Talk:List of air rage incidents

2021 updates

 * https://fox17.com/news/spotlight-on-america/as-air-rage-incidents-skyrocket-some-unruly-passengers-are-back-in-the-air-heres-why — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B038:D560:3D33:F10F:BB2B:6494 (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Names
There's no reason for to include anyone's personal name (if they're alive or might be), in most cases. I'm sure there are exceptions. But a private person who commits a crime, particularly if its just a misdemeanor, doesn't deserve to have this recorded for all time in the Wikipedia such that it'll be a high result in a google search on their name. There's no reason you can't replace "Joe Smith got drunk and attacked a flight attendant" with "A passenger got drunk and attacked a flight attendant". It doesn't take away any useful information. There could be exceptions, such as the person having their own article or other reasons. Anyway, I propose to do this presently absent objection. Herostratus (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that maybe we can do without the names of any living person who pled to, or was convicted of, a misdemeanor who wasn't otherwise notable. Or that one British guy who managed to do it a second time. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. People's names absolutely should be removed from this article, unless the incident was major or they're already notable for whatever reason (e.g. they have an article already like Gretchen Wilson, or they're a notable person like that one Saudi princess). I'd say the entries could use some less detail while we're at it. Maybe they could be organized in a table, too? AdoTang (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep Gary Lee Lougee's name in the article. First, that sentence is, I think, the longest ever handed out in the US for an air rage incident. Second, I think he's dead now, and has been for some time. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, dead, sure, that's different, per Wikipedia:Biographies of dead persons. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Reorganize into table?
The current list as it is isn't disorganized, but is messy. Only some of the entries are easily organized by flight name (in bold, thankfully), many don't list an airline, and don't even get me started on the issues with the dates being all over the place, if a date's even listed at all ("that same week" works, but does it really?).

I don't really know how to make a table through source editing, but I'll just type out what I think the order would be (not finalized, from left to right):

Flight, Airline, Date, Incident (description), References

The table would be like that for each decade. They'd be sortable by year, date, and airline.

Thoughts? AdoTang (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Change article name to “Notable air rage incidents”?
This article doesn’t seem to cover *all* air rage incidents, as many probably go unreported or are not picked up by the media. I’m not sure it would be proper to have the name in its current form. Plus, this article seems skewed to mainly U.S. incidents as well. I would love to hear some thoughts about this. TheYeetedMeme (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If media coverage (i.e. reliable sources) is what makes an incident notable, then it's no different from everything in Wikipedia. It shouldn't be there if not notable and not sourced.  So it's kind of a redundant distinction. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Re the latter point: Actually, I think there's quite a lot of British incidents ... almost more than the American ones, TBH (I would conjecture that the most common air-rager is, judging from this list, a working-class Englishman aged 30-50 who has flown almost not at all, or never, before and is so nervous about flying down to Spain (or almost anywhere warm that northern Europeans typically take their winter vacations in the Mediterranean vicinity) on a discount airline who, in addition to getting and taking a prescription anti-anxiety drug, tanks up in the airport before departure and then tops it off with as much more as he can get out of the cabin crew on board inflight before inevitably getting cut off, whereupon he goes completely berserk and forces the plane to divert to somewhere in France). I did make an effort, in the three weeks of compiling this list at the end of 2018, make an effort to find incidents from all over the globe that could be verifiably written about. But, I limited myself to English-language sources. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:NUMNOTES
The relevant bullet at MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32." This is absolutely an applicable exception to "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." Cheers! Holy (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes; this is standard in most styles. However, in the edit you made there are no "comparable values nearby one another", just the solitary "three". Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ". . . three years' probation, 150 hours . . . ." Those are comparable (both expressing units of time with a number and a unit of measure) and they are right next to each other—and then another "three years" in the same serial list at the end of the same sentence. I'm not sure how we're seeing this differently. Holy (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I had missed the "150", sorry. But there are no comparable values in the last sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks—glad I was seeing that correctly. The sentence that we have been discussing is the last sentence in the section. Holy (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "immediately adjacent" is the standard; "nearby" is the standard. The 150 and 3 are three words apart. The serial items in the list are next to each other. In your previous comment here, what were you saying? You said that you had missed the 150; you didn't say that you had seen the 150 and dismissed it because it wasn't close enough to the 3. If you look throughout Wikipedia at how this style standard is applied (i.e., when it is specifically cited for an edit), you'll see that the standard is a lot closer to "in the same sentence" than "with no intervening words whatsoever." Holy (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then, if so, why is the example at NUMNOTES strictly a series of numbers of things in the form NUMBER NOUN, not NUMBER NOUN PHRASE as it is here? I have to note that this is contrary to how most other styles handle this (see APA, for instance). Not that we have to accord with all other styles, but usually we have a good reason (i.e., with MOS:% the words are easier for visually impaired readers to make out on an electronic visual display than the symbol; at least that's my impression).
 * And frankly I think that for consistency (the reason for this) it would be better to use figures rather than spell things out all the way (the way most styles prefer in situations like this), so I'll do that instead of dragging this discussion out. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)