Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drakaan (talk | contribs) at 00:48, 21 October 2005 (→NPOV problems). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Merged information from Love Field

I merged information from the Love Field article to give background for this article. Perhaps now, on the Love Field page, the sections dealing with the Wright Amendment should be redirected here.

--- Yetiwriter

Slow newsday

Business Journal of Dallas

lots of issues | leave me a message 08:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Also on the AP wire. This one's much more negative towards the 'pedia. cluth 08:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV problems

There are several examples of biased language in this article. At the moment, I would say that the article has a pro-Southwest slant. See for more on this. Kelly Martin 21:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

What specifically in the article do you feel has a pro-Southwest POV? —Cleared as filed. 23:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say that the characterization of the pro-repeal position is overly sympathetic, and the anti-repeal position rather harsh. Furthermore, there are a large number of peacock terms associated with Southwest in the article (and in fact nearly every reference to Southwest includes a glowing description of their performance). I would not be surprised to find out that a substantial portion of this article has been written by Southwest personnel, one of their publicity agencies, or some other entity advocating in favor of Southwest's interest in this matter. Kelly Martin 00:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as glowing descriptions of Southwest, like what? (I'm not defending the article, I'm just working to make it NPOV.) The only one I see is the so-called "Southwest Effect" — the rest of the article doesn't seem to boost them, other than saying that Southwest's business flourished at Love Field, and that it's one of the most profitable airlines in the U.S. despite the Amendment, both of which seem to me to be objectively true. (Maybe they don't need to be stated here? Although it is an interesting fact that despite the fact that Southwest's home airport was crippled by this amendment, they have come through it alright.)

I've also made some changes to the pro- and anti-repeal positions, especially getting rid of the amaturish sort of analysis that was there. Do you still think it's overly pro-Southwest, and if so, how so? —Cleared as filed. 00:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As a DFW area resident, I'd say this article is slanted towards Southwest in that it essentially allows Southwest to frame the debate. It's clear that one of Southwest's primary goals in their campaign against the ammendment has been to generalize the issue; to attempt to broaden th base of the debate, to imply that it has significant implications for people outside of the DFW area (for instance, several nearby states have weighed in to support flights from Love field). This is mainly to help defuse what has traditionally been the primary driving force behind the Wright Ammendment's restrictions of Love: local public opinion. (In my personal opinion, this has destroyed the respect I had for Herb's fine company, since now they seem to be deliberately and cynically weilding the "bully pulpit" of massive media exposure to dilute or even squash the voice of the tens of thousands of local residents actually affected by increased overflights. And no, I'm not one of them, I live further north.)

Also, by leaving out the fact that SA is one of the few airlines to retain profitablity over the last 5 years, and mention of American's very aggressive response to maverick startup Legend Airlines at Love in 2000, it avoids the possible conclusion that this is actually not an attempt to increase flight availability (as Southwest would frame it), but rather a strategic business decision to take advantage of the weakened position of their primary business rival, American Airlines.

