This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
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
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
The recent deletion and redirect was done without the process of an AFD nomination or any other discussion. There was a deletion discussion already on this very subject, and the result was to preserve her article. Betty Ong is plenty notable as an individual - 20,000+ google hits, a mural monument to her, a foundation in her honor, plenty of citations in major newspapers, and there are still news reports about her six years after her death. Her thoughtful actions did much to assist the process of investigating the 9/11 hijackings. It's a bit of a slight to her memory to call her non-notable simply because she was an extraordinary but previously unknown person caught up in extraordinary events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to some 10th anniversary news reports, her handling of the hijack lead to a new procedure, having to do with contacting home base and passing information about the hijack and hijackers... 76.65.129.5 (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope so since reading the conversation one can see a good number of mistakes made by the op. center. Anyway, any source on your claim would be helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.143.195.165 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly establishes that Ong was an American, and American born. Is it really necessary to list the Chinese versions of her name? George Takei, for example, is an American of Japanese descent yet his article doesn't include the Japanese version of his name. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to whoever added the citation, but it does not feature any post-AAEL Ong quotations. Therefore, I urge either: the [citation needed]'s reinstatement or a verbatim quotation from the new source. Beingsshepherd (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]
The webpage (falsely) cited for the featured call transcript, claims she used a 'cell phone', boston.com claims it was a 'GTE Airfone' and page 5 of the 9/11 Commission Report claims it was an 'AT&T airphone'.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Betty Ong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Betty Ong. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Betty Ong. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
98.1% of this article concerns American Airlines Flight 11; 1.9% of it is biographical information. This is not a biography. Ms. Ong is not notable, and though her actions may be, I doubt the viability of September 11, 2001 American Airlines Flight 11 actions by Betty Ong (or similar). This needn't sit here; it should redirect to the Flight 11 article. Before I take such action though, I wanted to ask two questions: (1) What prose is in this article, but absent at the Flight 11 article, that is absolutely necessary to understanding the actions of Ms. Ong in the context of the flight? (2) What arguments are there in favor of this article as it stands now? — fourthords | =Λ= |17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article could very much use a photograph of Betty Ong (like in the related article on Madeline Amy Sweeney). I am a new user and cannot upload a fair use image at the moment, but I would like to point out that the Betty Ann Ong Foundation has a photo of Betty on their website. If that is considered fair use, that would be a very appropriate photo for this article.
Fourthords had deleted and redirected this article with disregard to previous discussions. This article was nominated for deletion in 2009, but the consensus (9 to 1) was to keep it. Disregarding this consensus seems like a disregard to the democratic process in general. Regarding notability, I would suggest taking a look at some of these comments:
"The recent deletion and redirect was done without the process of an AFD nomination or any other discussion. There was a deletion discussion already on this very subject, and the result was to preserve her article. Betty Ong is plenty notable as an individual - 20,000+ google hits, a mural monument to her, a foundation in her honor, plenty of citations in major newspapers, and there are still news reports about her six years after her death. Her thoughtful actions did much to assist the process of investigating the 9/11 hijackings. It's a bit of a slight to her memory to call her non-notable simply because she was an extraordinary but previously unknown person caught up in extraordinary events"
The related article on Madeline Amy Sweeney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeline_Amy_Sweeney) was similarly nominated for deletion on similar grounds of questionable notability, but twice (in 2013 and 2014) was voted to be kept.
If the Betty Ong article is to be deleted, it would only be fair and consistent to delete the Madeline Amy Sweeney article as well. As it stands now, it seems that the Betty Ong article is being specifically targeted, for whatever reasons.Michaelnrdx (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)michaelnrdx[reply]
I felt that the previous deletion discussions addressed the issue of notability fairly well, although notability is always debatable. The argument against notability according to the the notability (people) guideline would be that the notability is linked to the event rather than the person. However, the guideline leaves some leeway for consideration:
"In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified."
We have to consider both the significance of the event AND the individual's role. Betty Ong played a very significant role on 9/11, being the first to convey information on the hijacking to American Airlines. I would argue, respectfully, that Betty's role was even more significant than Madeline Amy Sweeney's (at least from what I gather from reading her article). I would say both are notable, as well as the hijackers.
