Talk:D. B. Cooper/Archive 5

Dan Gryder Documentary Film
Since its release on 12 Dec 2021, Dan Gryder's documentary film has been referenced to the D.B. Cooper article multiple times (in the Richard McCoy subsection), and each time has been rejected by editors because "You Tube is not considered a reliable source." Agreed, YouTube can never out of hand be considered a reliable source. But when the content of a source (YouTube or whatever) meets Wikipedia's own definitions of "reliability" for primary + secondary sources, it should without hesitation be allowed as a page reference. Gryder had tried for over 20 years to interview McCoy's children, but they wouldn't talk because their mother (known to be complicit in McCoy's Colorado-Utah hijacking) was still alive. Their mother died very recently this year, which opened the door to Gryder's ground-breaking, and frankly case-solving, interviews. This is primary and secondary sourcing in its purist form, by Wiki's own definitions. I have personally watched the entire 2.5 hr doc film and can attest to these statements, and urge all Wiki editors to allow this film as a reference. I believe it will be among the most important references in the entire article as it effectively solves the case. Driz7 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's call lit what it is... someone's theory from a a personal YouTube posting. This has been repeatedly removed, by multiple editors. It does not go in until (an if) consensus is reached to include it.
 * Yes McCoy was involved in similar case. So what? He was a suspect to some people, but he was never charged in this case, and is not an FBI suspect. As we already say in the article. What his children now claim (50 years after the fact) may just be an attempt to gain a bit more notoriety for their father. And since the children's parents married in 1965, the children were very at the time of the airplane incident. Meters (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I second Meters' above comment. This is just one self-published theory in a line of theories.  Until this gets further attention in reliable sources, it cannot be included. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We do mention the McCoy theory in the article, but we certainly don't need the breathless claims that this YouTube posting exposes "the truth" and "finally solves" the case. If the documentary is covered by reliable sources then it should be OK to simply mention that McCoy's children now claim that their father was DB Cooper, while pointing out that it is 50 years after the fact and that they were so young at the time as to have no personal knowledge of it. This reminds me of the claims of various people to have met Jesse James after his death, or even to be him. Meters (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that McCoy's children claim that their father was D.B. Cooper. And yet this is now public record. It doesn't matter if the children said this to Dan Gryder (a relatively unknown investigative journalist) or said it on some national T.V. show. The fact is they are now filmed as having said it publicly, first person, and in fact go into some detail. To reject this absolutely critical piece of information because "it's on YouTube" is absurd, and shows a complete misunderstanding of Wiki's definition of primary and secondary sources. In this case, YouTube is not the "source". YouTube is the vehicle. The source is McCoy's children, and absolutely must be given due coverage in an article about their father. To ignore their direct narrative is a dereliction of Wiki's editorial policy on primary and secondary sources (i.e., McCoy's kids). That said, I agree that the article should make no assumption that this new revelation "solves the case" (etc), though I'm personally convinced it does (you should watch the Gryder film before making assumptions, some of which are plain wrong). Editorial speculation is not the intent of a Wiki article. The intent of a Wiki article is to include all critically relevant primary + secondary source material, and certain tertiary material. McCoy's childrens' direct revelation is among the most relevant reporting in the entire Cooper article. As for them being too young at the time, what they know was told to them from their mother, who was deeply complicit in both hijackings, according to their narrative. Ultimately, it is not for us (as editors) to decide if these kids are telling the truth. It is simply up to us to report all critical, relevant information related to a Wiki article. And there is no reason to "wait for the Gryder documentary to be covered by reliable sources." That misses the entire encyclopedic point. The "reliable sources" are the KIDS, not the doc film, not Gryder, not YouTube. Driz7 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that YouTube somehow taints things. The problem is that this video is a self-published piece of journalism. ApLundell (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On Dec 19, 2021, a Wyoming State journal picked up the Dan Gryder documentary film and ran a lengthy summary article. I have just re-posted to the Richard McCoy section of the D.B. Cooper article with this reference (no YouTube reference). Driz7 (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I concur with the deletions. We open up a Pandora's Box when allowing YouTube videos as a reference. Having spent some time making edits on Wiki, I believe that if this YouTube video has credibility, then a reputable news source will pick up the information, and then you can possibly cite that news source. Dwnoone1 (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If Gryder simply concluded that D.B. Cooper was Richard McCoy, then his theory should not be part of the Wiki article. That would be self-published speculation from a journalist, even if it was later reported by a national news source. Ironically, a large number of the Wiki articles references are news reporting of speculation, reporting on some "new evidence", some "new theory", etc.. By Wiki standards, many if not most of these existing 256 references should be removed -- they are simply news reporting of speculation. As if a national news source confers "reliability" or "credibility" to a theory (see the irony?) Of course, Gryder never once suggests that D.B. Cooper is Richard McCoy. He simply presents evidence (first hand interviews with the McCoy kids) and lets the viewer come to their own conclusion. If we're concerned with having the McCoy kids' statement regurgitated by a "reputable news source" -- then allow the critical statement as a reference from the doc film until a "reputable news source" picks it up, and then revert the reference to the news source. The revelation is simply too important and too critical to the Wiki article to ignore it because of blind, bureaucratic adherence to Wiki editing protocol. We seem to have forgotten that by Wiki's own definition, YouTube content is generally not considered a reliable source. It doesn't say "always". This is clearly one of those times for a temporary exception. Driz7 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On Dec 19, 2021, a Wyoming State journal picked up the Dan Gryder documentary film and ran a lengthy summary article. I have just re-posted this update to the Richard McCoy section of the D.B. Cooper article with the Wyoming journal this reference (no YouTube reference). Driz7 (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot see how a local newspaper article is considered a reliable source. The FBI does not consider Richard McCoy to be a suspect and until definate evidence comes to light - then this "story" should not be included in the page. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How on earth is first-hand testimony from McCoy's children and sister-in-law not considered "definite evidence?" As no Wiki editor seems to have figured out, the "reliable source" is not YouTube, is not a state news journal. The reliable source is McCoy's own kin, giving first-hand, on-camera, never-before seen testimony of their life of secrecy -- this after 50 years, and only because their mother had recently passed away and no longer needed their protection of secrecy. Clearly nobody here has watched the Gryder doc film, but is simply making blind, bureaucratic, pencil pusher assumptions. The Gryder film makes no claim to have solved the DB Cooper case. Gryder makes no claim of McCoy being DB Cooper. Gryder simply hosts interviews with the McCoy kin (kids, sister in law, friends) and leaves it at that. Is the McCoy clan telling the truth? That's NOT for Wiki editors to decide. Our job is to present credible, public evidence relevant to this article, and first-hand bombshell testimony from McCoy's kids is about the most powerful evidence ever presented in this case. Unless someone can do better than "YouTube isn't reliable" or "a state journal reporting isn't reliable" -- then there is absolutely no reason not to present this evidence. Driz7 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The article is not just "What the FBI Thinks about DB Cooper". A self published video can't be used, but if there's a reliable third party source that discusses it seriously, it doesn't really matter (for Wikipedia's purposes) if the FBI is taking it seriously. ApLundell (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a test
So, uh, is this just like Fandom or something? I see lots of similarities between wikipedia and Fandoms's wikis TaurusXscorpio4-ever!! (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Other Wikis often copy content from Wikipedia. This is allowed as almost all Wikipedia content is licensed under a Creative Commons license which allows reuse. Attribution is required; however, not all reusers do so. Meters (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

