Talk:The Day the Music Died/Archive 1

en route to a gig in Fargo, North Dakota
in the artical it says "en route to a gig in Fargo, North Dakota", the concert was actually in moorhead Minnesota, however the plane was landing the fargo airport. Fargo-moorhead seperated by the read river, so technically the gig was not in Fargo, but moorhead

The destination was the airport in Fargo, ND, even though the concert was in Moorhead. Moorhead did not have an airport at the time. The two cities are just across the Red river from each other (the Minnesota-North Dakota border), as a result both cities share close ties with each other. Firstrock 15:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Pilot?
What's his name? Thanos6 07:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice
It's a good article, much better than I would've expected - so congrats to the editors who have worked on it. My only qualm is with the "conspiracy", it really needs to be sourced or removed, it just seems to play into the belief that every Wiki article has a Conspiracy section with crackpot blog theories or somesuch. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed it myself. Found reference to the fact that Holly had been sitting in the front seat next to the pilot at take-off, but was found strapped into a seat in the rear of the plane at the crash-site where the Bopper had originally been sitting, and that "supposedly" it would be nigh well impossible for two guys (especially one the size of the Bopper) to just "switch seats" in that sort of plane, it's just a blog post so not "trust-worthy" on its own, but worth digging for other possible verification of the fact. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting
In "the crash" section it says that "The bodies of the three entertainers were thrown from the wreckage and lay nearby, while Peterson remained trapped inside." But in the "alternative theories" section it says "He also mentioned a possible belief that Richardson had survived the initial crash, since his body was found 12 metres from the crash-site, while the other three bodies were all within the plane." I'm not familiar enough with this topic but someone who is should fix that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cookiedog (talk • contribs) 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Fixed the error. Photographic evidence, along with the CAB Report and Coroner's Investigation place the bodies of Holly, Richardson and Valens outside of the wreckage and pilot Peterson within it. --Wurmis 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this article missing something?
Why is there no reference to Big Bopper's son having a new autopsy done on him a year or so ago? It's mentioned in the biographical article for Richardson, but it should be mentioned here, too. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Added it. Thanks. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Renamed article
Arguably, it should say "Deaths", rather than "Death". Also, at only 10 words, it's not a long enough title and also leaves out a body. Adding the pilot's name would make it an even dozen words, and easy for anyone to find. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus DMacks (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * '''The Day the Music Died → anything else! — This article is about the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, etc, but the title is taken from the song "American Pie". I don't find that title suitable; it's meaningful for the song but not for an encyclopedia article. Tamajared (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * People interested in this subject know what The Day the Music Died means. Article names should default to the most common usage. What more commonly used title is there? I cannot think of any. Kingturtle (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "The day the music died" refers to the deaths of these singers. Therefore, the article's title is appropriate based on common usage and should remain as is. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the title as is. The proposer could set up the 10-word name to redirect to this article. And in so doing, he should make an effort to get the spelling and grammar right. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How about Buddy Holly airplane accident? Or Buddy Holly airplane crash? I am very familiar with the subject, both the song and the event, but I do not associate the two. As stated, it makes a great song title but a very misleading encyclopedia article name. Did all music die on that day? My radio still works. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Even though many people do understand the association between the song and the events, it still does not make it appropriate. As the above user stated, music itself didn't "die," and the title was only declared in a song-- not in any official or historical contexts. Tamajared (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At least the words from the song had proper spelling and grammar. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is common usage. Read Naming conventions (common names) closely. What is the most likely title someone would look for when they want an article on this topic? Kingturtle (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. An example would be Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which is not necessarily "encyclopedic", but it was the consensus agreement on what to call it, and would have been based on what the media called it. It was also a "disaster" for the shuttle program in general, of course, as it was about 3 years before they were able to launch again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This plane crash was never named by the media, as far as a I know. But it was named by a song. Kingturtle (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the 1959 media, it was frankly not that big an event. If it had been Elvis, it would have been different. Holly's star has risen significantly since the crash, in no small part because of the song. Here's another media-driven example: Spygate. The user would probably be arguing for "New England Patriots espionage allegations" or some such - a title almost no one would think of. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A note originally posted here by this user and deleted, and posted on my page, and which is really part of this discussion:

