Talk:American Airlines/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Biased advertising?

The cabin section is way too long and written like an advertisement. So is the lounge section. Yet the accident section is almost nothing but a link. This risks compromising the integrity of Wikipedia and making it the Wikipedia AAdvertising Company, a division of American Airlines. New2018Year (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The "Cabins" section is way too long and detailed, and the sub-headings (with the company's brands) only make it worse. The "Reward programs" is not as bad, but is also over detailed. In both cases, we are relying on the company's branding and relying information that may be out of date as these things change quite a bit. Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I will further note that the "Cabins" section is filled with unreliable sources - e.g. Tripadvisor, WP:DAILYMAIL, and American Airlines itself. The "Reward programs"" is mainly sourced to AA or its partners (e.g. oneworld). Icewhiz (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

If such crud exists in other airline articles, it should be removed there as well. The content, covering all current cabin offerings (as opposed to those offerings past and present receiving significant secondary coverage) is a very clear WP:NOTCATALOG fail - which is policy. Company articles are not sales catalogs.Icewhiz (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Such "crud" exists in just about every other airline article on Wikipedia. Describing the inflight offering of each airline is encyclopedic as what they offer in flight is part of what makes each airline unique, This section should be restored and edited if necessary, including finding reliable sources. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:OSE is not a valid argument - nor is it correct in this case - e.g. Turkish Airlines does not contain such a section - though if other airline articles contain such a flagrant violation of policy - yes they should be removed as well. Describing the in-flight offerings of each airline is decidedly unencyclopedic -- WP:NOTCATALOG is Wikipedia policy. We also shouldn't be focusing on recent offerings per WP:RECENTISM and coverage in secondary sources - American was founded in 1936 - why are we describing current customer offerings and not the configuration of a Douglas DC-3? (a topic covered in secondary sources, the DC-3 was engineered and designed for American - [1][2][3]) Surely the absent DC-3 is more significant than the configuration of "Premium Economy" (sourced to an AA press-release). Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting company product offerings. Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said, most (the vast majority) do. It's not a case of OSE. It's a case of pointing out what is standard across the project. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page_content. "Class of travel (Coach, business, Premium, Executive, First, ...)" is part of the structure of airline articles. I agree that the text could be edited and better sources can be found, but the section should be restored. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

A local project consensus (for what would seem to be less content than a level-2 heading with 12k of content - but rather a mention as one of many services) can not override Wikipedia policy - in this case WP:NOTCATALOG - "Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention.". If some of AA's cabins have received significant independent coverage by mainstream media (and not product reviews) - it might be possible to discuss inclusion - otherwise - WP:NOT. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

A basic mention of what is offered is fine. There is no pricing information in the article, nor availability in the sense that there are so many seats available on a given flight. That is what the bit you have quoted means. If the airline itself is notable, then details about what it offers is by definition notable. For heaven's sake, the AAdvantage program even has a separate article. Sometimes it goes into too much detail but that could be fixed by copyediting. If you feel that strongly about it, can I suggest you go to all the other articles that have similar sections and remove them. Otherwise, |I suggest you restore and copyedit the section you removed. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

What I removed was far from basic - it was nitty-gritty unsourced (and poorly sourced) promotional text of every spurious brand name. I did not (yet) remove AAdvantage - or other content in "Reward programs" - though that section also merits discussion, some of it should stay. As for other articles - if such a poorly sourced promotional piece of WP:NOTCATALOG "cabins" section exists there - yes - I do intend to remove from other articles as well - however bear in mind WP:WORKINPROGRESS and WP:VOLUNTEER (in regards to your direction of my editing work).Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Not a direction, just a suggestion! :-) As I said, where it is more than basic it should be edited. But there is no justification for removing the whole section. It is a standard section for airline articles. The quality of the section can be addressed, but it should not be removed. And when something is deemed to be notable enough to have its own article, do you really think you could get consensus to remove the section without first getting that article deleted? Lard Almighty (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The "cabins" section has its own article? I did not remove AAdvantage (and I agree that while AAdvantage is a promotional product offering it should stay - all be it based on secondary RSes that are critical of the program - my hunch is it probably passes WP:NPRODUCT, though some of the lounge offerings (also in the rewards section) - possibly not). Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the AAdvantage section replying to your suggestion that you might remove parts of that as well. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I did not (AFAICT) suggest that, though I did say it was "over detailed" and "mainly sourced to AA or its partners" - the rewards program needs a rewrite, trim, and better sourcing (the "Flagship Lounge" might be something that should go, "Admirals Club" and "AAdvantage" should probably stay with a rewrite). Icewhiz (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