References list
If "20em" is not suitable, must I handle the two-column list well if a three-column list isn't suitable as well? The list isn't easy to read and is very lengthy, even with two columns. --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you're making it harder to read. The list is going to be lengthy no matter what.  Per the documentation at Template:Reflist:
 * Choose a width appropriate to the typical width of the references: (...) 20em: Where Shortened footnotes are used
 * You can go for a small suggested width if all of the footnotes are shortened footnotes, per the above. Antiochus_X_Eusebes is an example of such a section in a Featured Article - every citation is very short, just Author Year p. XX.  20em looks ridiculous with long citations with more information, because it wraps constantly and spreads a citation across multiple lines needlessly.  It doesn't even save any space - this technique only actually helps when there's short footnotes, per above, that would otherwise be "wasting" horizontal space.  That's not the case here. SnowFire (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

National Georgaphic special on D.B. Cooper
I remember seeing a National Geographic special on D.B. Cooper with a theroy of how part of the money ended up in the Tina Bar at the Columbia River....Cooper on the night of his jump landed in the river and died; at that time the Columbia river was used as water way for ocean going ships; that Cooper reamins were caught in a vessel going to sea....and that part of ranson money broke loose and ended up in sand bar....while Cooper and the rest of the money...got a sea burial.....thus explaining why his ramains and part of teh ransom have never been found.... I think the reason no one ever reported him missing is that he ma have ben layed off from work...thus he would not have been missed.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.135.90 (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

High number of recent edits.
Please review edits made starting 24 July. The Ted Braden edits reference a self published book. This article keeps growing and should be monitored. Dwnoone1 (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Bruce A. Smith book
I appreciate the work you've done over the past few days to add more information to this article. However it appears that almost all of the information you've added is sourced to the book D.B. Cooper and the FBI by Bruce A. Smith. I don't believe this book can be considered a reliable source. It's published by a publisher with a history of publishing books of questionable accuracy, and the author does not seem to have any particular qualifications or expertise in this area; he seems to just be an amateur with an interest in the Cooper case. I'm afraid that all the information sourced solely to this book should be removed, unless you can find a better source. I have also opened a disussion about the reliability of this book at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. CodeTalker (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd ask you which information in particular that I've added is unreliable? Bruce Smith is a strange man, to be sure, but I've not added anything that is out of sorts with the general D.B. Cooper "canon". I've added that he carried a brown bag with him. That he sat in seat 18-E. Just basic things that this article was missing. Earlier today this page said that he was sitting in seat 18-C, which is on the wrong side of the plane. How long had that been that way?
 * I'm also curious to know who you think has the qualifications to write a book about a 50 year old cold case? FBI Agents only? I'm a former District Attorney. If I wrote a book about it Cooper would I have enough qualifications in your mind?
 * What book is a reliable Cooper book? As far as I can tell, 90% of this article is sourced to either Ralph Himmelbach's book that is terribly outdated and is approaching its 40th year or to random news articles which contain no cites of their own to show where those journalists got their information from. Is an article titled "Here are 11 possible D.B. Cooper suspects" more worthy of inclusion than an obviously well researched 506 page tome just because the author is a weird fella?
 * Honestly, if I were to quote something from this book that were completely out of odds with what I would consider "Cooper canon" then sure, it should be stricken from the record, but what specifically have I posted is not backed up elsewhere?
 * Don't mistake my tone as hostile, I'm just genuinely confused because anyone who devotes this much time to a 50 year old cold case is going to be a bit of an odd-bird to begin with. SillyRyno (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have voluntarily removed the Bruce Smith cites from the page and replaced them with FBI cites. Although he is a respected researcher within the Cooper community, I understand Wikipedia's policies. SillyRyno (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@CodeTalker all edits since 23 July may need to be reviewed by someone with rollback authority here. See my recent post on this Talk Page. Dwnoone1 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Joe Lakich
That is the second time now that the same user has posted a judgmental, non-NPOV, and non-reliably sourced article. The first time I removed it and now the second time I see @CodeTalker has removed it. I just spent the better part of two hours adding Joe Lakich using proper cites and acceptable sources in the hopes that this abuse stops. Was appeasement the correct course of action?SillyRyno (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Edwards as a source
I see that SillyRyno has used Edwards a good bit, and Edwards seems to be pushing the "Cooper was a mastermind who planned all of this out" take down to sitting in the back, rather than the boring but more probable "Cooper was randomly picking stuff" option. Are there any sources other than Edwards who heavily bring up the large section added that seemed to try to send this idea? If not, it might be better to attribute things to Edwards directly. Is his book sufficiently boringly reliable enough, anyway?

