From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sea Launch, North American, Rocketdyne ...

In the History section, I don't think it is WP:DUE to include Sea Launch in this article or at least its prominent placement with its own heading for a single sentence about it. And there is little-to-no mention of the major acquisition of Rockwell's North American Aviation and Rocketdyne, which included the B-1 bomber, rocket engines, etc. The acquisition of Hughes gets a sentence, but not these?  — Archer ( t· c) 22:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • There's nothing wrong adding this info, but source(s) need to be added support it. North American and Rocketdyne fell under Rockwell as I recall. Rocketdyne was sold off to Pratt & Whitney in early 2000s. [1] -Fnlayson ( talk) 22:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm just expressing surprise these significant acquisitions and divestitures were not already mentioned, but somehow Sea Launch was. Yes, both NAA and AJ were both part of what they got from Rockwell, none of which is mentioned in this article. I just think that was a significant acquisition, even if one part was eventually sold later. At least the Santa Susana piece of that is mentioned in the environmental section. Even the Hughes acquisition is mentioned. Boeing also got out of Sea Launch which went into bankruptcy, and in the history of the company it doesn't appear to me to have been significant enough to note in this article (as opposed to History of Boeing, where, by the way, Sea Launch is not mentioned at all). But that's just my opinion.
    I'll give it some more thought and might come back with some proposed prose. Or not ;-).  — Archer ( t· c) 23:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Statistics

The 2023 statistics for Boeing in the financial and employment (I think) sections do not have up-to-date statistics. 2600:1013:B015:774:1DF0:16FE:C576:4653 ( talk) 19:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I only see "Dec. 31, 2022" listed in the Employment tables. So the timeframe should be clear. -Fnlayson ( talk) 19:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

‘Importance’ and ‘Jargon’ flags

@ Fnlayson: Thank you for reviewing my latest edits. The 777X was moved into this ‘Defects and plane crashes’ section as it concerns a defect that delayed the launch of the aircraft by at least four years. It didn’t belong where it was, if you review the recent Edit History. The term ‘blowout’ is used in all the articles linked to in the citations and is industry-standard terminology: e.g. here. If you have a better term, please go ahead and substitute. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 05:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I only added the importance tag for the 777X content. It looks like User:TypistMonkey added the jargon tag. Boeing's Commercial Airplanes division article would be the more fitting article to cover commercial airplanes details. -Fnlayson ( talk) 06:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks, I checked there however there is an article already specifically devoted to the Boeing 777X and IMvHO the defect(s) that have plagued the yet to be released 777X also belong in this article's section (Defects and crashes), as they are very much material to the now established picture of difficulties in the company's compromised manufacturing safety record, and the general impression of dereliction following lawsuits since the merger with Douglas. So for now, I have expanded this paragraph to show the six years of delays in the release of the 777X have been due to safety and technical problems, and linked to the Testing section of the Boeing 777X article, added two citations and taken down the tag. Happy to throw this open to general discussion for consensus if you're adamant. I will also ping User:TypistMonkey re the jargon tag. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 11:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ TypistMonkey: Thanks for your recent cleanups to this article. Re your 'jargon' tag, the self-explanatory term ‘blowout’ of the plug door is used in all the mainstream press articles I have linked to in citations, e.g. here, and is industry-standard terminology: e.g. here. So for now, I have taken down the tag, but if you have a better term, please go ahead and substitute. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 11:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Discovery of door plug, mobile phones and fuselage detritus edit reversions

@ Fnlayson: WP protocol requires that we discuss your edit reversions first here, prior to my raising this as a dispute. I have made good faith edits to create and update this section, and accepted most of your edits where they corrected errors, or improved the article. However, I believe it is material to the safety record of Boeing that was severely damaged by the two MAX 9 crashes, and the recent door plug incident, to mention that the door plug dropped out of the sky, and was later found along with the section of fuselage and two mobile phones, fortunately not landing on anyone’s head or demolishing a house. I agree this page is about the company Boeing, and not an “accident page”, but that doesn’t mean we can’t mention the accidents, even though they are dealt with in more forensic detail further down the WP hierarchy of linked subordinate articles. Will you agree to reinstate mention of the finding of the detritus, or an agreed modification thereof? Chrisdevelop ( talk) 22:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

