Talk:D. B. Cooper

Tarmac

I have tried two times to edit the word "tarmac" in this article with no success. On both occasions, responses have been "sources specifically say tarmac." Yes, that is true, but tarmac is not technically the correct term on this occasion. The first time I replaced the word tarmac with airport ramp, and it was quickly reverted. The second time I left tarmac but linked it to airport ramp, as "airport ramp" is the proper term for what is being described. I thought this was acceptable, as it preserves the wording of the source and links the reader to what is being described. The second edit was also reverted to the original configuration. Sources can say one thing, but what if sources are inaccurate in their wording to begin with? Apologies for being pedantic, but the current wording/link is not correct and is possibly misleading.

Aviation Glossary: Tarmac — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.57.142 (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion, and mine, are unimportant in this venue. What is important is sourcing. If you have a D.B. Cooper source that mentions "airport ramp", by all means, let's see it; but every source I know of specifically says "tarmac". DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 19:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DoctorJoeE, I have seen no reference to "airport ramp" in this instance. I am happy to agree to a change if several sources state this. Regards to all, David. David J Johnson (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Doubt

The article page has an Infobox titled 'Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 305' listing passengers count as 36 + the hijacker, a crew of 6, and yet survivors = All 42, Basic Math suggests there is some misinformation. Can anyone please clarify the data/clear my doubt? Compfreak7 (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The infobox in fact lists the survivor count as "All 42 passengers and crew" -- which means the 36 passengers and 6 crew members.

It specifically lists a passenger count of "36 plus hijacker" for the obvious reason that Cooper cannot be counted as a passenger per se, nor as a survivor since we don't know if he survived.

Seems pretty clear to me. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Internal note about adding additional examples

My edit based on good faith was reverted by DoctorJoeE with a mention of "Please read internal note about adding additional examples." within 20 minutes of my edit. Could someone point out this note to me please and also why the other examples cultural phenomena are uncited? I can supply a link to unofficial subtitles: ([1]) by means of going beyond good faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.lyon (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The internal note is quite clear, but I'll reproduce it here:

This section describes the Cooper phenomenon as it has been discussed in reliable sources. Please do not add additional examples here. If you have a worthy example to add, please consider adding it to the article "D. B. Cooper in popular culture".

The reasoning, as I understand it (it was established by consensus before I became involved in editing the topic) was that the section became so cluttered that it negatively affected the entire article. As it says, you are welcome to add your example to D. B. Cooper in popular culture, where it is far more appropriate and relevant, if you wish. Apologies for any misunderstanding, no offense was meant; we are merely attempting to maintain the article at FA levels. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 18:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Seat number

The article currently states:

Cooper boarded the aircraft, a Boeing 727–100 (FAA registration N467US), and took seat 18C^[1] (18E by one account,^[2] 15D by another^[3]) in the rear of the passenger cabin.

Given that three sources give three different seat numbers, why should one be preferred (by stating it as factual) over the others (in parentheses)? Does it matter? Can't this simply be amended to read:

Cooper boarded the aircraft, a Boeing 727–100 (FAA registration N467US), and took a seat in the rear of the passenger cabin.^[1]

1. Conflicting reports have cited different seat numbers. New York magazine reported it as seat 18C; History's Greatest Unsolved Crimes. Frances Farmer Archive (retrieved February 7, 2011) reported it as seat 18E; Gunther 1985 (p. 32) reported it as seat 15D.

—sroc (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I listed all reported seat numbers as a matter of maximum (encyclopedic) accuracy; a reader who had previously only read one of the sources would think that the seat number listed in that particular source was accurate, so the article makes it clear that the exact seat is in dispute. 18C is "preferred" because it is the one used in most sources. I rather prefer it the way it is, but it's a minor point and I will obviously abide by consensus. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If 18C is mentioned in a clear majority of sources, then I think it's fine as is. I only raised it because only one reference is given for each so it was not clear whether/why there was a favourite. —sroc (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree DoctorJoeE's is the proper handling. Probably the article should not count sources, but how many cite 18C? —EncMstr (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I will go through my stack of books and articles when I get home, but IIRC, all sources that specified a seat number specified 18C except for the Farmer archive (18E) and Max Gunther's book (15D), the two that are cited for the alternate seat numbers. One recent magazine article stated that he sat in first class, which I didn't bother to add because there is otherwise general agreement that he sat in the back of the plane. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