Anyway, I removed a section that seemed to be exclusively sourced to Edwards, Wordpress, and primary sources. The bit on the weather was especially concerning and a good sign of what I mentioned about primary sources above - everyone, from the pilots to the FBI to other investigators, agrees that there was a rainstorm that night. It even proudly raises that but then pivots toward one random weather reading that said it wasn't that bad. That's not a good sign - we'd need much better references to overturn fairly non-controversial claims about the weather. SnowFire (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would disagree about the weather. The pilots do not mention there being a storm that night. Bill Rataczak merely referred to it as "the soup" i.e. typical Pacific NW weather. Cloudy and rainy. There is no mention at all about a storm or lightning, etc. I have access to a PDF of the tens of thousands of FOIA'd documents that have been released by the FBI and they are searchable through Adobe. If you search for "storm" or "thunderstorm" or "lightning" or words to that effect, nearly all of the times those words pop up are from newspaper clippings that the FBI took that were all quoting Ralph Himmelsbach. Was in raining? Absolutely. Was it some raging thunderstorm? It doesn't appear so. There appears to be some hyperbole that has taken hold over the years regarding the weather and I don't see the issue in pointing that out.
 * The problem we faced for years with the DB Cooper case is that our information came almost entirely from the public faces of the FBI investigation. Those weather readings aren't "random weather readings". I'm not sure if you clicked on that link or not but that was the FBI's weather readings that they gathered from that entire area that night all across Oregon and Washington from all the local airports. There was nothing indicating a thunderstorm at the time Cooper jumped at any of those airports. The weather appeared to worsen as the night wore on and into the next day, hampering the search efforts, but at the time of the jump it didn't appear to be some terrible storm. I'm really not in agreement with you on this. I'm not sure how primary weather readings are controversial. SillyRyno (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't mistake my tone here, but you should think this through a little bit if you think Cooper chose his seat haphazardly. To think that he would have gone to all the trouble he went to in order to successfully pull of the hijacking yet to NOT think about where he was sitting is strange. Is it not something you would think about? There's a reason that no passenger on the aircraft knew they were being hijacked until they got off the plane. There's also a reason that only six passengers even noticed the strange man in sunglasses. This reason being that he was sitting in the very back of the plane. By sitting in the back of the plane he was able to remain inconspicuous to the rest of the passengers. It also gave him protection from being jumped from behind. It also gave him easy access to the phone which he and the flight attendant used to communicate to the cockpit throughout the flight. They were able to remain seated and still use the phone. This really isn't some hot take and isn't indicative of Cooper being a criminal mastermind. A common street thug would probably think about where to sit. Trust me, I dealt with them for years, haha.
 * I'm not sure how well versed you are or aren't with the Cooper case, but the FBI respected his intelligence. Their suspect profile considered that he may have been a recently unemployed Boeing engineer due to his intelligence and knowledge of the intricacies of aviation and that particular aircraft. Their main "disrespect" for Cooper as a hijacker seems to come from his decisions regarding his the skydiving elements of his escape. However, that is not without controversy itself. As demonstrated in the article, the criticisms of him taking a "dummy chute" are not valid criticisms. I've added additional sources to prove this, including Himmelsbach himself confirming this. Also, most skydivers from the time period who have been asked about it think he chose the right parachute for the jump. He chose an NB-8 military emergency parachute, which called the "Bulldog parachute" because of how rugged and sturdy it was. The purpose of it was to get an airman to the ground quickly and effectively and reliably if they had to bail out of an aircraft.
 * And is Edwards sufficiently boringly reliable enough? Holy cow, with respect to Dr. Edwards, I've never come across a book that makes an exciting event seem more boring. He's a mathematician. 75% of his book is a mathematical analysis of flight path data. It's essentially unreadable. It's mostly numbers and charts. However, Cooper scholarship by reliable sources is extraordinarily thin. Because his book was published by a large company his book is determined to be a reliable source so it's one of the few books on Cooper that can be used. SillyRyno (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

FBI records should be preferable
I've recently begun adding the FBI records that were released on FBI.gov throughout certain parts of the page. There can be no greater primary source than these regarding initial witness statements, descriptions of the hijacker, etc. I think in the future, if it is at all possible to have something verified by an FBI document, then it should be so. I'm not sure how long it was standing, but as recently as last week this page had Cooper's seat wrong because it was linking to some random newspaper article from 2007. That is the sort of thing that is easily fixable by using the FBI's internal documents. SillyRyno (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * User:KatDales asked various editors to take a look at recent edits to the page. I haven't entirely caught up, and some of your changes seem fine, I regret to inform you that this statement is incorrect for a Wikipedia article.  I think what you describe doing would be good if you were writing your own book or a journal article.  However, Wikipedia (counterintuitively to some) does not prefer primary sources; we prefer reliable secondary sources here.  Please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY.  The material you've added directly sourced to the FBI documents isn't usable and should be removed unless a secondary source can verify its relevance, and then just preferentially cite the secondary source, maybe with the FBI direct link as a side comment.


 * There's a very good reason why this is the case, by the way. There's hundreds of pages of raw FBI documents out there.  Much of it isn't actually relevant, and some of it that is relevant can be misinterpreted.  Using a secondary source is showing that at least one expert has agreed this is a relevant takeaway.  If you cite directly from primary sources, you can end up in a situation similar to sovereign citizens (since you mentioned being a prosecutor), where somebody directly cites the Constitution, or obscure law statutes, or whatever and makes it imply things that no court agrees with.  There's also a risk of "synthesis" (WP:SYNTHESIS), where real references are used but novel conclusion are implied / drawn from them.  Now, this isn't to say that primary sources can never be used, but they need to be the backup, not the main event.  Also, using the eccentric author from the section above's book but then replacing it with primary sources is a bit shady as well...  if it's really relevant, find a good secondary source that agrees.  If you can't, then maybe it isn't really that relevant, or maybe scholarship just hasn't caught up.