No, this is a high level corporation article. The details of released objects and debris are out of place in this article. The accident article would be a proper location instead. -Fnlayson ( talk) 22:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I notice you entered {{ citation needed}} in several places in this article, for all of which I sourced citations. Why didn’t you source these yourself, instead of making it someone else's problem? I say this, because if you believe the material adduced regarding found detritus should be placed in a lower level article, why not move it there yourself? Chrisdevelop ( talk) 23:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
You seem to not be assuming good faith towards Fnlayson. Not everyone has the time or resources to fix problems immediately after they discover them, so they add maintenance templates to make others aware of the problems and fix them if they can. That's why the citation needed template exists in the first place. There is nothing wrong with using citation needed templates, and to compare the use of them to somebody else's problem is uncalled for. - ZLEA T\ C 00:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
My time is not less valuable than Fnlayson's, who probably spent as much time continually reverting my edits as they could have spent doing the job themselves. When I see a citation is needed, I research it and place it myself. The only time I ever place a {{ citations needed}} tag is when I cannot find the information myself after looking for it. In this instance, all Fnlayson needed to do was to move the contested edit into the article they said it belonged in, instead of grandstanding. Reversion undoes a lot of work in the twinkling of an eye, so I am not a fan of deletionism. You may also note from the door plug post below, that one of these reversions undid a reversion that corrected the door plug entry I made. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 12:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:Third opinion request filed here: Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements - currently 8th in queue. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 14:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
It's great that you have the time and resources to do research instead of adding citation needed tags as soon as you find unsourced content, but that doesn't give you the right to attack other editors for using citation needed tags. - ZLEA T\ C 17:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
My argument relates to this specific editor who continually reverts instead of making corrections themselves. The activity this generates indicates they have well enough time to find citations, which for something this notable are easy to find, and come at the top level of a Google search. Take a look at their Contribution History: 143,203 edits. That is a lot for someone "without time and resources".
A case in point was the editor's reversion of a substantial contribution I had made, because (quoting from all the sources in the citations) I described the hole in the fuselage as a 'large' - some sources described it as 'gaping' and 'vast', neither of which I used - nevertheless the editor went ahead and reverted my entire contribution as "hyperbole". The editor said the hole in the fuselage was only "door-sized". So to keep the rest of my contribution I then had to undo the reversion manually with copy-edit because other edits had happened in-between, and sustitute 'door-sized' for 'large', which the editor thereafter left alone. The preferable course of action would have been for the editor to make the change from 'large' to 'door-sized' themselves, instead of reverting the entire edit. This is deletionism as already mentioned.
For some reason, you seem to think it is your business to climb in to my dispute with this editor, with frankly, patronizing commentary. Kindly leave it to me and User:Fnlayson to sort out our differences and let them speak for themselves. I have called for a WP:Third opinion and will abide by the finding, whatever that is. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 18:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I cannot just stand by and watch an editor be attacked for normal, constructive editing behavior. For some reason, you seem to not understand that. You have turned this into a discussion about an editor rather than about improving to the article. If you think Fnlayson was wrong to use citation needed tags, bring it up on their talk page. Don't use it to try to discredit their opinion here. If you want to work out your differences with Fnlayson, then you can start by retracting your disparaging comments against Fnlayson and start a more civil discussion about your feeling about their edits on their talk page. If you attack other editors for normal editing behavior, do not expect others to turn a blind eye. - ZLEA T\ C 19:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Fnlayson reverts any additions I made to their Talk page, as is the policy stated in the Notes on that page. The “attack” is all in your mind. And I repeat, Fnlayson are surely able to speak for themselves. Note I am using gender-neutral terms, since I do not know this much detail about the editor. You are climbing in where your intervention is not called for. Leave Fnlayson and the 3rd Opinion Editor to speak for themselves. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 22:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Incivility calls for intervention, whether you like it or not. This is becoming disruptive, so drop the attitude and learn from your mistakes. - ZLEA T\ C 23:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The “disruptiveness” started the moment you inserted yourself into a non-confrontational dispute between Fnlayson and me, in respect of which I have sought WP:3rd opinion. I will abide by whatever the consensus is. Your intemperate intervention however is what has been disruptive. Fnlayson is clearly an experienced editor and they don’t need you to stand up for them. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 23:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