Secondly, media coverage of Betty Ong has been consistent over the past 5 years (spiking around 9/11, of course) and has increased in 2016 and 2017 (relative to previous years, although the interest in 2017 is slightly lower than in 2016). See the data on Google Trends:
Given that there is consistent international interest in Betty Ong, that she (and Sweeney) were honored with the Award for Civilian Bravery, and that she has been portrayed in two TV series, Betty is a notable figure in the mainstream culture and consciousness. In deciding which articles to keep, I think the interest of the general public should be considered. I disagree with your interpretation of the article as "98.1%" about Flight 11 and "1.9%" biographical information. There is an extensive transcript of her phone call (which is not in the Flight 11 article), as well as information (of interest to many) regarding her lasting impact on society in the Legacy section. It would be unwieldy and tangential to squeeze this into the Flight 11 article. I do feel that the article could be improved, but I don't feel that deletion or redirecting would achieve that. Her life and actions deserve much more coverage than the Flight 11 article (or this article) could do it justice. Deleting or redirecting this article is a disservice to those who want to learn more about Betty Ong and also an erasure of an important part of Asian American history. Michaelnrdx (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there should be another vote if this article should be deleted or redirected, instead of the decision resting on the opinion of just one person? I asked for arguments in favor of the article's retention a month before redirection. Many pages are redirected by single contributors every single day, usually (or at least should be) after soliciting feedback and consulting the appropriate policies, guidelines, and standard operating procedures. This is one of the goals of the editing guideline on being bold, and doesn't need to have further time and effort spent (on starting a deletion discussion, for example) unless there is unresolvable contention over the edits.
I felt that the previous deletion discussions addressed the issue of notability fairly well The previous discussions were roughly twelve and eight years ago, respectively.
We have to consider both the significance of the event AND the individual's role. Betty Ong played a very significant role on 9/11, being the first to convey information on the hijacking to American Airlines. Define "very significant". What actions taken by Ms. Ong influenced how the September 11 attacks unfolded? So far as I can tell, Ms. Ong placed a phone call and provided information as to the specific situation aboard flight 11; she's a reliable, primary source for our article on American Airlines Flight 11. Aside from that, this is a 395-byte biographic article.
Google Trends shows relative search interest; given the points of data provided, it can only be ascertained that "betty ong" is inquired about with Google Search an average of 1.34 times per day, belying an argument of significant interest, which I don't think is a criterion in any of our policies or guidelines anyway. Furthermore, neither receiving the awards you mentioned nor portrayal in the media are rationales for otherwise non-compliant Wikipedia articles.
I disagree with your interpretation of the article as "98.1%" about Flight 11 and "1.9%" biographical information. You may, of course, do so. There is an extensive transcript of her phone call[…] The entirety of which is about the hijacking of flight 11. […]as well as information (of interest to many) regarding her lasting impact on society in the Legacy section. Whether you deem it "of interest to many" or not, a one-time ~200-person memorial service, the naming of a recreation center, depiction in a mural, and the dedication of a nonprofit organization in her name (one of many in the wake of such events), do not a biography make.
It would be unwieldy and tangential to squeeze this into the Flight 11 article. Then don't do so.
I haven't clicked "Preview" yet, and this is probably prohibitively long, but if you have any questions or concerns about anything I've written here, please reply here and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. LLAP — fourthords | =Λ= |21:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the goals of the editing guideline on being bold, and doesn't need to have further time and effort spent (on starting a deletion discussion, for example) unless there is unresolvable contention over the edits...The previous discussions were roughly twelve and eight years ago, respectively. Although the "be bold" guideline allows redirection without an extensive deletion discussion, there has already been a deletion discussion in the past, with the outcome being to keep the article (9 to 1). Is there a policy that states such consensus should be disregarded after X number of years?