 * Despite these comments, it's good that you're looking at the article, and many of the changes are probably positive. So I hope this doesn't come across as too much of a downer.  SnowFire (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone who does possess a J.D., I do understand the scholarly reasoning behind the primary/secondary source issue. However, I think this Entry needs to be treated with more flexibility in this regard due to the unusual nature of what we are dealing with. Starting in 2016, the FBI have been compelled to release all of their D.B. Cooper investigative files. They release about 500 a month in PDF format. So far we have over 25,000 pages. This sort of thing is quite unprecedented in an Unsolved Case. We can prefer secondary sources on Wikipedia, but when we have the original document containing the verbatim words from a flight attendant or a pilot giving their description of the hijacking mere moments after the event, then that should be reliable. Take for example the flight attendant Tina Mucklow begging Cooper to tie her to a chair so she didn't get sucked out of a plane. She tells that to the FBI within an hour of landing in Reno. The fact that John Doe of the Picayune-Herald hasn't written a random news article discussing that or that Ralph Himmelsbach didn't put that in his book 40 years ago shouldn't keep something like that out of this article. There is no chance that a primary source like that could be misinterpreted. For these interviews to finally be accessible is a true treasure and the contents of these original interviews should certainly be given enough validation to remain. Another example: it is fascinating to know how and why we have so many Cooper sketches. This isn't something that yet exists in any news article or book. There is no novel conclusion to be drawn from these interviews. It's quite straight forward. A user/reader could click on the link provided and see precisely why the FBI changed a certain aspect of the sketch based upon talking to such and such eyewitness on such and such date. This should be a proper use for a primary source. There's no controversial or novel inference that could be drawn from that.
 * Respectfully, I'll repeat that I think we are dealing with a unique situation here that isn't applicable to many other Wikipedia articles. This was the most expensive investigation ever conducted in American History up until that time. These investigative documents are as close to actual evidence as we are going to get on this topic. I feel that due to the unique nature of this case that the use of these FBI sources should be handled on an individual basis. I understand the argument for secondary sources, but this is an unsolved case still, and there should be no greater primary source/evidence than an original witness statement, for example. I just can't imagine what sort of sovereign citizen type issue is going to occur by quoting an original witness statement about how tall they thought Cooper was or whatever.
 * A lot of work has been done to provide readers with a much more detailed and vivid understanding of the D.B. Cooper hijacking and it is solely due to the fact that we now have the original source material and I think the benefit to the reader outweighs any chance of adverse shenanigans, and if there is some sort of shenanigans, then I'm sure admins can call it out where they see it. SillyRyno (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with @SnowFire. WP:PRIMARY is a policy, and should not be contravened lightly. The fact that voluminous primary sources exist, and contain information that is not (yet?) in secondary sources is not a reason to throw our WP:PRIMARY policy out the window. In fact, I would argue that the existence of a large number of primary documents argues for LESS use of them, not more. With such a large volume of text, one could probably cherry pick information to support a variety of dubious claims. I am not at all saying that that is what is being done here, although I totally agree that replacing a dubious secondary source with primary sources seems iffy. Our policies definitely do not support using primary sources simply because secondary sources cannot be found or do not exist.I am genuinely conflicted by the current situation, because @SillyRyno has obviously been doing a lot of work in good faith with the goal of improving the article, but using mostly marginally acceptable sources. I have not had the time to study the changes in any detail, but I'm sure a lot of them are good and useful. I just wish the work were being done using sources that are more in line with our PRIMARY/SECONDARY policies. CodeTalker (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll just echo what CodeTalker said. SillyRyno, what you bring up is a known issue, not a unique one; it's just not Wikipedia's job to fix it.  It's up to people who write books / articles - and, at risk of sounding overly picky, the reliable books, which unfortunately rules out over half of them that just want to push today's weird theory.  Unfortunately, claiming to have found the real Cooper is inherently going to sell more copies than saying we still don't know.  More generally, if someone goes ahead and writes such an updated book, they'll need to be careful about those raw FBI documents, too.  Not all employees are the sharpest tools in the shed, and even the best ones make mistakes.  Or a memo might have been superseded by later findings.  There's a million reasons why a memo could be just that - a random thought placed on paper that never went anywhere, or even outright wrong / misleading.  Using direct sources is dangerous for this reason.  Now, if you have a secondary source that's already talking about a topic, and you want to use a primary source to verify the quote or the referenced material - great.  But if it's only primary sources?  Only for the most truly non-controversial matters, like your height example.  Otherwise, that's for somebody else to sort out.  Worst comes to worst, it means that Wikipedia will be slightly behind the times, but that's okay.  Wikipedia in 1905 would not have reported relativity as fact, even though we "know" it is now, and Einstein had already published his paper.  SnowFire (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the major problem with D.B. Cooper books. Almost all of them are garbage "check out my crappy suspect" books. Himmelsbach's book is terribly outdated and is out of print (costs $60 on Amazon). Gray's book is more in line with an Erik Larson type book than some scholarly work. Edwards' book is mostly math crunching. 75% of it is just charts and numbers and formulas. Smith's book is probably the most encyclopedia work on Cooper that exists and it doesn't push a suspect, but as we've discussed...he thinks he has been abducted by aliens. SillyRyno (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Marginally acceptable sources? Sources I have used the past 20 days since removing the Bruce Smith stuff (because yes, he's not reliable)
 * FBI documents, Sandusky Register article from 1982, Boston Herald article from 1980, Sunday Oregonian article from 1976, the Seattle-Post Intelligencer article from 1971, Flight International article from 1962, Ramparts Magazine article from 1967, Seattle-Post Intelligencer article from 1972, Geoffrey Gray "Skyjack", Bob Edwards "D.B. Cooper and 305", U.S Military Involvement in Southern Africa by James Dingeman, Uncommon Valor by Stephen Moore from Naval Institute Press.
 * That's it. Which of those are marginally acceptable? This is a bit insulting to my intelligence here. SillyRyno (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I've examined your additions closely and I find them greatly beneficial. The source people take issue with is the FBI documents. Have you read WP:PRIMARY? John (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. I don't see the conflict. But whatever. I really don't see the scholarly harm in pointing to Tina Mucklow's original witness statements. That isn't some sort of opinion memo that is based off incomplete evidence. They are historical quotes essentially. I'm not sure how else one could interpret her asking Cooper to tie a rope around her so she doesn't get sucked out of the plane. How is that going to be superseded by a later finding? SillyRyno (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No no, you misunderstand WP:PRIMARY. The real reason for it is that we can, consciously or not, create bias in articles by cherry-picking from primary sources. It is usually better to use good-quality secondary sources as they can to a degree be counted upon to filter and interpret the primary sources. You're quite right, on an article like this about a crime which was never solved, there is less problem of potential bias. Although I've said (as have others) that your additions to the article are a great improvement, I'd see the possible problem here as being over-comprehensiveness. I haven't read the source you are using, but if it is extremely detailed, how do we decide what belongs on the article, which should be a summary of the best sources. Personally I find it really cool that we state the brand of the cigarette butts that Cooper left and were then lost. But what if the FBI report includes the brand of shoes he was wearing? The aftershave he wore? Where would we draw the line?


