Talk:Stewart International Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION 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.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hudson Valley, a project dedicated to improving articles related to the Hudson Valley of New York. If you would like to participate and help, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Daniel Case (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Alleged UFO Sightings

The close proximity to New York would also allow for the surreptitious placement of aliens as New York City cab drivers (just kidding <G>). Actually, I'm probably better off goring my own oxen by suggesting their use as quants on Wall Street. Eddieuny 5 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)

[edit] References

I did site the information about the shuttle landing at Stewart International Airport. It is the latest reference in the References section. Red1530 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I removed the tag. Daniel Case 05:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artical Merger

The article about the ANG should be merged with the Stewart International article under its own section. Red1530 23:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Stewart ANG is a legally separate entity that uses the same facilities. Enough could be written about it as itself and as inheritor of the former AF base to justify a separate article. Would you try to fit this article into one about the air base?
I could take some nifty pics of C-5's outside the hangar for such an article from Route 17K, though. Daniel Case 01:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Since several weeks have passed since this discussion (tel quel) began without any real effort to promote the move by red1350, I am removing the tag from both articles. Daniel Case 03:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 9/11 conspiracies

Conspiracy theories do not belong on a web site that is suppose to contain "facts". The "9/11 conspiracies" section contains references to 9/11 conspiracy web sites presenting wild theories as fact. I don't think this belongs on Wikipedia.

These are the two references
^ Animation showing military precision of flight paths, retrieved from team8plus.com January 26, 2007.
http://team8plus.org/news.php?item.32
^ Dewdney, A.K.; September 2003; "Operation Pearl"; retrieved from physics911.ca January 26, 2007.
http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2


Since they were added on the some day, it was most likely one person who added them who thinks the wild conspiracy theories of 9/11 are true, but which are not supported by any evidence or facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.191.126 (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
I added them because they are part of the body of knowledge about the airport. They are (or were) clearly labeled as conspiracy theories, and written in a manner that makes clear they're simply beliefs; it's up to the reader to decide whether there's something there or not, or if they're even interested. We have many articles devoted solely to conspiracy theories; they have a place on Wikipedia. Daniel Case 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Add any info about Stewart Airport being part of conspiracy theories to a general article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is an article that should contain facts about the airport, not elaborations on wild conspiracy theories. Plus you used as a source, articles from a conspiracy theory website which use speculation, exaggeration's, rumors, falsehoods and blatant lies as evidence! You should be embarrassed for having done such a thing. I mean really, a conspiracy theory website as a source?!?!?!?! Thats disgusting!
It was a source to prove the existence of such theories, not endorse them. It's similar to the way we would link to, say, the National Enquirer's site to back up an assertion in an an article that something The section in question used language such as "claim", "such people believe" that made it abundantly clear the article was merely reporting on the existence of conspiracy theories. Only the sort of person who refuses to actually create a Wikipedia account, or even sign their posts so they can hide behind an IP in Boston and launch borderline personal attacks against someone who uses their own name would possibly confuse such reportage with stating conspiracy theories as fact.
Also, I merely called attention to what was there,
Exactly what I did. Funny, that.
the admin agreed with my sentiment and he deleted it, which in my opinion is the right thing to do.
It wasn't IMO, but I've lost that battle for now.
If you want to make mention of the aiport being part of conspiracy theories, say something as such: "Stewart Airport is part of 9/11 conspiracy theories, for more infomation on these conspiracy theories see this article" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.191.126 (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Now that's a useful suggestion. You should have limited your post to just this rather than engaging in such emotional outbursts

However, I would be letting readers down if I failed to detail how, exactly, Stewart fits into those theories ("facts" about the airport), which is what you want this article to do.

Tell you what ... since Popular Mechanics ran an article debunking at least part of the Flight 93 shootdown theory, I'll put a shorter version back in, mention that it has been partially discredited (with a source), and you'll go home and never darken the door od this talk page, at least not as an anon, again. Deal? Daniel Case 13:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Crashes

Should to recent crashes near the airport be mentioned in the article[1] [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red1530 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There was only one. But yes, I have added it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link Title

105th Air Cargo Wing link should be 105th Airlift Wing. Lineagegeek (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)