Define "very significant". What actions taken by Ms. Ong influenced how the September 11 attacks unfolded? Ong's role was not just as a primary source in identifying the hijackers. Her actions (relaying information about the hijacking) led to a series of responses in an effort to avert disaster (interception by Air Force and shutting down of flights nationwide). The fact that such efforts were unsuccessful ultimately does not make Ong insignificant in relation to the events of 9/11 (and hence she is particularly commemorated to this day). This was neglected in the article and should be included to make clear Ong's significance.
Google Trends shows relative search interest; given the points of data provided, it can only be ascertained that "betty ong" is inquired about with Google Search an average of 1.34 times per day, belying an argument of significant interest. I don't think I understand how you arrived at your conclusion of "Betty Ong" being searched on Google an average of 1.34 times per day, as Google Trends does not show the absolute number of searches. Here's another interesting dataset from Google Trends, comparing the relative interest of the search terms "Betty Ong" and "American Airlines Flight 11" from 2008-present.
According to the notability guidelines, a topic does not need sustained coverage once it has received significant coverage. (Notability is not temporary.) Neither Betty Ong nor Flight 11 are continuously covered by the media 365 days per year. Since both topics have already received significant coverage (since 2001), the fact that their mention in the media or relative search interest on Google has cyclical bursts, is not a violation of WP:SUSTAINED. The notability (people) guideline lists growing media coverage as a criterion for having a separate article on people linked to a single event. What the data from Google Trends shows, in my interpretation, is that Ong, although she was acknowledged to be centrally involved by the media immediately after the events, was relatively de-emphasized compared to other aspects of 9/11. Google Trends data is not available before 2008, but the relative search interest of "American Airlines Flight 11" was at its maximum (100%) in 2009, while Betty Ong was at 0%. Then the relative interest in Betty Ong peaked starting in 2011 and the subsequent peaks are comparable in magnitude to the relative interest in Flight 11. The fact that the interest in Betty Ong between 2008-2011 was about nil (relative to Flight 11), but then peaked starting in 2011 and subsequently tracked the interest in Flight 11, suggests to me that there must have been an increased coverage of Ong by the media that led to increased interest since 2011. This would then satisfy the notability (people) guideline for having a separate article on a person linked to a single event, if media coverage grows.
If you insist that this is not a suitable stand-alone article, I'd also like to see similar action taken on the other 9/11 articles that also, by your arguments, do not meet the notability guideline. Just because article "X" is wrong too isn't a justification to have two wrongly-kept pages. Indeed! Let's have neither, if both are wrong. If we get rid of one, but keep the other, then that is bias in coverage. Michaelnrdx (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy that states such consensus should be disregarded after X number of years? Essentially, yes, you're referring to the policy on consensus. Furthermore, given that consensus can change, it's appropriate to challenge discordant material duly.
Google Trends does not show the absolute number of searches. Yes, that was my point. It's precisely because Google Trends "does not show the absolute number of searches" that it doesn't serve to show any significant interest in the topic. The "100" line is the mark when the most searches were made, but there's no actual hard number of searches attached. However, since the relative numbers of searches are on a 0–100 scale, we know that each time it hits each numbered line, at least that many searches on the term were made. Then it's just a matter of adding each point of data and dividing by the number of days represented (2409/1820≈1.32).
According to the notability guidelines, a topic does not need sustained coverage once it has received significant coverage.WP:SUSTAINED says "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." The single event here is the September 11 attacks. Without that event, Ms. Ong's biography is plainly non-notable.
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
The notability (people) guideline lists growing media coverage as a criterion for having a separate article on people linked to a single event. This is a line chart showing the reliable media coverage (even to a tangential extent) as shown in the article. It's not growing.
What the data from Google Trends shows, in my interpretation […] suggests to me that there must have been an increased coverage of Ong by the media that led to increased interest since 2011. This would then satisfy the notability (people) guideline for having a separate article on a person linked to a single event, if media coverage grows. Disregarding the fact that Google Trends is tracking search interest, not media attention—regardless of your interpretation of data, or what it suggests to you, the article sitting at the page Betty Ong does not evidence any growth in media coverage outside the events of the attacks.