 * I'm going to look again at the whole article and its sourcing. Probably not tonight, as I'm tired. Don't worry, we can work this out. John (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well believe me, I've got like 25,000+ pages of documents at my disposal (as does everyone else since they are freely available on the FBI's website), so if I wanted to be overly comprehensive I could be, haha. A good bit of those documents are "Hey, my cousin Earl looks like D.B. Cooper. Y'all need to come check him out." However, I'm really just trying to add things that would help people understand the narrative better i.e. what happened during the actual hijacking. If you go back a month ago and look at the main narrative it was a bit confusing because up until 2016 this was an active investigation, so the only unique information about the case that was uncovered was information that the FBI released themselves or what they purposely leaked out. Tina Mucklow's first interview since the hijacking wasn't until 2016!! So literally everything that we knew about what happened back there between her and Cooper was just conjecture because she only ever spoke to FBI agents back during the incident. So right now, our best source for what actually happened on that flight isn't going to be Bill McGillicutty's unsourced Podunk Gazette article from 2003 summarizing information he got from God knows where but the actual words of Tina Mucklow herself on the night of the hijacking and from the second interview she gave to the FBI a few days later at her home in Philadelphia. Any reader can click the link that I've cited 50 times in the article and read these statements of hers in their entirety. It's amazing that we have these freely available now. They are free public domain via the Freedom of Information Act. As you said, this is a crime and in my occupation her statements would fall under the "best evidence rule". There's no way to misinterpret a witness statement in this instance. Time had not yet taken an effect on her memory. I understand the purpose of the Primary/Secondary source debate in almost every other context. I really do. But I really don't see the harm in this instance when there is literally no chance of any bias. But it's cool. I was just trying to help people be more informed. SillyRyno (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to add on to this with a more concrete example, when I took my look at some of the additions, there'd been a bit added that mentioned how the FBI was still interested in getting a DNA sample from McCoy (from page 192 of 365 - you can see why having secondary sources is handy, we don't cover every page in close detail), that I removed. The implication was that the FBI may not have been so convinced in McCoy's innocence, but the cited document directly states that "the weight of the evidence points toward the elimination of McCoy", and more generally, it's very common for law enforcement to attempt to check the DNA on everyone vaguely connected with a crime if feasible, even for longshots and non-suspects. You can imagine that, in another article, this kind of thing would be an outright WP:BLP risk - law enforcement getting a DNA sample of a victim's family may have been just checking all the possibilities, not a sign that the family was under serious suspicion. It's an example of why using primary sources unsupported by secondary sources is risky. SnowFire (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a good example of where it should be avoided. That was an unnecessary addition. I came across that in the FBI files and thought it was interesting that they were still technically investigating McCoy in recent years (even though it's obvious McCoy wasn't Cooper) and impulse added that. Going forward that is the sort of thing that we can point to where the FBI files should be avoided. Perfect example. There's just no need for that. It's almost a little too "recent" as well. This is a historic case. Any use of the files needs to stick to the historical events.
 * Nevertheless, it's my understanding after extensively studying the rules for using WP:PRIMARY and reading comments about the use of Primary Sources that these FBI investigative primary sources (the witness statements in particular) can be used for the purposes for which I have used them throughout the vast, vast majority of the article, such as when making statements that any educated person could not misinterpret and would be able to verify are directly supported by the source. For example, when filling out the section describing their descent to Reno, I wrote: "She would continue making similar requests for him to raise the stairs as they made their descent but received no answer." and this is what it cites from the original document from that night: "Before descending at Reno, Nev., she called repeatedly over the intercom system to the hijacker to cooperate, that the aircraft must land. The last message was, "Sir, we are going to land now, please put up the stairs."" --- There's no way for a novel interpretation to come from that statement. That's pretty benign. That is a proper use in accordance with WP:PRIMARY.
 * Another reason why these are proper uses is because of the availability of them. Access to a source raises its reliability because it can more easily be checked.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources
 * "However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does."
 * The beauty of these FBI records is that anyone visiting this Wikipedia article can click on them and read them in their entirety. Ralph Himmelsbach's book is cited multiple times in this article but that book is impossible to find and the cheapest version is currently $65 on Amazon today (which I think I might order today actually) and some versions are going for $300+ on Amazon! Yet these FBI records are freely available for anyone to read. All someone has to do is click on the cite, click on the link, and go to the page I list and they can read it for themselves. It's fascinating stuff and it is an unprecedented look into the FBI's work product.
 * Also:
 * "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."
 * D.B. Cooper is a complicated, and unique, field of study and it presents many issues that we have to tackle on this Wiki because of the terribly limited scholarship (or just terrible scholarship haha) that exists on the topic.
 * In the future I think we just need to ensure that their use is
 * - narrowly tailored to clearly focused statements of facts and descriptions of specific events or documents ("Tina asking Coop where he was from" or "Mitchell telling FBI that Coop was 5'9 to 5'10")
 * - free from novel interpretation
 * - is easily verifiable via a working proper link to that document on the FBI page SillyRyno (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There's no problem that we can use these sources, particularly for facts and quotes. The question is whether we should use them. We prefer secondary sources in general, but the real way this stuff is decided is in what we are doing now. Discussing what belongs and why, and how it is to be verified. Sticking to secondary sources does a lot of that for us, as we are synthesising the best article we can from the best secondary sources, written by subject experts who have used primary sources. When we get into primary sources, we need to be extra careful that in distilling the equivalent of 5 pages (the article) out of, as you say, 25 000 pages, that we choose the right stuff. I gave the silly example of the brands of shoe and aftershave. Someone else gave a recent real example of where you added something which in retrospect wasn't a good addition. I know what it's like to get carried away by the joy of writing. You seem like an intelligent guy who knows a lot about this stuff. I know the story well too, and am as fascinated as you are by the recent FBI stuff. The others here are also reasonable people who are interested in the article. What happens now is we collaborate. What belongs, why it belongs, and how we verify it. I am sure we can do it, and I'm excited to be involved. Let's do it! John (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just want to say that I really appreciate the citations to the FBI records. I know that's basically WP:ILIKEIT, but please keep them where possible -- really great resource! -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

We need to discuss the repeated use of "wilderness" in this article.
The use of "remote wilderness" in this article is promoting a myth that continues to misinform the hundreds of thousands of people who visit this page a month. The latest Infographics Show YouTube video about DB Cooper very clearly lifted things directly from this Wiki page because several statements from the video script are verbatim from some of our language. That video has over 150k views in less than 12 hours. So we certainly have a responsibility to get it right. Watching his video you'd think Cooper jumped over Siberia, not 20 minutes outside Portland, Oregon a mile or two off the interstate.

