Talk:2017 United Express passenger removal

"Asian-American"
After initially assuming the mention that Mr. Dao is Asian-American was unnecessary, further study of the footnotes details that there are suggestions that he may have been treated the way he was because of racial prejudice (links to various articles about Asian-American travelers). That is clearly an important notion that should remain in the article, but I wonder if it can be more organically integrated. I am considering breaking it into its own paragraph, so that the fourth paragraph is not so jarring and so that it is clear that his race not being brought up for no apparent reason. Thoughts?


 * Further down in the "Incident" section, the text says: "Another passenger also reported hearing Dao say that he had been chosen because of his ethnicity." I believe that sufficiently explains the in-text mention of his ethnicity. I don't believe a separate paragraph is needed; there does not seem to be a significantly large amount of sourced material to justify such emphasis. Note: I cut the word "also" from the sentence I've shown here. I think its purpose was to indicate that another passenger 'also' commented on the situation, but the wording made it seem as though multiple passengers commented on the ethnicity factor. DonFB (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead issues.
The lead here has serious problems. The key points for the first paragraph of the lead should be - the flight was overbooked (absolutely vital, yet this was somehow omitted), Dao refused to leave, he was forcibly dragged off the plane an injured in the process. Second and third paragraphs can then cover the aftermath. Blow-by-blow details and back-and-forth over what happened can be covered further down. --Aquillion (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The first few sentences seem structured to blame Dao (focusing heavily on him being "uncooperative" and "screaming"); these don't really reflect the sources used (which place very little emphasis on this relative to the injuries he suffered) and definitely don't reflect the article. Those things aren't what make this incident notable; they might be worth discussing further down as details, but currently they're not in the article at all outside the lead, which is the total reverse of how it ought to read.  This is the most serious issue, since Dao falls under WP:BLP, so it requires an immediate fix (especially since Dao is in the news again and, therefore, the risk of harm to him from an unbalanced lead is relevant.)
 * The lead completely omitted any mention of overbooking; whereas the vast majority of sources focus on it as the crux of the story. It belongs in the first sentence - the entire topic is incomprehensible without knowing that the flight was overbooked (without mentioning that overbooking was the reason for his removal, the implication that the lead gave was that Dao was removed because he was uncooperative, which is backwards and, again, a severe WP:BLP violation.)
 * The blow-by-blow is excessive and, again, dwells too much on aspects that seem tangential to the subject.
 * The lead says that Dao struck the armrest 'accidentally'; the body, and its sources, say he was 'thrown' against it.
 * Most of the 'Prior to the confrontation...' section of the paragraph seems of minimal relevance; the offer of vouchers, etc. isn't really significant to the notability of the incident. It could be condensed down to a sentence or even more brief - it's worth covering in the article, but not the lead.