At the very least, the article should contain better discussion of the Wright Ammendment as an essentially local agreement, brokered by local officials w/ the State, to appease serious local concerns over Love Field's continued presence with DFW Intl. I think. In any case, it's not an accurate portayal of how the thing came about to begin with. I don't know -- if I come up with a way of putting it that I like, and seems NPOV, I'll add it. Eaglizard 06:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify myself on the Legend thing: along with local opposition, American (and previously Delta) had always been the primary containers of flight at Love within certain bounds; AA in particular had always made it clear they would respond aggresively to any attempt to expand Love field which seemed threatening. In 2000, they did just that, spending millions on gates at Love that they clearly never seriously intended to use, just to prevent Legend's attempted start-up there. AA insisted they were genuine in intent, but we never got to call their bluff, as Legend succumbed to mismanagement, literally before ever getting off the ground (and AA quickly and quietly abandoned efforts at Love). Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that this article focuses too much on Southwest, and their relation to the agreementammendment, without considering a host of other elements. Eaglizard 06:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ack, sorry to talk too much, but this also occurred to me: I don't think it was ever Southwest's position that they as a company were (or were not) bound by Wright, but rather that president/owner Herb Kelleher had made a personal commitment to the original agreement. I believe Herb continued to assert throughout his tenure that he was himself bound by his word (sublty leaving out the company's actual position, and implying they were one and the same). Southwest never made any direct overtures against Wright until after Kelleher retired, afaik. Is this relevant, or is my POV beginning to bleed through? Eaglizard 06:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as focusing too much on Southwest, I would tend to think that you can't really discuss the Wright Amendment without a major focus on Southwest, as they were the reason that Love Field continues to exist and they are the ones putting the money into getting it repealed now. Although we should certainly add to the critics section to mention the Love Field neighbors who would prefer not to expand the traffic landing there. I don't think that issue is the most important, though, in that it's just another NIMBY. Regardless of how Southwest will benefit, it seems pretty clear that people flying to/from the Dallas area are certain to benefit from Southwest operating long-haul flights out of Love Field. —Cleared as filed. 12:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of too many indents, I'll respond briefly: I hate to sound like an ACORN activist (I'm not), but the phrases 'NIMBY' ("Not In My Backyard", for those who don't know), and "people flying to/from the Dallas area are certain to benefit from Southwest operating long-haul flights out of Love Field" sound directly lifted from a Talking Points Bulletin hypothetically issued by whatever (undeniably talented) media agency Southwest has hired to coordinate their long-term assault on an established law. As far as I know, ALL "interest" in long-haul flights from Love has been generated by Southwest's PR campaign, including interest in connecting flights expressed by governers of non-contiguous states (as endorsed by paid Southwest lobbyists). This article is The Wright Ammendment, and not The Wright Ammendment Controversy. The ammendment itself was a settled (if contentious) issue, prior to Southwet's clearly profit-motivated challenge to it. I think any other characterisation gives the false impression that "interest" in changing Wright has arisen from some source other than Southwest stockholders. (And I think most residents of the Bachman Lake area would object to both points, in detail, especially the dismissive 'NIMBY' jargon. Look, I know I'm biased on this issue, and I probably won't even be bold enough to edit the article at this point. But it's clear to me, from living here throughout the whole issue, that while yes, some travellers will benefit, it will be at tremendous expense to others, and especially to the City of Dallas, which already can barely afford to keep Mockingbird & Inwood in any kind of drivable shape, let alone handle poverty induced crime at NW Hwy and other affected areas, and etc. Southwest wants to increase profitability (from mostly residents of other cities, I might add), at the direct expense of Dallas residents. I'll stop ranting now. Sorry. </soapbox>) Eaglizard 16:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I admit that my NIMBY terminology comes not from a pro-Southwest POV, but a pro-aviation POV; I believe that generally speaking, expanding aviation in an area is a benefit to the common good of the region, if not necessarily the homeowners close to the airport. And sure, Southwest would promote the fact that travelers will benefit from the lifting of the amendment, but that doesn't mean it's not true. It would give travelers more choices, and more choices usually means that prices go down. And obviously Southwest has a profit motive to keep the amendment, but so do the groups (American Airlines, DFW Airport) who are pouring money into protecting the amendment. Just because it's been settled law for 30-odd years doesn't mean it's right. —Cleared as filed. 21:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Good points all, and I've already used up 2 months worth of my innappropriate ranting ration, so let's leave it here. :) Eaglizard 03:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, people are making good faith efforts to improve the article. I don't think it is fair to reinsert the POV sign without any attempt to correct what you find POV. Tfine80 16:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've indicated what I feel is wrong with the article. Please don't remove the NPOV tag without fixing the problem. Sadly, my other duties here don't leave me with a whole lot of time to spend editing articles, but that shouldn't bar me from pointing out problems when I see them. Kelly Martin 22:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, a number of people have edited the areas where you concerns arose and in my opinion have satisfactorily dealt with this issue of "tone." I think to maintain the pov tag you need to point to specific sentences that still disturb you. Tfine80 22:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of "peacock terms" to describe Southwest is what I'm referring to. It does seem that most of those have been remedied at this point. I do note, however, that I don't see a link to Southwest Airlines anywhere in the article. Strange, that. Kelly Martin 00:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Southwest is linked in the first history paragraph, I think it's the last two words of the paragraph. I don't see any more "peacock terms" — do you see any specifically that you take issue with? —Cleared as filed. 00:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Kelly - I tried working this line to have a NPOV yesterday but you reverted it but they insist that they are only charging what the market will bear. I removed this line as it is clearly a POV from AA. If economists were saying this then I would agree that it is a NPOV statement; however, AA isn't a known figure in the realm of economy markets. I see no way of wording this line as to have a balanced view and yet speak the truth; therefore, the line was removed. If you can re-word it then that would be great but the only way to know if the market is paying the true price for a service is in a Free and Open market. With the restriction in place, this is an undeterminable statement; unless like I said, you cite a source from major economists leaders saying that the market is paying what the true market will bear. -- Supercoop 2005-10-20 08:00:57 (UTC)

Your edit is misguided and indicates a lack of understanding of what NPOV requires. That passage is describing the opinions of those opposing the repeal. You ought not edit someone else's opinions for neutrality; NPOV requires that you faithfully represent their opinions as their opinions, not what you think their opinion should be. Your belief that their opinion is wrongheaded, illfounded, or misguided is not an excuse to redact a fair presentation of their opinion from the article. Kelly Martin 15:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