Please refrain from using blatant ad hominem in terms of my spelling/grammar error in your discussion. The first time you tried to be high and mighty was plenty. Here's some light bedtime reading for you, Bugs. Cheers. 65.3.165.189 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another user initially ridiculed the spelling, and rightly so. You also misspelled "led" as "lead", in a section I deleted anyway, because the 2001 crash report said nothing, that I could see, about the 1959 crash. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I cited both incorrect grammar and incorrect spelling as reasons to undo the recent move. However, even with those errors corrected, I think the article should stay where it is now. Kingturtle's reference to common usage and Baseball Bugs's using Spygate as an example thereof are excellent points. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support a move to another title to be determined by consensus here. The current title may be common in that "people interested in this subject know what The Day the Music Died means" but Wikipedia is for a general audience, not fans, and the current title is highly unencyclopedic.  (Cf. flatulence, not fart; sexual intercourse, not fuck)  Having said that I can think of no appropriate title myself.  If the decision is to move the article, The Day the Music Died should be a disambiguation page with links to the radio programme, the album, the song "American Pie", and this article. —   AjaxSmack   02:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I completely agree with everything Ajax just said. The content of this article, however, is a single event that for multiple reasons (and in relation to multiple notable people) was notable, verifiable, and in all other senses encyclopedic. The only problem is the title. But unfortunately, I don't know any better title either. I wish I could be more help, but this seems to be one of those cases where notability was built up after the fact, leaving us with no neat little semantic package to encapsulate the meaning of this event. Wilhelm meis (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically this is an argument over titles, a distraction away from useful work. If you want a prosaic title, how about "Beechcraft Bonanza N3794N crash of February 3, 1959"? A lot more folks will think to look for that, than for "The Day the Music Died", I'm sure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The biggest distraction I see from "useful" work is all the WikiSarcasm. If you can't contribute anything better to the conversation, it may be best to just remain silent. Wilhelm meis (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The sarcasm is justified, as some of you are trying to fix something that isn't broken. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case, if you're going to rename it, then renaming it after something about the flight itself would be the most logical, as I indicated. A number of plane crash articles are identified by their airline and flight numbers, e.g. American Airlines Flight 191. Or American Airlines Flight 320, for that matter, the "other" U.S. plane crash that occurred on February 3, 1959. That approach doesn't quite work for this one, but the type of plane and the date might work. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, Bugs, I'm just asking you and everyone else to keep a level head and stay on task. In fact, I've come around to the conclusion that since there is no better name available (it seems the flight was not even properly registered, so there was nothing analogous to American Airlines Flight 320), and since this name (although ultimately derived from the Don McLean song) has become the phrase in common parlance to refer to this event, I have decided to cast my vote to oppose the move. Instead, I think the article should be improved by establishing the notability of the phrase. In searching through the literature and on the internet, this phrase keeps popping up, and I see some missed opportunities to establish in the article that this phrase, in itself, has notability in reliable literature and, in point of fact, is the common name for this event. Wilhelm meis (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would say that the most likely usage is the BBC2 radio program for an English-language audience. And I certainly wouldn't search for Buddy Holly's death with this kind of weird title. Buddy Holly plane crash is simple, self-explanatory, and easy to search for. A simple google search results in most results NOT BEING BUDDY HOLLY RELATED. 70.55.85.39 (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Buddy Holly plane crash isn't an appropriate title because this event isn't only about the death of Buddy Holly. Ritchie Valens and The Big Bopper also died. (So did the pilot but, by Wikipedia standards, that would likely be non-notable by itself.) →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And as for the BBC2 show, which I'm sure 3 or 4 Americans might have heard of, where do you suppose they got that title? From thin air? (Pardon the irony). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this name is poetic, so is Carnation Revolution, but since those are the commonly-accepted names of the respective events, that is where their titles should stay. The simple fact that you don't have a proposed alternative name seems proof enough to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly sure what we are voting on here; I think if you are going to propose a rename you have to come up with a better option and nobody has done that. I don't think we should go around renaming pages as transient pop culture takes over names and terms (such as the referenced radio program); the term "The Day the Music Died" referring to this event has been around for over thirty years and will be used long after the radio show has faded into obscurity.  Do whatever's necessary to add notices or pointers for the lost (I'd even support turning this into a redirect page for both The Day the Music Died (plane crash) and The Day the Music Died (radio programme)), but I oppose renaming this page to something completely different.  Jgm (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think instead of moving this article, it should be improved by establishing the notability of the phrase "The Day the Music Died" in the literature. I see some missed opportunities to show that the phrase itself has notability in the literature and is in fact the common name for this event. Wilhelm meis (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have several books that discuss Buddy Holly, and they all refer to that phrase. To muddy the waters a bit, it's worth pointing out that American Pie is filled with symbolism, some of it obvious and some not, and "The day the music died", while literally referring to the crash, also allegorically refers to "loss of innocence", i.e. when reality smashes you in the face for the first time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that comments from above ("The simple fact that you don't have a proposed alternative name seems proof enough [that the current title is best]" and "I've come around to the conclusion that since there is no better name available") make my previously stated position untenable. I still don't like the current title but I can't fathom a decent alternative.  Any title  with only Buddy Holly improperly ignores Valens and the Big Bopper and there are no other defining features of the crash other than the date which, alone, is more unclear than the current title.  And I couldn't propose Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and Jiles Perry Richardson plane crash with a straight face.—   AjaxSmack   06:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What about the other day?
For many people who grew up in New York, or listening to New York City radio, the event described here is not the only event known as "The Day the Music Died". The other event is the end of Musicradio 77 WABC, on May 10, 1982. 121a0012 03:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)  A bit more mediocre than three famous musicians dying in an aeroplane crash. This is the famous 'Day the Music Died'. The one a lot of people know. NIN (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