Requested move 28 January 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

United Express Flight 3411 incident → 2017 United Express passenger removal – Requesting a move due to the specific implications of the word "incident" in aviation terminology (Aviation accidents and incidents and WP:AVTITLE), and to better align the title with WP:NCEVENTS. The occurrence was a passenger handling/law enforcement encounter, and was in no way associated with the aircraft's operation.&#32;Headphase (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article is move protected is probably a good indication that any proposed move will not be uncontroversial. Lennart97 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). No such user (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support move. The word "incident" has specific connotations in aviation we wish to avoid here.  O.N.R.  (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I loathe "event" in the proposal; it's a non-descript euphemism. "Passenger removal incident" would much better describe it, and would be sufficient to distinguish from the technical meaning of "incident". Or just leave it at "passenger removal" without additional words. No such user (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That's fair; "event" is a redundant noun, though I do oppose the inclusion of "incident" anywhere near the title. Updated the original request. Headphase (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the updated request. No such user (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree -- "event" is a euphemism to downplay what happened. (Much like the word reaccommodate.)  2017 is unnecessary -- that information is in the article.  "United Express Flight 3411 Forcible Passenger Removal Incident" is a better description.  (Although it seems a bit lengthy.)  However, this would also be sufficient to distinguish from the technical meaning of "incident".  The word "incident" or something similar to convey the seriousness of what happened seems extremely necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.118.192 (talk)
 * Support move. Exactly as proposed: "2017 United Express passenger removal", or without the year. I can also support "United Express Flight 3411 passenger removal" (omitting the year but including flight #). The word "event" or the like is unnecessary. DonFB (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Move as Worded To dovetail on my previous comment. Another suggestion "United Express Forcible Passenger Removal Controversy."  I looked at pages for United, AA and SWA.  Some entries use the word "passenger incident" and in other cases the word "controversy" is used.  Do not put 3411 or 2017 in the title.  That information is inside the article and not having it in the title will reduce the length of the title.  If we are not going to use the word incident, then something like controversy or a similar word should be in the title.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.118.192 (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NCEVENT generally recommends year to be included in descriptive titles. 2017 clearly signifies the era; in 10 years one will hardly recall this event without it; besides, removals of unruly passengers happen somewhat regularly, but rarely cause a controversy of this scale. I would argue that the clause Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it is not satisfied here, as it is nowhere near the scale of the Tenerife airport disaster. I would also prefer either "forceful" or "controversy" to be included in the title (we probably do not need both), since "passenger removal" on its own does sound bland. No such user (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to support any title that does not use "incident", for the reason given above--in an aviation context the word has a specific meaning, which does not apply to this narrative. The modifier "forcible" in the title might result in quicker searches for the article, but should be considered only on that basis, not because it might help the title avoid being "bland" (informative, specific and common are the important criteria). "Controversy" could go in a Redirect, but is unnecessary for the title. The "event" was the "removal"; there's no need to make removal an adjective to modify the superfluous word event. DonFB (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with DonFB that the modifier "forcible" in the title might result in quicker searches for the article, but should be considered only on that basis, not because it might help the title avoid being "bland." To this end, I did some searches in Google, Youtube and Twitter.  Using "United" and "3411" in searches returns articles/videoes about the passenger dragging.  If somebody wanted to obtain this Wikipedia entry (for example in a College class about Business Management), I also agree with DofFB that words in the title should return the article more easily.  This has made me reconsider my previous statement that 3411 does not need to be in the title.  It seems like it does.  How would "United Express Flight 3411 Forcible Passenger Removal" be?  We could say "United Express Flight 3411 Passenger Dragging" but that title seems a bit too sensationalizing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.118.192 (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment To address some concerns:
 * Most importantly, I think we've established that this was not an "aviation incident" in accordance with all normal and expected industry standards, and the word incident should be stricken as a titlular identifier.
 * Secondly, this is was clearly a WP:NCEVENT, which calls for 3 elements at a minimum: the when (2017), the where (onboard/in the custody of the United Express brand), and the what  (passenger removal).
 * On the word controversy: This article is about the situation in its entirety, and any perceived controversy/fallout/reaction/criticism is merely a subset of the topic at large. I would submit that content regarding the fallout of the incident should remain in its distinct section of the article (with a brief summary in the lede), but the word controversy unnecessarily lengthens and colors the title.
 * On the inclusion of Flight 3411, there are two points:
 * Searchability: The article already has redirects from United Express Flight 3411, and the phrase is repeated in the article body. There will be no issue finding this article.
 * Relevance: If we accept that the article is easily identifiable through redirects and phrases indexed in the body text, we must also consider that the flight number:
 * Has no bearing on the cause of the situation (we've estaished this was a customer service encounter, not an operational incident, and it could have happened with any UALX flight number)
 * Unnecessarily clutters the article title. Having two numbers in one title is (in my admittedly personal opinion) a poor stylistic choice and it conflicts with concision and brevity.
 * On the word forcible: Much like the word 'event', this is redundant because "removal" is an inherently forced act. If it didn't involve force we would be generally use the words "deplaned" (if voluntary) or "bumped" (if compelled).
 * On the "blandness" of an article title: I vehemently disagree that "bland" is bad for an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not a tabloid (WP:SENSATIONAL), and this incident was already pumped full of buzzwords and emotional pressure when it gained initial media traction. The goal of every article is to summarize the facts and reactions to an incident, not to itself react to an incident.
 * That said, I'm happy to engage on any of these points, cheers - Headphase (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support move. WP:NCEVENTS calls for a majority of events to include when the incident happened, making this title WP:CONSISTENT with other event/incident titles, and the new name is easier to find (WP:RECOGNIZABLE). It's gonna be a yes from me. Pilaz (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)