Talk:American Airlines Flight 63 (2001)

Aftermath - Flight 587

I think this should either be updated somewhat or removed. At present it reads as though terrorism is potentially still deemed a plausible cause of the crash of flight 587 and that it's simply not been proven (or is still being investigated). In reality the investigation into that accident completely rejected the terrorism theory and clearly demonstrated that the reason for the crash was the pilot's rudder inputs pushing the rudder beyond the normal stress levels it was designed to deal with. I think that needs to be emphasised a bit more in the text to avoid people getting the wrong impression. Bandanamerchant (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have adjusted the article so that it is clear the post-crash investigation showed pilot error to be the cause of the crash. User2346 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Would this make sense?

I want to move this to American Airlines Flight 63 (bombing attempt). Usually pages are moved from titles like 2001 American Airlines Boeing 767 bombing attempt to American Airlines Flight 63. Why keep both? It doesn't follow the spectrum of aircraft accidents and incidents naming! KingAviationKid (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2022

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

---

2001 American Airlines Flight 63 bombing attempt → Shoe bombing attempt – Original title is very unwieldy and unnecessarily long, does not include the most recognizable terms for the event (“shoe bomb” or “shoe bombing”), and is caught up in a need to disambiguate with other American Flight 63s. This event is known as THE “shoe bombing attempt”. There are no other shoe bombing attempts close in notability or notoriety. If the new title is too vague, other possible alternatives could be “December 2001 shoe bombing attempt” or “Flight 63 shoe bombing attempt”. If we can at least get a consensus that involves not keeping the current title, I think the page should be moved, and then we can have a new discussion about potential alternative titles centered around the phrase “shoe bomb” or “shoe bombing” Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

For consistency with other airline incidents, it would be American Airlines Flight 63 (bombing attempt). You haven't provided any evidence that it is called "show bombing attempt". When I search for that term, I see "2001 airline shoe bombing attempt", "or the shoe bombing attempt by Richard Reid on December 23, 2001", "the 2001 Richard Reid shoe-bombing attempt", "a nearly successful shoe-bombing attempt" (not a specific event}, "an airline shoe-bombing attempt" (again, not specific), "the December 22, 2001 shoe bombing attempt by Richard Reid", "shoe bombing attempt by Reid on Dec. 23, 2001" (multiple times), "Richard Reid's 2001 shoe-bombing attempt", etc. Obviously, there is no one formal name for something like this. It would seem that adding "Richard Reid" to the title would be more consistent with the sources. But staying consistent with other airline incident articles is not wrong either. I don't see any "problem" with needing to disambiguate - few people will wind up at the dab page, unless they are searching by flight number. If searching for "shoe bombing" or "shoe bombing attempt", they will get here by redirect. If searching for "shoe bomber", they will get to Richard Reid from which they may come here also. MB 21:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose the current title is consistent with other aviation articles. Even if the name is changed, the proposed name is far too vague to work. SportingFlyer T·C 13:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I think “American Airlines Flight 63 (2001)” would be best if we’re titling this article as an aviation incident rather than a terrorist attack. But the way it’s currently titled, there’s four things being detailed at the same time: the year, the airline, the flight number, and the incident/attack type. And it’s not necessary to do all of that. I’m basically saying that should keep it the minimum necessary while still being disambiguated and also have proper format/protocol. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 27 April 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

---

2001 American Airlines Flight 63 bombing attempt → American Airlines Flight 63 (2001) – with short description “failed terrorist shoe bombing”. This would satisfy three key factors involved in this move attempt: 1)the general protocol for titling articles related to an individual incident on a specific aviation flight; 2)still disambiguating from the other American 63s; 3)brevity in the title that is quick and to-the-point for maximum reader accessibility/understandability. This proposal should satisfy all concerns addressed in the previous move discussion. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 晚安 (トークページ) 15:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. There may be better disambiguators, but that is the better base name, consistent with others at the DAB at American Airlines Flight 63 and aviation incident articles generally. IMO there may also be a case for this to be the primary topic of American Airlines Flight 63, but again with other aviation articles the emphasis tends to be on fatalities in deciding such things, and there were none in this case. The redirs are good, and let us move on. Andrewa (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 22 April 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved per the discussion below. (non-admin closure) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• American Airlines Flight 63 (2001) → American Airlines Flight 63
• American Airlines Flight 63 → American Airlines Flight 63 (disambiguation)

– The 2001 flight is far-and-away the primary topic, judging by both pageviews (3,394 monthly page views vs. 292 for the Flagship Missouri, 462 for the Flagship Ohio, and 202 for the disambig) and long-term significance. Surprised this wasn't proposed sooner. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as noted in the last move discussion, I'm fine with a continued disambiguation - the two older Flight 63s resulted in fatalities, and the proposed incident is correctly titled but isn't really known by its flight number, as shoe bomb redirects to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.