To make it clearer that 18C is in most sources, could this perhaps be rephrased along the lines:

Cooper boarded the aircraft, a Boeing 727–100 (FAA registration N467US), and sat in the rear of the passenger cabin in seat 18C^[1] (although others cite seat 18E^[2] or 15D^[3]).

? This wording would also put the emphasis on him sitting at the back of the passenger cabin (which is almost universally agreed) rather than the specific seat (which is a detail) and avoids the parenthetical remark disrupting the flow of the sentence. Just a thought. —sroc (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's an improvement. "although others" is vague and could mean more than one or two. The original is clear in noting that two sources present different seat numbers. Also, I think that the original sentence as a whole is very adept & better reading, compared to the alternatives. Finally, I think you are incorrect that the alternative puts focus on the are of cabin he sat in. By ending the sentence on the detail then you make that the focus and the cabin area merely an aside in the middle of the sentence. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, don't mind me then! 8^p —sroc (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Name: "D. B. Cooper" vs. "Dan Cooper"

This fascinating and excellent article has one glaring flaw: it really has very little to say about the name "D. B. Cooper", an erroneous media attribution, and the voluminous wacky lore surrounding that character in the public's mind; it's really about the individual using the name "Dan Cooper", his 1971 skyjacking and subsequent FBI efforts to find him. Accordingly this article should be re-titled "Dan Cooper" with a memo in the "Other Names" field noting "D. B." As it stands, someone using Wikipedia to find excellent info on Dan Cooper and his skyjacking doesn't get sent directly to this article.

Put a little differently: this article isn't really about the fictional "D. B. Cooper" and the lore/speculation surrounding that name that popped up in the popular media; it's about a real individual who used the name "Dan Cooper" during the commission of a crime and what's known and hypothesized about his escapades and identity. Thus it should be titled "Dan Cooper" - that's how the FBI/USDoJ would reference him in any prosecution - so people can find the factual information about that individual and his skyjacking crime.

Those wanting the lore/speculation surrounding "D. B. Cooper" and the characters that have popped up over the years using that name should be referenced to the "D. B. Cooper in Popular Culture" Wikipedia article.BLZebubba (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You have clearly explained why you think the article should be moved. However, Wikipedia's article naming convention is to the use the most widely and popularly known name. That is without a doubt D.B. Cooper. If—somehow—Dan Cooper became the widely used name, then we could revisit the proper article name. —EncMstr (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. In addition, the lede explains the name discrepancy, and the body of the article explains it in more depth. Anyone searching for a Dan Cooper is in all likelihood looking for the founder of the Fox News Channel, not the hijacker. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Gotta disagree. Anyone searching for "D. B. Cooper" is most likely a dilettante inquiring about the lore and characters arising from the erroneous use of that name. Someone referencing "Dan Cooper" is most likely interested in the facts and evidence surrounding the real case, not the zaniness. The two names really apply to two different phenomena. Since the article at hand is mostly a discussion of the facts it should be titled/cataloged under "Dan Cooper" (and of course cross-referenced under "D. B. Cooper"); cataloging it under "D. B. Cooper" perpetuates an error, thereby obfuscating the factual details of the case and making - should there ever be a prosecution of "Dan Cooper" - for a more convoluted path for an interested reader to get to the facts. There may not ever be a prosecution of "Dan Cooper", but there will definitely never be one of any "D. B." Cooper, and perpetuating that name makes the writer appear to be sensationalistic amateur, not an authority.

