprised how fast it grew Warfwar3 01:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visas[edit]

My edit was reverted without any discussion on this talk page. Any Wikipedia user can tell you that the phrasing you used was not on par with the standards of Wikipedia. I feel that my edit let you make your point by accepting the fact that the point about visas is "debated". Either way, the visa issue isn't big enough to warrant the size of the paragraph you have written. User:Arjunsharma 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in the summary, I edited out the long entry about visas, and the somewhat poorly written argument accusing the reader of not understanding visa laws. I don't know whether or not they were traveling on expired visas, nor whether it was even relevant at all that their visas may have been expired. The fact of the matter is that it is debated, and I am trying to help this article move in that direction. My edit isn't perfect, but I think that the visa issue is a relatively small point that we can afford to relegate to one sentence (as opposed two one large paragraph). User:Arjunsharma 17:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I reverted it back, adding a quote from the State Department website about the expiration dates of visas and how they differ from the end date of an authorized stay.

The fact that an edit doesn't support your POV doesn't make it POV.

Third, I didn't see the Snopes account and didn't use it. Of course my version is going to be somewhat similar to the Snopes version, because we were both setting out factual information about the same thing. It doesn't matter if someone criticized Snopes for failing to give a reference for the claim that visas only expire with respect to entry, because that doesn't make it false. If the person had spent less time criticizing Snopes and more time doing research, they would have found out the truth. Anonymous01:30 29 November 2006 (GMT)

The problem isn't that Snopes didn't give a reference for the claim that Visas expire with respect to entry, it's that Snopes didn't give a reference for the claim that these particular visas only expired with respect to entry. While it certainly is possible for Visas to expire with respect to entry and still give permission to remain in the country, there's no reason to believe that that's what happened in this case. At least not without a source. Ken Arromdee 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the change about expiration dates of visas.

First, no source is given for the claim that the visas were only expired with respect to entry, and not for remaining in the US.

Second, POV.

Third, the paragraph is a slightly paraphrased copy of the Snopes entry [1]. Furthermore, this particular example is already one for which Snopes has been criticized; for instance, see [2], which points out that Snopes doesn't actually give a reference for the claim that the visas only expired with respect to entry. Ken Arromdee 19:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both This Article and That of Annie Jacobsen Entirely Unnoteworthy and Pure Urban Legend[edit]

There is no--repeat none whatsoever--factual information to support the third rate vanity "journalist", Annie Jacobsen's account of this flight. This article is completely without foundation and entirely without note, except for its absurdity, which I seriously doubt meets any of Wikipedia's criteria for noteworthiness. Recommend submitting the article for deletion. 76.170.239.56 18:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be added:[edit]

Home land security report of flight 327

https://www.theaviationnation.com/documents/OIG_Report_Flight_327.pdf

Corroboration?[edit]

Is there ANY corroboration on record for Jacobsen's claims? Why do we have five paragraphs summarizing her lone account? As far as I can tell, this entry is about a woman with a rather hyperactive imagination, not any sort of actual noteworthy incident. TremorMilo (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]