Stephen Baltz was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 21 August 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
1960 New York mid-air collision. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Okay, I Googled the air crash and found
one source (which, I admit, I had never heard of) which says the plane that crashed in
Park Slope was indeed trying to make an emergencey landing, but at
LaGuardia Airport, not
Prospect Park. But
Park Slope Reader (a little mare than halfway down, in the "Pillar of Fire" section) states that both potential landing-attempt sites were speculated about as such by witnesses. Neither
About.com nor
Infoplease said anything either way. —
Anna Kucsma16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Both references I have state that the aircraft was far, far too badly damaged for the pilots to possibly have any control of the aircraft. I think laypersons often think that aircraft in distress are "trying to make an emergency landing" when quite often they're just out of control - I remember with the Greek aircraft disaster (Helios Airlines? I'm not sure off the top of my head) a few years ago some bystanders said, "He's trying to get to a safe place to ditch" but when the report came out it was clear the aircraft had been uncontrollable and the pilots were likely unconscious. Maybe it's just hope that pilots are trying to avoid crashing into ground targets. --
Charlene.fic18:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)reply
46 years ago today. -- In memoriam
Perhaps some old fashioned research is needed. I have the CAB accident report and first read it when it was released in 1962.
The collision damage to the Constellation was catastrophic. The damage to the DC-8 included the loss of the No. 4 engine, the outboard right wing, and part of the leading edge of the left wing. Control, if any, was marginal. He was cleared to Idelwyld, never turned final. He was headed towards La Garbage, if that was his plan - and I can't imagine anyone passing up Idelwyld for La Garbage, he didn't make it. Odd are he just kept going until he hit.
Mark Lincoln14:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
In many accidents, the MSM tries to sensationalize and often include incredibly stupid and absurd statements from ignorant, "eye witnesses," which help them to sell their sleezy newspapers, but which only confuse actual investigation issues. Wiki Editors should never reference such garbage statements, no matter which newspaper or magazine chooses to publish such garbage. We are supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not just another irresponsible Tabloid publication. Thus, I have removed the most egregious statements of that kind, that were in the article.
EditorASC (
talk)
19:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The article currently says sections fell into New York Harbor. This is imprecise. Miller Field is on the Atlantic Ocean side of Staten Island (and is now part of
Gateway National Recreation Area). The body of water on this side is called Lower New York Bay. The way it is worded it is implied that chunks fell into the body of water between Manhattan and Staten Island. However it would probably be on the far side of Staten Island. Since there might be a remote chance that as written it is correct I haven't changed it but we should find a reference to make it more precise.
Americasroof17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)reply
The 50th anniversary occurs on December 16, 2010. There will be a memorial service in New York. This, and other information that might possibly be used to improve on an already well-written article, has been presented in a series of articles in the New York Times during the past several days. I found the readers' comments left in response to one of the Times articles engrossing; perhaps other Wiki readers would appreciate links to the Times articles.
Publius3 (
talk)
01:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
"...a point called 'Preston'..."?
I don't know much about aeronautical navigation, and an explanation of these "points"--where they are, how they are named--would be a big help. --
Wi2g15:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
In aviationarticles ONLY US Military articles conventionally use mdy dates. A concensus was reached that all other aviation articles should use dmy dates--
Petebutt (
talk)
06:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Glad to help. I updated information in the accident section and also quoted most of the "Probable Cause" statement from the Official Final Report.
EditorASC (
talk)
19:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't find that my understanding of the subject matter in the article is significantly impaired when a sole survivor is listed as "an 11-year-old boy" vs. "Stephen Baltz, an 11-year-old boy". If anything, including names of insignificant people in the article is more distracting to the reader than the value added. I agree with the consensus described in the linked discussions above.
RecycledPixels (
talk)
21:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Removing of names is problematic when the subject is a redirect. Per
WP:R#ASTONISH, the target should try to make sure to have a mention of the redirect title, to avoid the element of surprise. Local consensus cannot override guideline.
Jay(Talk)07:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Well no, there really can't be a "merge" without the subject of the merge being mentioned. And
the RfD concerned the fact that a redirect existed without any content to support it. Since the redirect exists, there needs to be a mention. --
Tavix(
talk)22:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)reply
WilliamJE's reverts
WilliamJE has now reverted five different editors who have wanted Stephen Baltz named in the article. I put together a timeline in case this gets escalated:
I'm fine either way, with the name being mentioned, or not being mentioned, but as long as it is coming from a guideline. Not a consensus. I see names being mentioned in train accidents and boat accidents. If air accidents are somehow different, have it mentioned at
WP:BIO1E or
WP:PRIVACY or similar page involving people involved in events and their names, on why air accidents specially have a deviation.
Jay(Talk)07:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
This is an essay. It can be used as a reference while working on articles, but not to revert edits that have been made with general guidelines in mind.
