Talk:John Smeaton (baggage handler)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 July 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 August 2007. The result of the discussion was merge to 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, on.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2007. The result of the discussion was merge overturned at deletion review.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Smeaton (baggage handler) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Articles for Deletion

This page has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to discuss this prospect, please go Here. Regards, Lynbarn 21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If this page didn't exist, I would have had to create it.Rolf Mayo 20:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This page should stay, it will eventually be expanded but for a story one day old, Smeato is a legend. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 20:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the page should stay. The pints waiting for Smeaton at the Holiday Inn are now over 1200! Good for him! GrotesqueOldParty 19:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. My name is Chloe and I am a law student in Glasgow. First of all I would like to question all the petulent sounding rants that I have read. Why are you so angry? John Smeaton is an ordinary person that did an extra-ordinary thing. What is wrong with him getting a little recognition? Secondly, I can only assume that none of you are anywhere near Glasgow or, for that matter, Scotland. There is an amazing atmosphere of resilience her at the moment. EVERYONE is talking about the attack and, most importantly, the people of Glasgow's response to the attack. Would you rather that nobody celebrated local heroes? I also read somewhere else on this forum that "this is not the stuff of Wikipedia". Well I am sorry but I have seen an awful lot of what can only be described as total crap on Wikipedia since I started looking at it a couple of years ago. John Smeaton is an important figure in an important time so should this not be recognised? If not for the obvious reasons, such as that people will want to look back on this time in the future, then what about for posterity for people in a country in difficult times?

Thank you for your attention

I am Scottish and this is yet another example of people imposing personal views and not realising what Wikipedia is not.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Scottish but I would like to remind everyone that the deletion review is taking place here so if anyone wants to have their say then it should be over there. Saying it here won't count in the final decision. I've rejigged things and tidied the talk page up a bit so it is less... random. (Emperor 00:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

KEEP: When terrorism hits ordinary people the perpetrators believe the effect will support their cause. Showing the details of how this man responded can only help to persuade terrorists that ordinary people will generally respond in such a way as to thwart them. On a parochial level the evidence from this event should dissuade terrorists from attacking Glaswegians or even Scotland. Keeping this entry can only help to reduce terrorist threats - deleting it would anonymise and conceal the sort of response they do not want.

The problem is that people in the AfD debate were trying to assume that Wikipedia was making some sort of moral judgement by suggesting this article should be deleted. It certainly is not a moral judgement; it's ultimately about whether this page is appropriate in an encyclopedia that'll exist for the long term.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete: He is a media fad, while there is a debate on the merits of people in 50 years time asking "Who was that man that was involved in the 2007 Glasgow Airport attack?" I would say that can be answered by giving his name and what he did on the attack page and no more. The attention he is getting is no more than any other net driven fad. This is not to detract from what he did but to say he deserves a page for it is a different matter.

The discussion is closed. If you think there is grounds for deletion beyond those already debated, then you should relist for Afd. Expressing a keep or delete !vote here serves little purpose. Rockpocket 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John or Jon?

Which is the correct spelling: John or Jon? Because if you look at this video at 00:02, his name is spelled "Jon", yet everywhere else I've seen his name, it's spelled "John." -CrookedAsterisk (contribs • talk) 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not appearing at T in the Park

I read in The Sun (I don't buy that newspaper but I read it at work) that John Smeaton is not appearing at T in the Park due to security concerns, and this is not stated in the article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Kerr?

The thing which really cemented John's celebrity was pulling the injured Mike Kerr away from the burning jeep without seeming to worry about his own safety. How come there's no mention of this anywhere?

I wasn't aware that he'd done that - do you mean it's just not in the article, or not mentioned elsewhere either? Regards,Lynbarn 10:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, have a guardian link http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2118762,00.html

Another day, another paean to the man: yesterday's contribution came from Michael Kerr, whose own efforts at tackling one of the would-be terrorists were rewarded with a couple of smashed teeth, a broken leg and a supporting role in a worldwide phenomenon henceforth known as Smeatomania. "I flew at the guy a few times but he wouldn't go down. Then he punched me so hard he knocked my teeth out and sent my flying so hard I broke my leg," Kerr said with a commendable lack of machismo. "I landed next to the burning Jeep and thought it was going to explode. That was when John Smeaton dragged me to safety. He's a hero."

In other interviews John says a woman from security called him to help her move Kerr.83.100.136.122 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What did Smeaton actually do to Kafeel Ahmed?