"Why didn’t you source these yourself, instead of making it someone else's problem?" is non-confrontational? I'll let your third party be the judge of that. I'll continue watching this discussion closely, but in an attempt to de-escalate the situation, I will no longer comment on your behavior. Whether or not you are willing to de-escalate with Fnlayson is entirely your decision. - ZLEA T\ C 23:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I “attacked” nobody. It is entirely up to Fnlayson, the 3rd opinion editor and me to speak for ourselves. No-one, least of Fnlayson asked you to chime in here vicariously. Your confrontational rhetoric has been anything but helpful and has no place in the resolution of this disagreement, which was civil until you chimed in. I have already said more than once, I will abide amicably by consensus, even if that is not in accord with my opening position. Seriously, leave us alone. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 23:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Perhaps I did go a bit too hard on you. While I still believe that your reaction to Fnlayson's use of the citation needed template to have been unwarranted, I should have not overreacted in the way I did. - ZLEA T\ C 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 00:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
FWIW, at least some of the reverts relating to the size of the hole were me, not Fnlayson, and it was me that mentioned "door-sized" in an edit summary. I didn't change the description to "door-sized", partly because it isn't a particularly encyclopaedic term, and partly because I feel that any mention of this level of detail is inappropriate for the Boeing article. Not deletionist, just a matter of due weight. Faced with your insistence I let "door-sized" remain, but I still don't believe it is/was necessary here. Rosbif73 ( talk) 20:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for clarifying. In the haze of edits, I did not realise that edit was not Fnlyason’s. Be that as it may, I used ‘door-sized’ because you used it in your reversion text, and so I assumed that would satisfy the challenge. Feel free to substitute another adjective for the hole in the fuselage. I don’t think removal of the hole-size descriptor improves the article, but I do agree with you that a separate article may warrant fleecing some of this content from the Boeing main article. Meanwhile, I don’t see a problem with building this until someone starts the new stub article. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 00:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with Fnlayson and ZLEA that the arbitrary debris is too far down the rabbit-hole for this article about the company. I am pretty sure that this incident will soon merit an article all its own (despite there being no crash or loss of life as such), though media claims of its significance to the company are not really solid enough yet. There might be some leeway in building the stub of that article here before splitting it off, but I think we are not even at that stage yet. Either way, a bit of debris needs more significance than media chit-chat before being added. This is not an easy incident to get our coverage right, so I trust we can tolerate alternative approaches from our colleagues; in particular, Fnlayson is a long-time and highly responsible editor on these aviation pages and I'd advise any complainant to think things through carefully first. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Let’s see what the 3rd opinion comes up with. As I said, I will abide by whatever consensus is reached. There is no place for the invective that has crept into this conversation on the part of a certain other editor. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 22:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure that the WP:3O criteria are met – firstly, there are more than two editors in disagreement, and secondly we didn't have a thorough discussion before you posted the 3O request. It seems to me that consensus is emerging to keep the section brief and give the details elsewhere (be that in the MAX article or the AS1282 article, or in a hypothetical 2024 groundings article depending on how the investigation plays out). Rosbif73 ( talk) 06:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
At the time I lodged this, only two editors were in disagreement. Up to 6 days are allowed before the 3rd Opinion request lapses, and others appear content to abide by one, if it emerges. Be that as it may, I am astonished by such hardline insistence that this information be excised from such a major story, and it now seems to me to have become more a brinkmanship of 'winners and losers' between editors than how to improve this article. It is surely not beneficial to the encyclopedia to withhold from readers the fact that the crucial doorplug, 2 mobile phones and the missing fuselage miraculously landed in people's backyards without killing anyone or demolishing a house. Moreover, there is talk of siphoning this subsection off into a stub article and that being the case, it should be being built to the point where it outgrows this space, as commonly occurs in Wikipedia. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 12:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
