Talk:D. B. Cooper in popular culture

Don Draper

A panelist on The Nightly Show (Comedy Central, 14 May 2015) expressed the theory that Don Draper, the leading character on Mad Men, is D.B. Cooper. Jrgilb (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Lost

"The ABC show LOST which deals with castaways from an commercial airplane crash, features a character named Anthony Cooper. He is about the same age as Cooper would be now and is a con man."

Can someone back up this statement? I've never watched Lost, but I'm sure it doesn't include a hijacking. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no hijacking; the line in the article doesn't mention a hijacking, either. In Lost, Locke's father is named Anthony Cooper, that's all. The connection to D.B. Cooper, involving a jet airplane and the last name Cooper, seems pretty tenuous to me, though. TJRC (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a stretch and that comment should probably be removed. If you look at Anthony_cooper#Anthony_Cooper it notes the source of the character's name: "Anthony Cooper is a con man, John Locke's biological father ... He is named after Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, the mentor of the philosopher John Locke." Dingle1999 (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Without a Paddle

The film 'Without a Paddle' is mentioned twice. Dchurch24 (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Add into main D.B. Cooper article

What are people's views as to whether this article should be merged into the D.B. Cooper article? --Gramscis cousin (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why this page should exist separately from the main article. Larry M. 30 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.46.250 (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is pointless having this as a seperate page it would make the main article better by having this added to itBrydo16 (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd merge it. Ladydayelle 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and put to bed in the main article. See Talk:D._B._Cooper#Merger_proposal The clear consensus was not to merge. TJRC (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It makes me LOL that everyone on the main page doesn't want to merge, while everyone discussing on the pop culture page does. A little bit of p***s envy maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradenkeith (talk • contribs) August 2, 2008

This is one reason why it's a good idea to initiate a merge proposal with the {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} templates. That directs discussion to a single page, the proposed destination page's talk page. You want a single discussion instead of two separate ones, and it should be on the destination article's talk page, so the discussion is more accessible in the event the merge goes through. TJRC (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Prison Break

In the section named "Film, TV, and radio", Prison Break, in which D. B. Cooper appeared, is mentioned in two separated lines. Should these two lines be merged?

“ The television show Prison Break featured a character who, after initially denying accusations, eventually admitted that he was D. B. Cooper. The character, played by Muse Watson, went by the name of Charles Westmoreland. According to the show, the amount of money he buried underneath a silo totaled approximately $5,000,000. ”

“ Prison Break, a TV show, revolves around a brother breaking his sibling out of jail through clever methods and being prepared for anything. One key is bribing people-- an old man is in the prison who Scofield believes is D.B. Cooper, and can tell him where the money was hidden. The second season takes place as the escaped prisoners use all their powers to find the treasure first. ”

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest for Truth (talk • contribs) 16:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Less editing with a hatchet, please

This article was the subject of an AfD discussion. The result was "keep," but it was apparent from the discussion that there was substantial disagreement about the contents of the article. I am requesting that we proceed carefully with deletions, and obtain consensus by discussion. Massive deletions are inappropriate. WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. TJRC (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just restored one particular one, where the association is unmistakable. DGG (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... That's this one, right? I'm not going to revert without discussion, but this is one that I would prefer to omit. This falls, I think, into the category "Works that have similarities to the Cooper case, but that do not within the work itself directly refer to the Cooper case" in my comment below. I would not include this unless there's some outside source that makes the connection; just as I would not include the Journeyman episode I referred to in my comment. TJRC (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions for inclusion criteria

We've got a lot of cooks here, and maybe it would be a good idea to discuss some criteria for what should stay and what should go. These are just my ideas, not commandments, and I welcome discussion.

• News or other media coverage of D.B. Cooper should not be included. This isn't a reference to Cooper in popular culture; it's just coverage of a factual event. We don't treat factual books about the hijacking as IPC; for the same reason, we should not treat other factual works, even if they're TV shows (like In Search Of or Unsolved Mysteries).
• Works that have similarities to the Cooper case, but that do not within the work itself directly refer to the Cooper case, should be included if and only if they are backed by cited references that draw the connection between the work and the hijacking.

Cases in point: For example, until today, there was a mention of a Journeyman (TV series) episode. I've seen that, and it is oh-so-obviously based on D.B. Cooper; in fact, that show got me interested in the Cooper case again and drew me into editing the D.B. Cooper parent article. But, nonetheless, my observation of the similarities is WP:OR, no matter how obvious I think they are. If there's some citable source that says the episode was inspired by the Cooper case, maybe it should be re-added. But absent that, I'm fine with it staying out.

As a counter example, the reference to Dale Cooper, the FBI agent in the TV show Twin Peaks, was deleted. I have no problem with the deletion, as that was not backed up by any reference. On the other hand, I re-added it, with a reference (and re-worded; as originally stated, the Dale Cooper name and appearance were based on D.B. Cooper; I did not find (and would not expect to find) any reference that claims the appearance was part of that).

• Works that on their own terms refer to D.B. Cooper are often self-supporting. It's a pointless exercise to include a footnote that just points to the work itself. Such works may remain, if otherwise worth noting, without a reference.
• That being said, not every work that refers to Cooper is worth including. While it's only an essay, WP:POPCULTURE has some useful things to say here, one of which is that "passing references to" Cooper are not a good basis for inclusion. Unless the Cooper reference is significant to the plot of the work, it's not appropriate to include it.
• Again from WP:POPCULTURE, "Exhaustive lists are discouraged." Not every song about Cooper, for example, needs to be included.

These are just my off-the-cuff ideas. Anyone else? TJRC (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Prose style?

Anyone object if I start in to rewrite this more in a prose style? I think each section lends itself to this approach.

Books:

¶ 1: the two novels specifically about Cooper;

¶ 2: appearance of the character in novels or stories;

¶ 3: Skyjacker's Guide

Film, TV, and radio:

¶ 1: films;

¶ 2: TV shows;

¶ 3: other (just the Twin Peaks reference, I think).

Music:

¶ 1: songs actually about Cooper;

¶ 2: Songs significantly referring to Cooper;

¶ 3: The band named D.B. Cooper.

Other:

¶ 1: D.B Cooper Days (this could probably be expanded);

¶ 2: Cartoons (I'd suggest cutting the Dilbert reference, actually).

None of this suggests any change in what works should remain. But I must admit, I'm less bothered by, say, a character in an episode of News Radio if it's just one mention in a catch-all sentence, rather than an individual bullet item.

What say you, good people? TJRC (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on D. B. Cooper in popular culture. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304043823/http://epguides.com/newsradio/guide.shtml to http://epguides.com/newsradio/guide.shtml

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Epithet

I see that the link to epithet strives to make a difference between competing meanings of the word, but I instantly gravitated to the derogatory usuage when I saw "epithet" in this article.

Is there any published research which persuasively argues that "epithet" can mean what is purports to be in this article, and not a derogatory word or phrase? 47.137.184.131 (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)