Lastly, if you find other articles (related to the September 11 attacks or otherwise) that don't meet muster for retention, be bold and tend to them accordingly. I am, however, not compelled to tackle every discrepancy under any given umbrella just because I'm tending to one given article. Today I'm discussing this page. — fourthords | =Λ= |16:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the discussion above is productive. There are some questionable assumptions made about how relative search interest on Google Trends may relate to the average number of searches per day (I got 1.39, according to the assumption of 1% = at least 1 search, but are we really sure that's true?), and the line graph doesn't make things clearer either (as it's not clear exactly how that data was generated so that we might check it ourselves). But I fear that going further down this path is leading to original research. Clearly, there was/is disagreement about notability, and it doesn't seem like the motions for redirecting is garnering much support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4301:4330:19F5:2D67:791A:2D28 (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't, a consensus of one is not sufficient. "Impropriety" is a bizarre choice of wording, and notability is not subject to re-examination every few years to see if the subject is still being discussed. Acroterion(talk)20:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"[A] consensus of one" is covered by the editing guideline that instructs contributors: "If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself" (WP:BOLD). Considering this page is currently masquerading as a biography, when only 1.9% of the reliably-sourced prose is concerned with such a topic, that's pretty unambiguous.
"Impropriety" is defined by Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary as "the quality or condition of being improper; incorrectness." I've detailed the essays, guidelines, and policies with which this page is out of compliance. I don't see how use of the word "impropriety" meets the definition of being "bizarre" ("markedly unusual in appearance, style, or general character and often involving incongruous or unexpected elements; outrageously or whimsically strange; odd: bizarre clothing; bizarre behavior.")
Boldness is subject to consensus: you've made a bold proposal. That doesn't mean that you get to dictate the final outcome or to force it through against opposition. I see no "impropriety" here (your choice of words): I see concern about notability, which is far from impropriety. I could construct similar arguments with much better justification for MMA fighters and KPop artists, but would probably not achieve consensus there either. Please find consensus for your actions rather than using boldness as a justification. A less wordy approach would be appreciated. Your next to last sentence is really what matters: it's concise and not unreasonable, but I disagree and others have as well. Acroterion(talk)21:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't dictated a final outcome, nor have I forced anything. I had a discussion with a single, now-absent contributor. Then I invited further discussion should any potential second person have any input.
With regard to your objection to the word "impropriety", are you trying to say that non-compliance with guidelines and policies is the correct state for an article? Yes, I am concerned about notability (and notability-people, and pseudo-biographies, and what Wikipedia is not); should I not be?
Please find consensus for your actions That's what I'm endeavoring to do with the discussion I began here. Mind you, I'm asking others to catch up on the essays, guidelines, and policies I've already discussed, but I've never seen anyone take umbrage.
I disagree and others have as well. How so? The biographic material for Ms. Ong has but two references and only constitutes 395 bytes. That is far and away from meeting our standards for notability. — fourthords | =Λ= |22:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've announced your intention to redirect. I disagree. I do not discount your concerns about sourcing and weight (far from it), but I do not support your intention to redirect, which has gained no support over many words in the sections above earlier this year. That is my chief concern, that you mistake a lack of interest in discussing your walls of text for assent. I emphatically reject the notion that notability is temporary, which you appear to be proposing with your graph. Such time-based assessments of potential notability usually play out over a period of weeks rather than years. My feeling on overall notability is that Ong's prominent and amply documented role in reporting and documenting the events on Flight 11 set her apart from other victims, and that and the the continuing recognition of that role are sufficient for enduring notability. Acroterion(talk)22:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the discussion, I do not agree with the intention to redirect this article for reasons that have already been discussed by others in the discussions above and in the previous vote for deletion. I wasn't aware that notability requirements had a specific byte requirement for articles and that 395 necessarily disqualifies an article for notability. I tend to agree with Acroterion about some of the previous discussions being too wordy, and I'm not sure they have been productive. If anything, it feels kind of petty to be counting the number of bytes in an article, how many seconds have elapsed since the previous vote, and speculating about the average number of Google Searches per day to too many significant figures that we can really be sure of. 2601:645:4301:4330:19F5:2D67:791A:2D28 (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Betty Ong. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