"I did not (yet) remove AAdvantage..." That suggests that you might do in the future. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to this removal, and contest the conclusion that the cabins section of this article fell under the category of WP:NOTCATALOG. As has been mentioned previously in this discussion, the inclusion of extensive cabin information is standard across airline articles, and the complete removal of such a category from one of them demands further consensus than on this single talk page. At the bare minimum, these airlines' pages contain very similar content to what was contested here: United Airlines, Delta Airlines, British Airways, Lufthansa, etc (these are only the airlines that came to to the top of my head, I'm sure there are more with similar pages). Because this change (on the grounds of consensus on this page) implies changes to a vast number of articles, this change should be discussed on the Airlines project talk page, at a minimum, before removal from this article. --HunterM267 ^talk 20:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiProjects are informal - and do not override Wikipedia policy which NOT is. Using the DAILYMAIL or AA as a source (as well as unsourced information all together) - is not acceptable. Perhaps the "Cabins" section in some of the other articles is not a promotional poorly-sourced NOT fail - discusssing a concrete example (e.g. the crud that was present on this page) is better than generalities (I for one am not opposed to a section on cabins if it is strongly sourced and not promotional - focusing on what is covered in independent secondary RS).Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree entirely that using unsourced or primary source information is not acceptable in any degree, and that WikiProjects and their policies do not override those of Wikipedia in general. However, my stance remains that the problems which are being discussed here are equally present on most if not all of the articles I linked above, prompting the need for a discussion about these sections in general, and not just for this specific airline. I started a section on the Wikiproject's talk page, as I mentioned above. --HunterM267 ^talk 21:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that there is no consensus for the wholesale deletion of this section. I agree that it needs cleanup, and editors should feel free to work on that as they are able. But the information itself cannot reasonably be interpreted to violate WP:CATALOG--that's just stretching things.

@Esrever: clearly a CATALOG fail, however you also restored a section that fails WP:V - no source for much of the crud, use of WP:DAILYMAIL, use of AA itself as a source. I strongly suggest you self revert - introducing (and by reverting - you are responsible for the content) promotional text that fails V is a rather big deal.Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I saw all of that the first time you mentioned it, yes. Ease up and give people time to fix the issues. In the meantime, I'll take *PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY* for reintroducing "promotional text". Esrever ^(klaT) 22:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I have taken an initial stab at trimming this section down a bit to remove much of the unnecessary--in my view--detail. If others feel that we need to know the business class seat configurations in every airplane variant, please feel free to add that back. I instead opted for broader text about what's generally available. Esrever ^(klaT) 23:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Still clearly UNDUE and a NOTCATALOG fail - as it is not based on high quality independent RS. It is not our job build a sales flyer of "what's generally available".Icewhiz (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, this is a very clear misreading of NOTCATALOG. No one's posted fare information for the cabins, or listed the price of various amenities and add-ons. It instead simply describes (and in much less detail than it used to!) the offerings of the airline. Esrever ^(klaT) 16:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia, per WP:NOTCATALOG, is not in the business of describing airline (or any company) offerings that do not have significant, in-depth, independent, and reliable secondary coverage. At present we don't even pass WP:V - let alone demonstrate that this promotional bit of text is WP:DUE.Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Esrever in that the cabin section of this article - and that of other airlines - does not violate WP:NOTCATALOG. It is not a promotional listing of services and offerings, and does not mention pricing or availability or any other directory-relevant information. Airline cabins and offerings are regularly discussed by reliable and secondary sources (CNN, Time, USA Today, etc) - and a fair number of those are already cited. Yes, it could use more, but especially after Esrever's trimming, this section is clearly not promotional. --HunterM267 ^talk 18:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious, IceWhiz, why you think it's "promotional" text? What part of it is presented in a POVish way? Do you just object in principle to the inclusion of this type of information? To my eye, it legitimately seems to be a pretty factual representation of the classes of service offered on a major US airline, which (and here's where we seem to disagree) seems like a legitimate topic of interest in an encyclopedia. I imagine that plenty of editors are happy to help make the information more neutral, if that's the concern. But I think you should provide specific examples of what's offending you on that front. Esrever ^(klaT) 00:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Prior to the rewrite/trim - it was more promotional (e.g. this version which this discussion started with). In my view, any description of a commercial companies offerings that is based on a description proffered by the commercial company itself (which is the case here - the section either being unsoruced or sourced to AA and its PR) that uses the branding and marketing language of the commercial company - is promotional. A hypothetical "Cabins" section (or any other product offering by a different type of company) based on critical, top-notch independent reliable sources - would not be promotional. I will note that this isn't my personal view, but rather policy - WP:PROMO -

Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources ... Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoting policy isn't particularly helpful here. I'm asking for specific things you find objectionable. Is there an example of "puffery" here you'd like to point to? Is there something that's NPOV? Beyond the fact that AA's own website is used as a source, are there actual things you think are promotional?

All un-cited information (which seems like it came out of an AA brochure), or information cited to AA or its press releases - should go. If you don't have independent third-party sources covering AA's offerings - it shouldn't be in the article. I fully intend (per PROMO), in due time, to remove every piece of text that has a citation-needed or better-source tag attached to it.Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As I've said above, I believe this is a misinterpretation of the PROMO policy. As a counter point, WP:PRIMARY does explicitly allow the use of primary sources in moderation for encylopedic purposes. For example - aviation accidents are often documented in detail on wikipedia. Almost all of their information comes from a primary source - an official report. Similarly, wikipedia articles on vehicles contain specs about the vehicle - which are almost always derived from official vehicle spec documents. In this vein, information about an airline's cabin is absolutely worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia. I don't read the cabin section of the article to learn about what class I want to fly in on my next American Airlines trip. I read it to read about the various cabin offerings, and their history, just like one would read about vehicle stats, aircraft accident details, country demographic reports, a selection of an author's published works, etc. Just because you don't find this information to be encylopedic doesn't mean it isn't, and, like Esrever has said, I am not convinced there is any policy that directly applies to this - PROMO certainly does not. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, and I cannot definitively claim that the cabins section is 100% compliant with all policies - but I can say as a reader and decently experienced editor that I find these cabin sections to be exactly what I expect and am interested in reading about in Wikipedia articles on these subjects, and I firmly believe that policies exist that permit its inclusion. --HunterM267 ^talk 21:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Toxic cabin fume events

I've reverted this, as beyond the false edit summary (a Boeing settlement was involved in only one of the six sourced sections) - toxic fume events in AA cabins are, as quite clearly evident in any source check, covered extensively in sources covering AA. Beyond affecting passengers, the pilots and flight attendant unions of AA have protested and taken action against this hazardous work environment. While it seems there is a paucity of sources covering different contemporary cabin class offerings (which was actually what I was looking for - little on current offerings, though there is book coverage on the 20s-30s-50s-60s) - health hazards seem to be taken quite seriously by RSes who cover these at great length. Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

My edit summary was based on the fact that a majority of the sources (>5) in the section cite issues with the bleed air on Boeing aircraft - this, in addition to the aforementioned settlement, led to hesitancy to conclude that this was an American Airlines occurance and not a Boeing Aircraft occurance. However, after closer inspection and notice that Airbus aircraft were also affected, I'm less convinced of my previous hesitation. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

American used to fly just Boeing (and Douglas) - this has changed in recent years. The sources focus on AA (who maintains and operates the planes) and not on Boeing/Airbus.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• American Airlines logo 2013.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• AAdvantage logo 2013.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Varying passenger counts for fort worth

When I was reading this page I noticed that it said Fort Worth handled 200 million passengers annually. However, Atlanta, the busiest airport in the world, only handled 107 million last year. Is this a typo or is there something I'm missing? ArmageddonAviation (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2019

CHANGE Other accidents include the Flight 383 engine failure and fire in 2016. There were two training flights in which the crew were killed and six that resulted in no fatalities.[112] Another four jet aircraft have been written off due to incidents while they were parked between flights or while undergoing maintenance.[112] TO Other accidents include the Flight 383 engine failure and fire in 2016. There were two training flight accidents in which the crew were killed and six that resulted in no fatalities.[112] Another four jet aircraft have been written off due to incidents while they were parked between flights or while undergoing maintenance.[112]

COMMENTARY The current version sounds like there were only six training flights at all resulting in no fatalities. AnotherUserFromTheInternetWithNoIdeaWhatNameToChoose123 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done — MRD2014 (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)