McLean's girlfriend???
Ummm.. didn't Don McLean actually write this song about a girlfriend he had? NOT about the plane crash? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had never heard that. Do you have any sources for the claim? →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

other use of the phrase
The cover of Newsweek used the expression "the day the music died" to describe the assassination of John Lennon in 1980. McLean's song was already well known by that time, so it seems logical to conclude that the editors were knowingly making reference to it. No doubt some digging would find other uses to describe Lennon's death. I am not arguing that the article be amended to include any material about 8 December 1980, but it might be worth mentioning as an aside. The two events were probably the greatest tragedies in rock and roll history, and it is interesting that the phrase has not been cheapened or demeaned by commercial or over use. 165.91.64.157 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)RKH

Peterson memorial
Although an eyewitness to the memorial site on May 3, 2009, I have been described as an unreliable source. I have photographs of the memorial site and can verify that the memorial for Peterson has been removed as well as the crudely-made cross seen in the photograph at the top of the article. Anyone else care to verify this so that the article can be corrected?

Also, an artistic sculpture of Buddy Holly's glasses has been installed at the roadside parking area next to the cornfield. I have a photograph of that as well. Anyone know who made it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacini (talk • contribs) 10:16, 14 May 2009
 * Don't take it personally. I'm sure the intent wasn't that you are an unreliable source, just that your edit doesn't on its own meet WP:RS and WP:V. By all means, add the photo to the commons:. But we need published sources that (at least in principle) can be verified by any reader. As an encyclopedia we don't act as a publisher of original research. Other wikis such as wikinews and wikibooks: do.LeadSongDog come howl 15:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Every photograph taken by any editor here constitutes "original research", yet they are not generally treated us such. A photo with a verifiable date should suffice to update the story. The better question is, what happened to the pilot's memorial? Was it stolen? Or maybe it was never actually installed, even though the Register claims it was? Maybe the author of the Register article could be contacted to see if there's a followup story somewhere. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * er, yeah, I see I wasn't explicit about that. Original images are directly addressed by WP:OI.LeadSongDog come howl 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So the way around it would be to post a photo that says "Memorials in place as of [date]", and leave unstated the fact that one's missing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wascawy Wabbit! LeadSongDog come howl 17:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Impact
I'm thinking this page could benefit from a Cultural Impact section, as this is one of a few instances of death notable to public performers, and a flashbulb mechanism for chain reaction within media (eg. songs afterwards, changes in public music preferences, movies, songs, other performers, etc. etc.). Though this is far from my qualifications to add to the article myself.-TAz69x (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Error regarding the pilot
There is no such thing as a rating for nighttime flight in the United States. When one receives his or her pilot certificate, it will be marked "Night Flying Prohibited" if the pilot did not complete the required night flight time. This is not a rating however (such as an instrument or multiengine rating). If the pilot had not had this limitation, he would have been legal for night flight.