Webster's defines a "wilderness" as a "region uncultivated or uninhabited by human beings". In FBI Agent Ralph Himmelsbach's book NORJAK the word only appears once and it's not even in reference to Cooper. In Gray's Skyjack the word only appears once. For whatever reason we all grew up watching Unsolved Mysteries and In Search Of and have just assumed that he jumped into this vast wasteland of nothingness. None of the books about Cooper spend any time refuting this myth because they don't need to refute it; it's obvious Cooper didn't jump into a wilderness. I'd advise anyone who hasn't done so to actually look at these places on a map. Look up La Center, Washington on Google Maps. In the 1970 census, the county that Cooper jumped into (Clark County) had a population of 128,000 people. On the night of the skyjacking there were motorists on the interstate who called the police because they thought they saw a man in a parachute dropping road flares. There were motorists on back roads who filed police reports saying they saw a man in a suit walking down the road. These people were probably making things up, but the point is that he jumped over a populated area, not the Yukon. DB Cooper jumped out over a town located right next to an interstate, in a county of 128,000 people, and was less than 20 miles from Portland, Oregon. Claiming that he jumped into a "remote wilderness" is hyperbolic and is promoting a false image that the public has about this case. SillyRyno (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If I'm reading the map right, he could easily have landed in a place where, even today, there is miles of old-growth forest between himself and the nearest human settlement. A few miles is nothing if you've got two good legs and a well-marked trail, but it's enough to disappear in if you don't.
 * As for those police reports, do you have a good source for those?
 * (Of course, a man in a black suit is not at all notable in 1971, but a parachutist dropping road flares sure would be.) ApLundell (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We absolutely should NOT be reading maps to try to determine the nature of the area where Cooper landed. That is purely Original Research. Nor should we be collating witness reports and drawing conclusions from them, nor should we be removing reliably sourced information because we think it's not mentioned frequently enough. As always, we should report what reliable sources say. If reliable sources call his landing area "wilderness" then we should too. If reliable sources say that he jumped into a populated area, then we should say that. If reliable sources differ then we should make a balanced statement describing both sides. CodeTalker (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting anything on the page needs to be done based on Original Research. So let me rephrase all of this. I'm essentially saying that we need to watch how people use the word "wilderness" in this thread, because that word carries with it a connotation that does not paint a very accurate picture of the location into which Cooper jumped. It is MOS:CONFUSE when it is not cited. If a person is quoting a reliable source who uses that language, then by all means, that's our policy on Wiki. But in the context of Cooper it is hyperbolic to a degree. You generally don't see that sort of hyperbolic language used in actual non-fiction about the hijacking, which is why I pointed out that in the best-selling non-fiction book about Cooper the word is only used once and in the book written by the lead Cooper case agent for a decade he never uses the word at all to describe Cooper's landing zone. You'll see loaded terms like "wilderness" used in news media because it's a much sexier story to say that someone jumped into a wilderness in the freezing cold blizzard, as opposed to saying they jumped in the woods in the outskirts of Portland in 45 degree weather in light right showers. And I do think some of the issue is that the first search grid did have some rugged terrain in it, so you could see why some of the earliest Zeitgeist about Cooper was that he jumped into this heavily timbered forest region, so I suppose you could see why people have that image in their heads, but ultimately that's not where he jumped, so their memory of it is irrelevant. The FBI abandoned the Lake Merwin/Ariel area when their extensive research told them they were searching many miles too far to the west so they moved over toward Highland and La Center. It's just that news cameras were no longer around when National Guard members were looking for clues next to the I-5 freeway so the public has no visual association with Cooper and towns, they just think Cooper and woods because of what they saw on TV shows.
 * Let's look at the header. The term "remote wilderness" is used twice. I can find no properly sourced material that is up to date that states that Cooper jumped into a "remote wilderness". I'm not sure who added that language, but can anyone defend that? Words matter. There's nothing remote about being a few miles away from a freeway and less than 30 miles from a major metropolitan city.
 * If calling Cooper's landing zone a remote wilderness wasn't sexy enough, our next use of the term on the page is someone calling it a "mountainous wilderness" and quoting Himmelsbach's NORJAK page 67-68. The only mention of mountains on those pages are when Ralph writes that they were searching in the "heavily timbered foothills of the Cascade Mountains." (page 68) In the next paragraph he mentions how they were concerned Cooper may have used one of two public use airdromes nearby and how he keeps hoping he'll see Cooper's chute in a farmer's pasture (definitely sounds like a mountainous wilderness...haha).
 * All the other uses of the word wilderness on the page come from Larry Carr in the fate section. So be it. But all of Larry's statements used in the Fate Section come from the 2007 archived webpage and Larry was new to the case at the time and what he said was wrong about the dummy chute (which is probably why that page was taken down by the FBI) and he was wrong by saying Cooper jumped unprepared into a wilderness (perhaps another reason why that page was taken down; we have no idea what Cooper was wearing when he jumped, with even Larry himself revealing the size of Cooper's mystery bag on a Facebook live) So what's the policy on keeping up statements taken from websites that have been taken down? The FBI even says at the top of the page "This is archived material from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) website. It may contain outdated information and links may no longer function." I'm guessing there would need to be source material from that person who made the quote reversing their previous statement for it to no longer be reliable?
 * Personally, for the header, why can't we just say he "parachuted into the night over southwestern Washington" and with the other use of wilderness in the header, what about "the rugged terrain of the landing area" instead of "the remote wilderness of the landing area". All sources would be in agreement with that. That's not hyperbolic and doesn't give someone the mental image of the Yukon or tens of miles of forest. This wilderness language just reeks of sensationalizing and it really shouldn't be on a NPOV site.
 * Just my two cents, I guess. SillyRyno (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The FBI.gov "Famous Cases" Cooper page merely says "he had jumped in to a wooded area". Their 2009 page simply uses the phrase "jumped into the night", which I prefer for the header of the article. There's no need to describe what his landing zone was in the header because the reality is that we don't know if he landed in the woods or a field or in someone's backyard or in the Columbia River just across from Portland, as a great many people speculate (due to the money being found near there). Their 2007 archived page says he jumped "between southern Washington state and just north of Portland, Oregon" i.e. not a remote wilderness.
 * In a letter to J. Edgar Hoover dated March 8th, 1972 (Vault 64, Page 245), Himmelsbach is explaining that the computers are now telling them that he jumped over La Center, Washington. He writes:
 * "Unsub very likely came down somewhere in a wooded area approximately three and one half miles wide and six miles long. Some of area has been cleared, other parts have second growth timber, and balance virgin timber. A great percentage of which is accessible by foot. I personally have traversed this area and feel it is possible to thoroughly search area by substantial force of men in effort to locate body of unsub if he did not make a successful jump."
 * "Wilderness" is a loaded term. It creates a mental image that very likely isn't applicable for this case. The FBI themselves don't use this language unless we are referencing the language from a single quote of a single FBI agent.
 * Unless the quote is directly attributed to someone, "wilderness" is both loaded language and MOS:CONFUSE and terms like "wooded area" should be preferred to generically describe his landing zone since that term was used in 1972 by the FBI and is their current standard for their non-archived Cooper page. SillyRyno (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Eric Ulis and his investigation on Vince Petersen
Apparently D. B. Cooper's tie had a lot of particles on them, that after analysis together with D. B. Coopers exceptional length for the time, have pointed Eric Ulis to Vince Petersen, an engineer at what at the time was Rem-Cru Titanium, today known as Crucible Industries, that at the time had done work for Boeing in regard to the Boeing 727.

Sources:

(14 minutes long talk)

—Johan G (KJG2007 | talk) 13:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * KJG can you create a new entry on the main page for this suspect? KatDales (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Error
Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name "" is not used in the content (see the help page) -> there is an error within the article. I don't know how to fix it. Can anyone lend a hand? Thanks! 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:6D84:98EE:9989:5B9 (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hidden text
I have removed the following instances of inappropriate hidden text. Per MOS:HIDDEN, They should not be used to instruct other editors not to perform certain edits.