As for Fox News Channel's Dan Cooper, I really don't know why the man even has a Wikipedia page - he must get off seeing it there and probably wrote it himself; it's extremely doubtful anyone else will ever care about it unless they accidentally stumble across it while searching for the skyjacker.BLZebubba (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The article title is mostly to assist a user finding and identifying the proper article. Once found, the article clearly explains the D. B. Cooper vs. Dan Cooper situation and how it came to be in a very non-senationalistic manner. Hopefully the media which screwed up still regrets it, but the public consciousness is not easily changed.

Like it or not, sea star are popularly called star fish, a water heater is commonly referred to as a hot water heater (instead of a cold water heater), and a pine is commonly called a pine tree. Each of the popular terms are—in some measure—"wrong", but that doesn't mean we make it hard to identify the intended subject. —EncMstr (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat good points, but they're all about common names - the person who first wrote "starfish" could've just as easily decided to call them "glorkii" or "scrimmelbags" rather than the name for them that eventually became most popular, perhaps because it did a good job of alluding to the beings' geometry as well as their living, aquatic-animal nature. When it comes to common names I have a hard time accepting that one is better than another except when one perpetuates ignorance, in which case it should be avoided - which may be why Wikipedia has no article titled "hot water heater" (that undesirable, as you point out, term is merely referenced in the text under "Water heating", which is where you automatically get taken to if you search for "hot water heater"). Nor is there a Wikipedia article titled "Pine tree" (searching that term takes you automatically to an article that you (somewhat) pined for, "Pine"); you may want to research your points a little before employing them rhetorically, at least when dealing with me (many other times, not doing so will be of little consequence - lamentably the practice is quite common).

So, I still have to recommend that an article on "Dan Cooper" follow similar logic and be so titled (and coded such that folks searching for "D. B." Cooper get taken there).BLZebubba (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Mistake it was to call "Dan Cooper" D B Cooper, but the name has entered the public lore as the person who hi-jacked the 727 and got away with it. The lede of the article mentions the confusion over names and there it should stand. Frankly, to say "should there ever be a prosecution of "Dan Cooper" etc is nonsense - as he would be prosecuted under his real name! Leave article title as it currently stands. David J Johnson (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't "nonsense": apparently there's an outstanding indictment of "John Doe, AKA Dan Cooper" in this matter, as the article points out (such that the statute of limitations doesn't apply). If he's ever caught, his trial isn't going to be delayed simply because he refuses to divulge his real name.

With all respect. I researched this subject extensively before rewriting the article a couple of years ago, and he is identified in virtually all (if not all) books, web sites, and magazine and newspaper articles as "D.B. Cooper." Take a gander at what the FBI calls him on its web site. [[2]] I would guess (but cannot prove) that most ordinary citizens have heard of "D.B. Cooper", but only those who have done some reading know that his actual pseudonym was Dan Cooper. You can call me a "sensationalistic amateur" if you wish (I've been called worse, I assure you), but you're being unfair, because "Dan Cooper" appears in the fourth sentence; so it's not as if anyone except those who can't get more than three sentences in would not know about it. Besides, "Dan Cooper" is no more his real name than "D.B. Cooper" -- they're both epithets. If we knew the guy's real name you would have a stronger argument; but even then, WP convention is to go with a title that is most likely to steer readers to the desired article. The Black Dahlia article, for example is so named because most people simply do not know that her real name was Elizabeth Short. There are hundreds of other examples. So I have to go with the others and vote for keeping the title as it is. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I can do no more than agree with DoctorJoeE contribution above. This really is "a storm in a teacup". Because of a incorrect news service account, he will always be associated as "D B Cooper" regardless of the fact that he bought a ticket as "Dan Cooper". To use argument about possible, but highly improbable, trial proceedings is just POV and not the way the Wikipedia operates. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

POV in "Cultural Phenomenon" section

This section prefaces the statement that his crime 'inspired a cult following' with a lengthy condemnation which seems to me unnecessary. Should it be removed or replaced with something more impartial?

"While D.B. Cooper was an air pirate and extortionist (Himmelsbach famously called him a "rotten sleazy crook"[177]) who endangered the lives of 42 people and caused immeasurable inconvenience for many others,"James.wallacelee (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)