The snow likely would have reduced the visibility below the minimum required for flight under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), making Instrument Flight Rules mandatory (which requires a flight plan to be filed previously and an instrument clearance received prior to entering instrument meterological conditions). In this case, the pilot would have had to have an instrument rating and meet the recency of experience requirements for instrument flight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.32.192.33 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting stuff, but is it accurate for 1959? I find it odd that the article doesn't seem to give an actual cause of the crash at all. Even if the pilot didn't know how to properly use his instruments, that wouldn't cause him to point his plane straight down at the ground. 70.20.169.235 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it very well might. See the entry on Sensory illusions in aviation. 24.14.119.135 (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then the article should state that explicitly. Reading the article just now, I myself was wondering what actually caused the crash.  Also the article mentions "poor weather conditions" as being partly to blame, but says nothing about what the weather actually was, other than cold. 24.6.66.193 (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the question about 1959, yes, nighttime flight in the United States may be conducted under Visual Flight Rules (weather permitting, of course) and does not (and did not) require an instrument rating.

My understanding is this is not the case in some other countries (e.g. Canada).

Nevertheless, I corrected the error in the article.

Uncle Bubba (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary Detail
Do we really need the detailed description of Holly's corpse? I don't see how it helps the article at all. "Massive fractures" would suffice, as elsewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.111.62 (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment; I think that this is an example of WP:UNDUE and I am going to reduce the prominence of the coroner's report. Leoniceno (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy regarding Dion DiMucci
While I will not participate in an edit war, neither will I knowingly allow misinformation to pass unchallenged.

Somehow, the following text keeps popping up (without citation):


 * Dion DiMucci of Dion and the Belmonts was approached to join the flight as well, however Dion decided that he could not afford the $36 cost of the flight because this was the same monthly rent his parents paid for his childhood apartment, and Dion decided he couldn't justify the indulgence.

The facts are pretty much plain and simple: The plane in question, a 1947 Beechcraft Bonanza model B35 has only four seats. If someone asked Dion to join the flight, where was he to sit? On the wing?

Please, if you are considering putting this apocryphal claim back into the article, do two things first: quote a reliable reference (that meets WP:RS) and tell us where poor Dion was going to sit.

Thank you!

&mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 07:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Who says he was to have been the fourth one? It's perfectly reasonable to consider that the third passenger (whichever that was) took his place after he declined it. Dion's official site says he had planned to take the flight. This news item from 1 Feb 2009, or this one from 22 Dec 2007 also based on Dion's account, seems to be a basis for the insertion. So the claim may be from a questionable source, but it is not apocryphal. It should, however, be attributed in-text, so that it is clearly Dion's version, not that of independent witnesses.LeadSongDog  come howl!  19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Link for footnote number 6 doesn't work
I tried to follow the link for footnote 6 and got a Page Not Found (404) error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.38.44 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

so who flipped the coin?
OK, we have the story of a coin flip. After editing in the comma after "actually flipped the coin", we now have this:

"Bob Hale, a DJ with KRIB-AM, was working the concert that night and flipped the coin in the ballroom's sidestage room shortly before the musicians departed for the airport (Note: Tommy Allsup actually flipped the coin, which was a 50 cent piece. ...)"

So what did Bob Hale ACTUALLY do in this event? Oversaw the coin flip in some way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger Peterson
Is the article on Roger Peterson about a different Roger Peterson instead of the pilot? Or was the reporter also a pilot??