That instruction does continue with although where existing local consensus is against making such an edit, they may usefully draw the editor's attention to that. So if you can point out to any talk discussion that resulted in a consensus here on talk (or in archives), feel free to add back a version of below that does not tell editors what to do or not do, but informs readers when and where gaining consensus before making an edit might be appropriate. If your opinion is not backed by such a consensus, then you will have to abide by the regular WP:BRD cycle.

Thank you.

My comment: then it doesn't belong on the page.
 * Northwest Orient's Seattle operations manager, Al Lee, approached the aircraft in street clothes (to avoid the possibility Cooper might mistake his airline uniform for a police officer) and delivered the cash-filled knapsack and parachutes to Mucklow via the aft stairs. (I can't find a cite for this anywhere)

Whether this should live on the talk page or be removed entirely, I leave up to you. Three citation needed tags suggests the latter, though.
 * Comment out for now per FARC. I think this is inversely reflected in the source, though, if we're saying that only the Tena Bank money came up, that implies the other money didn't come up. To date, none of the 9,710 remaining bills have turned up anywhere.

Smells of "I lost the edit war but wanted my addition kept in anyway". Removed.
 * and the airstair instruction placard

No need to explain why anchors are used. If this was prompted by a user removing anchors without explanation, that user needs to be educated on their use. That education takes place on the user's talk page, though. Not as hidden text on individual articles.
 * This anchor is for the previous title of the below section.
 * Ted Braden (D. B. Cooper suspect) redirects here
 * Kenneth Christiansen (D. B. Cooper suspect) redirects here

Instead of using hidden text to inform editors of previous titles, use anchors. Doing so allows editors to change section headers without breaking incoming redirects. Thank you.

Then use that cite, not this one. Removed until such time.
 * Yes, this is self-published, but it's cited by other reliable sources like G. Gray.

PLEASE DO NOT YELL. And don't tell other editors your opinion carries more weight than theirs. Read the introduction to this talk section on how to follow the Manual of Style, please.
 * PLEASE DO NOT ADD ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES HERE; if you have a citable example, please consider adding it to the article "D. B. Cooper in popular culture".

This was the sole instance of proper hidden text I could find. Kept, not removed. The template was likewise not changed.
 * end "refs="