It should go without saying that I'll abide by any 3O opinion that may emerge. I'll just point out that we are not talking about "excising" information or "withholding" it from readers, simply about determining whether it is important enough to constitute an improvement to this article (which is about the Boeing company as a whole) or whether it is better left for more detailed articles. Rosbif73 ( talk) 13:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Reversion excised the information completely. The editor who reverted it did not move it to a lower level article. Had they done so, then I would have accepted that. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 14:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The information has been added to Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 § Aftermath, where it provides an appropriate level of detail. It is of no importance whether that was done by the editor who reverted it here or by someone else. Rosbif73 ( talk) 14:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Off-topic discussion
Thank you, but I couldn’t disagree more. My concern has been with the behaviour of certain editors contributing to this page. I am not other editors’ amanuensis, and my time is not less valuable than theirs. Speaking for myself, if I believe a contribution belongs in another article, I move it there myself and leave a courtesy note to the editor who made the contribution either on their talk page or the talk page of the article, or both. I do not engage in edit wars, and they’re not allowed on Wikipedia anyway, yet this came close, had I not stopped undoing repeated reversions of my contribution. These are the opposite of helpful and courteous, and do not WP:AGF.
Reversions or deletions of comprehensive contributions should not in my view be made as the first resort, since they may undo a pile of work just to correct a small part thereof, and can come across as high-handed and borderline contemptuous of the contribution. I use reversion only in the case of vandalism, or when an entire contribution is unsustainable, or where I believe a wrongful reversion has been made of my contribution. This was debated at length here and there was a deeply toxic RFC after an editor deleted an entire Awards table instead of posting a {{ citation needed}} tag at the very least, or finding the source themselves. When one considered that the table had remained unchallenged for 7 years and received 2 million views, it was clearly not in the “likely to be challenged” class such that necessitated its complete disappearance, thereby vacating the possibility of citing sources.
Likewise, peppering an article with {{ citation needed}} tags next to contributions that are unlikely to be challenged can lead to WP:Citation overkill, making it hard for readers to navigate the text. Citation overkill also puts other editors to a great deal of unnecessary work, especially where existing citations may already contain corroborative material, if the challenger took the trouble to read them before posting the {{ cn}} tag. If I believe a citation is needed, I source it and put it there myself. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 00:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I regret having to address this again, but I'll try to not overreact this time. You still seem to be under the impression that only your way is correct in regards to the use of reversions and citation needed tags. Self-righteous behavior is incompatible with Wikipedia, as it inevitably leads to clashes with editors whose contributions do not meet your standards. If you prefer to limit your use of reversions or to add sources as soon as you find unsourced content, that's perfectly fine for you to do. However, collaboration between editors is a lot easier when you recognize that not everyone contributes to the project the same way. - ZLEA T\ C 03:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Arbitrarily deleting another editor’s work that may have taken hours, days or weeks to prepare, is analogous to the class bully who goes around the art room destroying the other kids’ work, or kicking over sandcastles on the beach. Kicking down sandcastles instead of collegially trying to improve them is not “contributing in a different way”. It is the opposite of “collaborative”, and whatever else it assumes, it is not assuming good faith. As for your accusation of self-righteousness, that’s a bit rich considering the way you interposed yourself in the dispute between me and another editor. Let them speak for themselves. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 08:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I'll go with whatever the consensus is here. Until then I have nothing further to add. -Fnlayson ( talk) 00:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Consensus here is now four to one. Subject to any late and overwhelming response via 3O, I think we should all move on. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 05:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Read WP:Consensus. It is not supposed to be a ‘vote’ scoring winners and losers. I have not changed my view that arbitary deletion should not be editors’ first choice, unless the contribution is WP:vandalism. Deleting other people’s good faith contributions instead of reassigning or improving them I consider lazy, bullying and disheartening for the contributor, and its ubiquity is the reason I choose not to write any articles for Wikipedia and instead file them under WP:Requested articles. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 08:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply
While consensus isn't a vote per se, it is generally safe to conclude that if all the other editors contributing to the discussion disagree with a suggested addition, there is no consensus to make the addition. And FWIW, the 3O request was declined [2]. So let's just move on. Rosbif73 ( talk) 09:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Door plug vs. plug door