Jay(Talk)12:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Please do not escalate
Come on, now. In case you feel it would help, go take a long look at
WP:BRD. We're in the discussion part of it, and it's just pointless and self-destructive to just blindly revert people and threaten them with "in case this gets escalated". While you're at it, take a good look at the AFD you (Tavix) are using to defend the insertion of this non-notable person's name into this article, especially the closing statement.
Here is the link. In case you don't want to click through and re-read that, I'll copy that closing statement here, with my own bolding added for emphasis on what I think you should be paying attention to: "The result was merge to 1960 New York mid-air collision. If the merge is attempted and there is a clear consensus at the target to reject mentioning his name, then this page may be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6 as an implementation of the RfD consensus that we shouldn't redirect to a page which doesn't mention the subject. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)". So please don't try to use the AFD as a justification for reinsertion. So far, only WilliamJE and I have voiced an opinion about the consensus, but that consensus exists and I, and many other people, support that consensus. For the record, I, too had content reverted by WilliamJE under this consensus before I was aware of it:
[10]. I found it frustrating to have my well-referenced content removed, but the more I read about the past discussions, the more I understood it. There are well-founded reasons why this consensus exists, so please don't go and re-add the content thinking it's just a personal battle between you and one other person. If I see it, I, too, will revert it per this consensus.
RecycledPixels (
talk)
06:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
If five different editors revert someone, it's probably time to take a good look in the mirror and reconsider if consensus really is in one's favor on an issue. I really don't want to escalate, but I am keen to get a third opinion on whether it is okay to revert that many different editors. Alas, I do think Ivanvector has the better approach and will defer to the RfC started below. --
Tavix(
talk)13:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Tavix, I moved your comment as you inserted it into the middle of RecycledPixels' comment. I see what you were trying to do but RecycledPixels was quoting
King of Hearts, and probably shouldn't have included the King's signature, but
this was one entire comment. Your edit made it look like King of Hearts made the first part of the comment, where in truth they haven't participated in this discussion.
Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts)
18:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Include by name - in reverting the addition multiple times, WilliamJE referred to a general consensus that individuals who are not notable are not normally mentioned by name in articles on aviation accidents. There is strong evidence that Baltz is notable per the
WP:GNG: the tale of Baltz being thrown from the plane and initially surviving is retold by prominent sources decades after the event (
2002,
2010,
2018) and a memorial plaque commemorating the crash victims emblazoned "STEPHEN BALTZ MEMORIAL" was erected at the hospital where he later died (
[11],
[12]). However, Baltz is notable only for this incident, and per
WP:BIO1E we normally write about individuals notable only for one event in the article about the event, which is this one, and so he should be mentioned here. Indeed he already is mentioned here, just not by name.
Include by name The story of Baltz is notable given he was the sole survivor (briefly) of the airplane crash. He also has a brief wikipedia article. I support including his name in the article.
Jurisdicta (
talk)
03:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Mention the name. There have been two AfDs for Stephen Baltz - the one in 2007 closed as Keep, and the recent one closed as Merge. Given that, I don't see why the name should not be mentioned here, or in any other article relevant to the subject. Whether this is an aircraft accident page or not, is immaterial.
Jay(Talk)06:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Don't mention Clearly this is a case of
WP:1EVENT Baltz died a half day after the accident. 120 plus people died in the crash. Is he any more important than a person who lived a minute, 5 minuetes, or not at all after the accident. Nope. He was a passive participant in the tragedy no more no less and he did nothing prior to the accident to meet GNG. Saving the redirect seems more important to some editors than improving the article. Naming Baltz, or any of the luckless 120 other people does nothing for the article.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?09:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Reliable sources disagree with your point of view on this, and NPOV demands that we reflect the views of reliable sources and not suppress information because we think it's not important. Baltz and his brief survival after the crash are mentioned specifically in all coverage of the incident that I have seen, from the day of the crash 60+ years ago right up to the Roundabout Theatre retelling in 2018. The only publication I've come across that doesn't mention Baltz by name is Wikipedia. There's another writeup
here (also linked in the article) which suggests that people who are the sole survivors of plane crashes are notable in their own right, owing to how rare it is to be the only survivor of a fatal commercial wreck, and Baltz is credited as the first known sole survivor even though he died the next day.
Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts)
14:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Include by name. He's notable enough to be mentioned per sufficient sourcing, so he's not just a name on the list (the case where the usual prohibition against such information comes from - just a list of names but with no further details).
SnowFire (
talk)
14:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Include by name As others pointed out the (overwhelming?) majority of sources mention him in relation to this therefore this should be reflected in the article.
Cealicuca (
talk)
11:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment So Wikipedia is a tabloid not an encyclopedia. Click bait is mistaken for news coverage. Trivia, is given weight out of portion to its importance. An eleven year old is notable just because he died. We all die.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?12:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)reply
As described by reliable sources, he's notable for being the first person to be the only survivor of a commercial airline wreck. The sources describe him that way despite him dying the next day from injuries sustained in the crash, but it's not up to us to interpret or judge what reliable sources clearly consider to be an important part of the story.
Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts)
16:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)reply