He gave him one kick in the groin area, as far as I'm aware.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a name for the phenonomon?

It seems like one thing terrorist attacks are incredibly good at is taking people who were around by chance and elevating their social status based on the way they reacted. Smeaton says most people would have done what he did that day and I for one believe him, but he has this whole celebrity thing going because he was there and did what he did.

Elsewhere Rudy Giuliani is now a presidential candidate thanks largely to the boost he got from being the person to clean up after 9/11. I'm sure there are other examples but they don't come to mind.

If not I think someone should write an academic paper on the subject. Get the message across that terror attacks are counterproductive. 83.100.136.122 19:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Man of the hour"?Tomgreeny 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asked By ITV News

Quote Correction.

Asked by ITV News what his message to terrorists was, he said: "Glasgow doesn't accept this. Thats Just Glasgow; we'll set aboot ye."

I happen to be Glaswegian... I watched the interview in question John clearly says: "Glasgow doesn't accept this. This is Glasgow; we'll set aboot ye."

Would it be possible to reference the interview from youtube?

Georgeallison 16:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the Youtube extract, but I'm sure you're right, however, the quote on the wikipedia article is not a quote of what he said, but a quote of what he was reported as having said, hence the [Sic] added to the quote in my version. I'm not sure of the wiki guidelines for quoting from Youtube, but I strongly suspect that due to the copyrighted nature of many of the extracts hosted on Youtube, it would not be permitted. I will revert the quote to the writen reference, and direct others to join this discussion. Regards, Lynbarn 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name...

Is there a reason this article has a disambiguation marker on it? Is there another John Smeaton with an article? If not, there should NOT be a parenthetical (baggage handler) after the name. If there is another John Smeaton, then the article should have a see-also redirect prominently at the top... See WP:NC and WP:DAB and WP:NC(P) for more information...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Yes, see also redirect now in place. Regards, Lynbarn 09:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now that the hype about John Smeaton has calmed down

Both the people who wanted this article deleted and the anons/new users who wanted this to be kept are no longer paying attention to this article. The anons and new users will not come back in anything like large numbers since the media is no longer making a fuss about him, so if this were considered for deletion again, we'd have to take into account that John Smeaton the baggage handler passes WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. The only real problem here is WP:BLP1E. Will he still be significant in a year's time; is this unsuitable as a biographical article because he is notable only for one thing? It seems like a WP:COATRACK article to some extent. What do others think?-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean - this isn't really a biography of John Smeaton's life. It's a description of how he acted bravely in a terrorist attack, and the media and public's response to that. This article currently seems like a pseudo-biography.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And here we are using a made up essay to try and delete something, typical! Face it you lost the AFD and remeber "YOU CAN'T DELETE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA INTO EXISTENCE" ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being premature. I guarantee you that it will be big news again in late December / early January. 85.210.6.34 18:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge overturned, now he has a biography again

See this DRV.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I support this. Looking at the headlines from yesterday, there was an ovation at the Labour Party conference in Bournemouth exclusively for John Smeaton and his act of bravery, not a general ovation for all persons involved in thwarting the attack (although they were praised). John Smeaton was mentioned specifically by name, unlike the police and fire personnel who attended. I would say given the continuing press coverage of John Smeaton and corresponding lack of coverage of the event that established him, he is deserving of his own article. He is another Todd Beamer or Wesley Autrey in that his notability extends timewise beyond that of the event which defines his notability, even if he is still notable for one specific incident. 192.18.1.36 13:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And if this ever came up for AfD again, I'd suggest a strong keep.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meeting the Queen

BBC source.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is controversial, so...

It needs discussion before we go steaming in, as it does not present JS in a positive light. There is a report that JS has exaggerated his part in the incident, and that there are others who had a bigger role in the incident, yet did not get the QGM. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't appear in a single bit of CCTV footage from the day, but everyone else who have claimed to have helped on that day do. I don't think I need to say anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.50.156 (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You have seen every single bit of CCTV footage from the day ?

Mr Smeaton said he was disappointed others had changed their story and insisted his version of events would be borne out by the CCTV footage.- Telegraph

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel thatthis should be included in wikipedia as an "It was reported that..." item. I first saw this on the BBC news site this morning. The whole notability for the item is predicated on the publicity John's involvement generated - it should therefore cover the negative as well as the positive. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)