Comment added Jan. 5, 2012: What Roger Peterson article? There is a disambiguation page for "Roger Peterson" on Wikipedia, and the pilot is "Roger Peterson (pilot)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ascend vs descend
Hubert Dwyer, owner of the plane and the flight service company, watched from a platform outside the tower and "saw the tail light of the aircraft gradually descend until out of sight",

Should be Ascend or climb until out of sight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.40.99 (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, read the report. "Descend" as in "going down"; i.e: crashing.  Or, could be describing the perspective phenomenon of moving objects above you appearing to descend as they approach the horizon. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Crash investigation
The sub-heading Crash includes: Investigators concluded ... resulting in spatial disorientation. Which investigators? NOT those in the Civil Aeronautics Board Aircraft Accident Report. The term "spatial disorientation" would be anachronistic in 1959. What they actually reported:
 * At night, with an overcast sky, snow falling, no definite horizon, and a proposed flight over a sparsely settled area with an absence of ground lights, a requirement for control of the aircraft solely by reference to flight instruments can be predicated with virtual certainty. ... [And due to instrument unfamiliarity] ... he could have become confused and thought that he was making a climbing turn when in reality he was making a descending turn.

Either an attribution should be made to the source using that term, or include some weasel-words such as: "...in modern terminology..." ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments
According to all available sources, including biography.com and the official buddy holly web site the correct date of death is Feb. 3 (early morning).


 * I still doubt it. The plane was left in a storm on the evening of February 2, and was located by authorities (who are understandably slow) at around 9 a.m. on the 3rd.  I don't think there's much reason to doubt that it crashed on the second. - Hephaestos 03:06, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Well once again I'm wrong, sorry for the confusion. Sources say the plane didn't take off until 1:50 a.m. on the 3rd. - Hephaestos 03:14, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I read somewhere that the crash occured on the 2nd, but news did not reach people til the third, so the 3rd became the known date.(74.15.3.211 (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC))
 * As noted in the article, it was already past midnight when the plane took off. So it was the 3rd all the way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The official CAB report states: ...at approximately 0100, February 3, 1959. (That's around 1:00 a.m.) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need for this as a separate page, I think it should be redirected to American Pie (song) Mintguy (T) 09:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I disagree; this article should cover events of the crash etc. which don't really belong in the article about the song (the circumstances of Valens' being on the plane at all, for instance). - Hephaestos|&#167; 23:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok fair enough, but in that case I think that the page should be moved and The Day The Music Died should be redirect to whatever you want to call the new page. The phrase The Day The Music died is hardly informative about the subject matter, and is basically Don McLean's invention. Mintguy (T) 23:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a name for the event that people understand, even if it wasn't used back when it first happened. It's been applied to the event retroactively, like the Renaissance, or World War I.  Fishal 19:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The gig was at the Armory in Moorhead MN.

There seem to be conflicting accounts about whether Tommy Allsup or Waylon Jennings was the person who lost the toss to be on the plane, did they even toss a coin at all? Can someone clarify? PatGallacher 17:11, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

NTSB / CAB accident report (currently unavailable)
Civil Aeronautics Board is now part of the National Transportation Safety Board; "older reports coming online soon" at NTSB's Aviation Accident Reports. But, there is a text copy of the report at: http://www.fiftiesweb.com/cab.htm, and a PDF of the actual report here: http://data.desmoinesregister.com/holly/documents/CABreport.pdf ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Crash/wording
The section titled "Crash" has the sentence - "He lost control of the plane when the tip of the right wing struck the ground". This sentence needs to be reworded or removed. When you nose in and strike the ground at 170 miles per hour you have already lost control of the aircraft. In other words the pilot didn't lose control of the aircraft when the right wing struck the ground, the right wing struck the ground because he lost control of the aircraft. All the NTSB report is stating by mentioning the right wing, is that their investigation noted that the part of the aircraft that struck the ground first was the right wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle kursk (talk • contribs) 17:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence was rearranged.-- GD uwen  Tell me!  17:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ouch
"On the toss of that coin, Ritchie won a seat on the plane, and Tommy won the rest of his life." Who worded THAT?