First breath you think I am pro AMR or Anti AMR which I am not. And also I didn't see your talk reply when I edited it the second time. Ok, to the subject, now this is an AMR statement; lets talk about the third side. If the market is free then American will see no difference in their business. That is all that I want pointed out. Statements that the market is bearing the costs aren’t substantiated in a regulated market. Which is what I tried to the on the first edit - like you said, I didn't do a good job but you never didn't reply to a resolution (until now). --Supercoop 16:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't *care* what your position is. Nor do I care if the position of the supporters of the amendment makes economic sense or "considers the Libertarian position" or any other such nonsense. The only thing that matters is whether the supporters of the amendment claim that the rates American is charging are "what the market can bear". The point is that you are editing the statement of what the supporting position is to correspond not with what the supporters actually say, but with what you believe to be appropriate for them to say, if they said what you (or someone else) advised them to. That is not NPOV. It doesn't matter whether their beliefs are true, valid, or even rational; NPOV requires that you report their beliefs and opinions accurately and dispassionately. Your argument would make it non-NPOV to say that "Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat". Your argument about regulated markets is simply irrelevant; that you make it indicates that you are attempting to push a point of view.

I can't revert you because I follow 1RR, but I encourage you to stop pushing whatever point of view (Libertarian, is it? doesn't matter, it's still not NPOV) you are trying to push and make the statement fairly and accurately represent the actual expressed opinions of the supporters of the amendment, whether or not said opinions make any sense to you or anyone else. Ok? Kelly Martin 17:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I don’t want to silence flat Earth believers in what they say; however, I would like to point out what is said might be biased or flawed based on some reasons. NPOV should address all aspects of the issues no matter how small it is. If someone makes a statement, there can be counter arguments. Wiki doesn’t have section A devoted to supporters and section B for proponents; therefore, the statements of both can be discussed in a fair and even through out the article. So is it not appropriate to have point counter point within the article? Fair question, not trying to troll, but deserving a fair answer and if this is not the case then I will re-re-re-read the NPOV stuff. But if it is allowed then the line that is in debate should stand as somewhat similar to the way I wrote it. Later we should discuss why Love Field only benefits Dallas more than Fort Worth and not the other surrounding communities more or less.--Supercoop 18:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I really do think you need to reread WP:NPOV, as you clearly don't understand what "writing for the enemy" means. You can't remove parts of one party's platform because you think they aren't reasonable. Honestly reporting on one party's point of view is NPOV, provided that all other relevant parties' points of view are also reported honestly and in basically equivalent detail and tone. It is entirely appropriate to have point/counterpoint in the article; what you're doing is emasculating one of the counterpoints because you think it's "inconsistent with the Libertarian point of view" (at least that's what you said in your prior comments). By doing so you are pushing a point of view instead of protecting the neutral point of view. NPOV does not mean "no point of view". Kelly Martin 19:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I should add one more thing: it is not our place, as editors of the encyclopedia, to evaluate the points of view of parties in a dispute that is the subject of an article. Your comment, that you "would like to point out what is said might be biased or flawed based on some reasons", indicates that you dsire to do exactly that: you are evaluating the point of view of one party in the dispute that is the subject of this article. By doing so, you fail to be NPOV. You may *report* on the (published) analyses of others, but you may not provide an analysis yourself. And you certainly may not exclude part of someone else's point of view simply because you find it stupid, wrongheaded, or factually untrue. Our job is to report, not to analyze and certainly not to reach a conclusion as to what is "right" or "correct". Kelly Martin 19:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

As another DFW resident, I would like to point out (as was recently added by me) that there are two other airports in Fort Worth, and that Delta recently pulled out of DFW because they couldn't compete with American there (which limits low-fare flights quite a bit). No overtly subjective stuff in my edit, I hope. drakaan 19:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Current Template

As the repeal debate is currently ongoing, I have added the current events tag to the page. Please leave this on there until the repeal debate is settled. Thanks!  ALKIVAR™ 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

oops, sorry, didn't see this note before I removed the current events tag. As this has been going on for quite a while now (and likely to go on for a lot longer), I really don't think it merits the current events tag, but if you feel otherwise feel free to add it back in. Sortan 05:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the Love Field article, this has been going on since 1992, and there is really no end in sight, so if you insist on the current events tag, it is going to be more or less permanent here. Sortan 14:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• "The Wright Ammendment" itself is by no means a current event; what's current is Southwest Airlines' recent (and rather sudden) media blitz in favor of its repeal. There is apparently some significant movement occuring in Austin on this issue (which is also a fairly new development, this primarily local issue has mostly been debated at the local level until recently).Eaglizard 05:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)