CapnZapp (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree with almost all of that. It is too messy to reply to every single point, I'm just going to revert the whole ill-considered edit.  On anchors, if you are going to replace a hidden text with an anchor, it is needs to be precisely the incoming link.  Adding an anchor which is the same as the section title is useless.  Section titles are already anchors.  On commented out unsourced text, I would personally prefer cn tags to commenting out, but removing it altogether without an attempt to find sources is not helpful.  It loses sight to future editors that there is a problem here at all.  Particularly unhelpful where the editor has actually named a possible source.  On the popular culture section, these are a widespread and ongoing problem for attracting cruft.  The hidden text is a request, not an instruction and all-caps is a fixable problem (but imo highly visible emphasis is needed in these cases). SpinningSpark 11:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that if you can't be bothered to put in the effort to reply in detail, then you're okay if I can't be bothered taking your objections seriously. If you spend little effort writing, I'll spend little effort reading.
 * And that's just not constructive. In contrast, here is a complete reply to your points.
 * 1. I disagree with almost all of that. Then next time consider not reflexively reverting all of it if you don't disagree with all of it?
 * 2. On anchors, if you are going to replace a hidden text with an anchor, it is needs to be precisely the incoming link. And it is. Incoming redirects to sections look for the section headers when anchor templates are absent. Replicating those serves a useful purpose even if identical to the current header - it tells editors they can go ahead and change the headers without worrying about breaking incoming redirects. Alternatively, they tell readers there are incoming redirects. But they still can change the header, so anchors are useful to avoid the situation where one editor tells another editor "you can't change the section title, it must stay as-is or incoming redirects will break".
 * 3. On commented out unsourced text Just no. Do not use hidden text to keep unsourced claims. If you find a particular claim is likely to be sourced, feel free to add it as regular text with a tag, but even better is to evaluate whether a source can be found: either find it or delete the unsourced claim. Any  tag that remains unsolved for any length of time means the claim can and probably should be removed outright. Especially biographic articles should not make unsourced claims.
 * 4. It loses sight to future editors that there is a problem here at all. Not sure what that means, but I'll take this opportunity to state my argument in no uncertain terms: do not misuse hidden text to keep around claims you can't source and thus can't argue belongs on the page, no matter for how long. It's either on the page, or off it. Hidden text is not a mechanism to be used to circumvent our strict requirements on sourcing claims for biographic articles.
 * 5. The hidden text is... Let me stop you there - it was clearly phrased as an order. Do not use hidden text to instruct other editors what edits they should or should not perform. Again, if you want to draw attention to a consensus-building discussion here on talk, that's okay but the way it was phrased, is in direct violation of WP:HIDDEN and removing it was an easy call for me, and should be for you too.
 * 6. On the popular culture section, these are a widespread and ongoing problem for attracting cruft. Still not a valid reason for breaking policy. Page already uses . If you feel that is inadequate, point editors to an existing talk section, assuming one exists. That way we encourage discussion and contribution, as opposed to telling editors what to do with no direct way of responding or objecting. It also safeguards against the case where hidden text is used to tell editors what to do without there being consensus for that instruction - editors should not have to look up hidden text to inform themselves on local consensus. If there is no existing talk section, start one. At the very least, this gives other editors the chance to object to your proposed instructions in a much more transparent way than if you just add them where many editors don't look: as hidden text.
 * CapnZapp (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The following comment was made before the talk structure was cleaned up CapnZapp (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but who is talking here? If this is all unsigned by, there's no excuse for this horrible format in the talk page. It's really puzzling given the discussion content here. – The Grid  ( talk )  04:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No this is SpinningSpark, a probable new:ish editor, that, probably unintentionally, messed up the flow of the discussion, by inserting their answers in between each of my talking points. (More generally, The Grid: the next time you are about to ask questions as to who wrote what, first have a look at the page history.) CapnZapp (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment structure fixed. CapnZapp (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 2: Ok, I'll concede on that one, although it still looks highly unusal to me. I don't think I've seen it done anywhere else. SpinningSpark 18:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3: I agree hiding unsourced claims is a bad practice because it is not visible that they need sourcing. But deleting the hidden text makes that situation even worse.  cn tags are a better solution, or delete after attempting to source.  Removing to the talk page for discussion is also a better solution.  As I said, one of the comments did name a source, so a pages? tag would be better. SpinningSpark 18:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * also 3: Claiming an article about the investigation into an unknown suspect is a biography is quite far-fetched. As the article says "D. B. Cooper is a media epithet for an unidentified man..." The page is about the criminal investigation of the suspect.  It is not about the person because we don't know anything. SpinningSpark 18:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4: Same point, same reply. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 5: Yes, point to the talk page discussion if you want to, but that is not what you did. The prescription not to instruct other editors not to make certain edits in hidden text does not apply (the guideline explicitly says this) where the edit would be against policy or guidelines.  The policy at issue here is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 6: is in, and applies only to, the external links section.  The rest is same reply as above. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Spinningspark: First off, I have fixed the talk structure. I hope you appreciate just how much time you have costed me. Now: 2: Thank you for conceding. However, your actions still have the current result of: my change being reverted. Can I assume you won't contest a future reinstating of my edit, at least on this point. (In other words: don't wholesale reverts when and if you only disagree with parts of the edit!)  3: No, the bad part is creating the hidden text in the first place . That is, the action that needed to be fixed is: preserving claims by making them hidden text. Whether this was done as an attempt to avoid the deletion of unsourced content doesn't matter. My action is a solution to a problem, not a problem in itself.  Don't source claims in hidden text. Avoid primary sources. In particular: Don't note that the primary source is used by a reliable source - simply use that reliable source directly. Your argumentation is otherwise too tangled for me to engage, and I'll simply say that deleting hidden text is even less problematic than deleting unsourced claims. Does this now mean you agree with my edit?  5: I deleted the hidden text, because it told editors what to do in an impolite and inappropriate manner. If you feel there is a need to remind editors not to break WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and can phrase this in a way consistent with the examples at WP:HIDDEN, feel free to add this.  Either way, do we agree reflexively reverting the whole of my edit because it is too messy or because you don't understand the changes, or can't be bothered to reply to each point individually is not the way forward?  CapnZapp (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What is with the attitude, especially calling an admin a newish user? You come barging in here with really no look into even how those comments came to be. Regardless of WP:COMMENT, this is a controversial topic through the years with recent media adding to it. WP:COMMENT: Invisible comments are useful for alerting other editors to issues such as common mistakes that regularly occur in the article and considering it's a WP:BLP minefield, it's probably edit wars with disruptive editing that made those comments a thing. Do note this talk page has 5 archived pages on it. – The Grid  ( talk )  21:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not "fixed" the talk page structure, you have made it a nightmare to follow the conversation on each of the separate issues by insisting that they are all lumped together in one reply. Please don't accuse me of costing you time.  It is your choice how much time you spend on this.  I could have equally turned it round and said the same thing to you. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote I'm sorry but who is talking here? If this is all unsigned by CapnZapp, there's no excuse for this horrible format in the talk page., The Grid. You were confused by the reply made by Spinningspark, not by me - this was not "all unsigned" by me. (Feel free to look at each edit in the page history if you like) I called Spinningspark a newish user because it is usually newish users who make confusing replies. At least their reply structure confused you. So why are you not grateful for me restructuring the discussion? I fixed the structure for you. CapnZapp (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You've fixed it in your mind for one editor, and messed it up for others. Previously Spinningspark's (who's an admin, been here since 2007 and has 85k edits) responses could be read easily - and logically - in the flow of the article.  Now I have to skip up and down to read them, which is really annoying.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So you assumed that the format of your first comment on here isn't in a weird confusing format? I'm amazed at the doubling down here. – The Grid  ( talk )  14:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you still believe *I* caused the mess?! You wrote If this is all unsigned by CapnZapp, there's no excuse for this horrible format in the talk page., even though my signature was clearly there, just below your comment. It was obviously at its proper place, at the end of my comment, before Spinningspark decided to interject their replies right into my post. Please don't blame me for my signature falling below your post, The Grid. Especially since I spent all that time restructuring in a chronological ordering, for you. CapnZapp (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Chaheel Riens: if what you are accusing me of is helping a needlessly confused editor, I can easily plead guilty. But if it helps I can try to remember the ungratefulness before I decide to help out the next time. CapnZapp (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Everybody: is there still any unresolved issues with my edit that started this talk section? CapnZapp (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Now I'm conflicted - because you seem to be implying that you won't make any helper posts again because you feel ill-appreciated. But given that the way you've made your edits has completely over-shadowed their actual intent, and (to coin a phrase) brought about needless confusion, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.  I'm also generally ill-disposed to those who try to use a threat of quitting in order to garner sympathy and/or capitulation.  (I think there's a policy or essay about this behaviour, but can't put my mind to it right now.)  But on the flip-side, I am also disappointed to see that a good-faith editor is considering helping less - or presumably making fewer contributions - simply because other editors disagreed with them.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably WP:WOLF – The Grid  ( talk )  17:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you had separate threads for separate issues, you would be able to tell for yourself what was still unresolved. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

If y'all got a beef with this comment section, and won't engage on the topic (of improving the article), that's very easily remedied. I reinstated my edit, fully expecting that this time, anyone who doesn't like a particular change will discuss (or revert) that change only. See how easy that was? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You know better than clicking a single button to remove a user's whole post if you only disagree with some of it, Spinningspark. CapnZapp (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and you should know better than restoring your whole post when you know that much of it is disputed. No one else is supporting you.  Time to drop the stick. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First off, you don't get to define when the discussion is over, so cut out the intimidation tactics. Second, you reverted everything in the edit despite knowing better, and it's time to own up to that. Now, if you are interested in being constructive, please respond to my edit as a normal Wikipedian: by leaving the things you like, discuss the things you dislike, and only reverting the parts where you feel I'm outright wrong. CapnZapp (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
This is an aesthetic nitpick but I'd like to suggest altering the sentence "The hijacker was never identified, apprehended, or found."

The way I see it, in terms of what leads to a criminal being caught, identification is typically the first step, followed by finding, followed by apprehending. This isn't always the case, but the order doesn't roll off the tongue very well. Consider this example: "I never saw him, had sex with him, or met him." It's a weird order.

And as never found implies never apprehended, as it is impossible to apprehend one who cannot be found, I would say apprehended is altogether redundant.

Also, while D.B. Cooper has not been identified, there has been much in the way of attempts to identify him by both law enforcement and the public, and there remain compelling theories as to his identity that have not been ruled out by law enforcement.

Therefore, I propose: The hijacker was never found. His identity remains undetermined. 2A0A:A541:C0EC:0:9D1E:97EB:3AE4:2C5A (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on this. That sentence always struck me as wonky as well. I think "the hijacker has never been identified." is sufficient or "The hijacker was never found and his identity remains a mystery." SillyRyno (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)