Yeah, your right. It was the most dangerous coin flip game...thats kind of weird

--Activision45 03:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Allsup who was a member of Buddy Holly's band says he tossed the coin (not DJ Bob Hale) to determine whether he or Valens would go on the plane. Reference: https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r4_8pjJPxo Hale says he tossed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbigjohnson (talk • contribs) 05:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

N-Number in infobox
I removed an external link to the Federal Aviation Authority website and replace it with a reliable reference to the registration, the FAA website provides no evidence that N3794N entries are connected with the accident so provides zero value to the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per my edit summary, the FAA registry still shows the details of the aircraft's owner, Dwyer Flying Service – mentioned more than once in the article, at the time the registration number belonged to the accident plane. It couldn't be more relevant, in my view. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But you are not using it as a reference just an external link with no real purpose, the owner and registration are already referenced in the article. The FAA registration entry makes no mention of the accident. MilborneOne (talk)
 * I'm puzzled by your position. Beside the CAB report there is a second, independent and even more authoritative source – the FAA registry – that confirms registration and owner's details at the time of the accident. I cannot think of a reason not to include this second source as well. If the problem is the external link, I'm thinking of modifying the airreg template so that it produces a {cite web} template instead. I'll carry on the discussion on the delete proposal page. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Deeday-UK I dont have a problem with the FAA site being used as a reference it is the external link that adds no value. MilborneOne (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Day the Music Died. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1959/CAB_2-3-1959.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger
Formal request has been received to merge: Roger Peterson (pilot) into The Day the Music Died; dated February 2016. jej Airplanespotter15 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rationale: Wikipedia is not a memorial and he is only known for being the pilot of the plane that crashed. A lot of the content in Mr. Peterson's article already exists in the main airplane crash article. {not signed}


 * Support, retrospectively, per WP:ONEEVENT. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Redundant word "conditions"
The words "IMC conditions" are redudnant since the C in IMC stands for Conditions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.207.169.160 (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes
please don't start an edit war. Please have a read at WP:BRD and explain why you think that details such as the distance between the airport and the crash site or the presence of one of the various existing memorials would be worthy of inclusion in the lead; they are not (guidelines here: WP:LEAD). Your other (equally unexplained) edit is essentially a change of wording and style (e.g. comma instead of colon); if the reason behind it is that you like it that way, sorry but it will be reverted. This article is quite mature and the numerous editors that contributed to it, not just me, concur on the current general style, which has remained stable for a considerable time. --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the one starting an edit war. I'm not who undid good revisions for no good reason. Just because an article has been the same for a while does not mean that it can't be better. The introduction should mention a little of everything in the article. There's nothing in there about how people still remember this crash, which is important. Also, the wording later on was confusing, so I cleared it up. You're not the author or gatekeeper of this article, so you shouldn't be rudely reverting minor changes that make it better, and you shouldn't accuse somebody of causing trouble when they're just trying to help. Crap like this is why I hardly ever write anything on here. --Typeractive (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * reverting a revert without explanation (other than 'my edit makes it better') is how edit wars start. As for being rude, you seem to consider edit summaries as superfluous, and you just described my contribution as 'crap'; who's being rude then? Agreed that the lead should somehow cover the aftermath, but without repeating stuff (like McLean's 1971 song) or focussing on details, like a particular memorial – so that needs reworking. With regard to clarity, it's always at the top of my mind (see how often clarified and simplified appear in my edit summaries), and the parts you changed seem already crystal-clear to me. If you find terms like subsequently or humorous confusing, you only have to look them up in a dictionary; otherwise please explain what you find confusing. Deeday-UK (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Day the Music Died. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/6SgYYuih3?url=http://web.archive.org/web/20090226025843/http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1959/CAB_2-3-1959.pdf with https://www.webcitation.org/6SgYYuih3?url=http://web.archive.org/web/20090226025843/http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1959/CAB_2-3-1959.pdf on http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1959/CAB_2-3-1959.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206223930/http://www.bakotopia.com/home/ViewPost/86213 to http://www.bakotopia.com/home/ViewPost/86213

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The Day the Music Died
An encyclopedia such as this ought to tell us when and where this phrase ("The Day the Music Died") was first used to refer to this event. Anyone have any info? --Keeves 17:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Don McLean's song is the first usage of the term. --cholmes75 04:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think there should be a name change. It should say "(The) Deaths of [names]," and the article title shouldn't be a pop culture name.  In the article, though, there should be something noting that the accident was popularly called "The day the music died" and then explaining that further.  It just isn't very academic for an encyclopedia to use a pop culture reference as a name for an actual incident like that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.103.232 (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Contrastingly, I think the above commenter should go out and get laid for once in his life?

I don't think Mclean came up with the phrase; he definitely popularised it, but I'm not sure he came up with it himself. I'm probably wrong, but that's what I think...I seem to remember reading it somewhere. NIN (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed - Have added request for cite Tachyonuk (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Prior to McLean's song, the term was around, however it referred not to the deaths of Holly, Valens, and Richardson but to Altamont —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.213.55 (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the page should be called 'Buddy Holly's fatal plane crash'. Valetude (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Extra profit?
The first paragraph in the "Background" section ends with "and make an extra profit". It frankly sounds odd. I've never heard that usage in any context such as this. Is the Wikipedia editor actually talking about improving income or earning additional income? Stretchrunner (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits by mitch
@Mitchellhobbs, I've restored my last good version, and my original comment ("ungrammatical sentences, misspelled author names and wrong attribution" etc.) still stands. More specifically:
 * You can say either "the accident was due to" or "the probable cause of the accident was", but not "the probable cause of the accident was due to"; that's ungrammatical, and that's what I corrected.
 * The problem is not the authors' initials: you misspelled "Durfee", the name of one of the authors, as "Dufee" 1, which I corrected.
 * In your version 2, you set the 'work=' field of a copy of the report to 'The Des Moines Register', which is incorrect: that copy of the report might be hosted on the Des Moines Register's website, but the publisher is still the CAB (and not the NTSB either, which did not exist at the time) – That's all immaterial anyway, since that source is a duplicate of the document on the NTSB website and the ref can be removed.
 * The phrase probable cause is fairly common in accident investigations, therefore it doesn't need quotation marks. In any case, well done for adding it, because it more accurately reflects the source. As you can see, I retained it.
 * The primary source for the CAB report is the NTSB website. It doesn't matter that the URL to the report is dead; it did work in the past and still needs to be stated as such (the 'access-date=' tells you the last time it was working). For dead URLs such as that one, the idea is that you put the link to the archived copy in the 'archive-url=' field, and set the 'dead-url=' parameter to 'yes'. That's how it's supposed to be done. Web addresses from Web.archive.org must not be used to populate the url= field; they are to be used only for archive-url=. However, if you find where, on the NTSB website, the report might currently be hosted, by all means update the 'url=' field with the new URL.

--Deeday-UK (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

~ ~ but anyways thanks for your help ~ the important part is that the source is reflected properly ~ whether the statement is true or not ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not agree about the CAB ~ if the New Your times publishes a copy of a letter then the source would be the New York times and not the author of the letter ~
 * the source was no longer available until I corrected it with out using a dead url~
 * the message I left at your talk page shows that the archive was also to an error page ~
 * A letter published by a newspaper is different. When the accident report first came out, it was the CAB that published it (i.e. made it public). Then, since it can be freely reproduced, it has been uploaded everywhere on the web, but what matters when quoting sources is the original publisher, if known. With regard to dead archive URLs, www.webcitation.org seems to be down all the time; not sure what happened to it. I'd recommend migrating to web.archive.org, which seems to be working fine. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The name of the plane
Is it true that the name of the plane was "American Pie" or is that just an urban myth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.219 (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it is urban legend. However, if anyone has a good source that says otherwise, I'm open to it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Friends - I don't need a source on this one. Having been a student of aviation for 35 years, I can assure you that this is just a myth. I have seen the photos of the Bonanza wreckage (sans bodies) and I can assure you that it was a standardly-marked Beech 35 with only a regular FAA registration number on its aft fuselage. There is NO reason why a flight base operator-rental would have a name or nose art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sublette (talk • contribs) 07:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never even heard that urban myth, saw the line about it in the article and thought it sounded so ridiculous that line should be removed. This is still the only place I've ever seen the claim made outside of the top of that Snopes article which provides no source for the myth.69.43.35.98 (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I lived in Lubbock, Texas from 1961 to 1963, but I was only 5-7 years old; I do remember being taken to the original Hi-De-Ho Drive-In restaurant on 34th Street, where Buddy Holly hung out as a young man! Mark Sublette (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One assumes you never saw the plane that killed him. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Roger Peterson Memorial
I recently visited the site, and there is in fact a memorial for the pilot, Roger Peterson. I have a photo of said memorial that I'd be happy to include in the article. TheBigFish (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)