I do not believe that the object that fell away from the Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 jet is properly called a "plug door" (even if some "reliable" sources might describe it that way). A " plug door" is a type of door. It is meant to be opened and closed for operational reasons (including emergency egress) and uses pressure differential to seal the door when in flight (although it may use some mechanical mechanism in addition).

On the other hand, the part of the plane that has everyone's attention is, instead, a "door plug". Think of it like a doorway plug; that is, a plug meant to block off (or plug) a doorway. The plug is not meant, normally, to be removed, except for exceptional reasons. The plug is not a door. I have seen some sources refer to the plug as a "panel".

The FAA refers to the part that fell and the parts that need inspection as "door exit plugs": [3]. The New York Times calls it a "door plug": [4]. Both of those sources are cited in the paragraph where "door plug" was changed to "plug door". So, I am going to revert that edit and restore "door plug" as the proper that reflects what reliable sources say.  — Archer ( t· c) 06:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed. This had already been corrected, however several reversions by Fnlayson (instead of copy-edits - see above) may have undone this correction. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 09:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
It was not a reversion that restored it. It was likely just a simple mistake due to confusion about the distinction between a door plug and a plug door that even reliable sources appear to be confused about. Please assume good faith.  — Archer ( t· c) 13:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The confusion was originally introduced by me based on media reports I cited, and the error was correctly reverted by User:Fnlayson, however Fnlayson‘s subsequent multiple reversions of entire edits reintroduced the error, so far as I can see going back through the edit history. Anyway, it is correct now, so thank you for spotting and fixing. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 13:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I think you are mistaken, but maybe I've got it wrong. But it doesn't matter. I suggest that you find something else to debate. Just let it go and find something else to be productive with. This haggling over who introduced what is just a waste of everyone's time.  — Archer ( t· c) 13:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
It was originally my misunderstanding that caused the error, and it is good that the door plug issue has been corrected. My point about wholesale reversions remains, in that they can unintentionally revert edits that in some instances may have been originally requested by the reverter, as in this case. There is nothing wrong with making this observation, so your paternalism is uncalled for. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 14:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The more reliable aviations sites use "door plug", e.g. this by FlightGlobal and this by AviationWeek. This should settle the matter. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks and agreed. There is something called a plug door, which on a cursory examination resembles the plane door on the MAX 9, hence the confusion. Chrisdevelop ( talk) 16:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Both types are used in aviation, the difference is in the way the door fits into the frame: a plug door is formed as a tapered plug, a door plug bolts on to a conventional surround. Must be an easy mistake to make if you have only ever come across one of them. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

accidents section is too contemporary

it's not like no Boeing ever crashed before the last few years. 2607:FEA8:AA03:9600:55AE:367A:7BD5:E8D6 ( talk) 08:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

You're right, Boeing aircraft have crashed before the last few years, but none have caused such controversy for the company as the MAX accidents. - ZLEA T\ C 17:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Boeing whistleblower found dead?

Would this be noteworthy to mention in the article somewhere? https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2024/03/12/boeing-whistleblower-dead-john-barnett/ https://time.com/6900123/boeing-whistleblower-john-barnett-found-dead-deposition-safety/ ( Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 12:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

it should be in here, yes Equirax ( talk) 08:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Probably not useful, but interesting and funny

New Far-Right Conspiracy Claims Boeing’s Accidents Are Intentional Doug Weller talk 12:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Interesting, but it’s not the strangest aviation conspiracy theory I’ve seen. I once dealt with a user who claimed that Donald Trump himself was responsible for the 2022 Dallas airshow mid-air collision. - ZLEA T\ C 15:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If I recall correctly, they also claimed that the Commemorative Air Force (formerly known as the Confederate Air Force) was the literal air force of the underground Confederate States of America. - ZLEA T\ C 15:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It has to be read to be believed. - ZLEA T\ C 15:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Wing falling apart - passenger having to notify flight attendants

Hi everyone! I am hoping to add some information to the Boeing page concerning the recent Boeing flight which had to divert after a passenger saw the wing coming apart. This story hasn’t been added to the Wikipedia page yet, as it happened recently. We would add this to the page using the news articles below as sources.

Here are some news sources reporting on the incident: https://kdvr.com/news/local/united-flight-diverts-to-denver-due-to-wing-problem/amp/ https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/boeing-plane-united-airlines-wing-san-francisco-boston-b2499865.html Graceruhl ( talk) 16:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Graceruhl That probably belongs at Boeing 757#Accidents and incidents and/or United Airlines#Accidents and incidents for now. If the incident becomes more widely covered by reliable secondary sources, it may also be given an article of its own. We cannot cover every accident and incident involving Boeing aircraft on this article, unless said accident or incident is relevant to the history of the company itself. - ZLEA T\ C 17:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Intrigue/Conspiracies Section

Would it be useful to have a section devoted to the current conspiracies and intrigue surrounding Boeing? We could highlight both the conspiracies around these Boeing accidents being intentional and the whistleblower being found dead. https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-accidents-far-right-dei-conspiracy/?bxid=61ffffadba71511c13275c6c&cndid=68515061&esrc=MARTECH_ORDERFORM&source=Email_0_EDT_WIR_NEWSLETTER_0_DAILY_ZZ&utm_brand=wired&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_content=WIR_Daily_031624&utm_mailing=WIR_Daily_031624&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl&utm_term=WIR_Daily_Active https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2024/03/12/boeing-whistleblower-dead-john-barnett/ Graceruhl ( talk) 18:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The addition of a "Controversies" section has been discussed in the past (see Talk:Boeing/Archive 2#Advertising article?). Personally, I have no opinion on the inclusion of such a section. However, I'm not sure the conspiracy theories in question, especially the one alleging the crashes were intentional, are notable enough for inclusion even in a general "Controversies" section per WP:UNDUE. - ZLEA T\ C 20:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I've reverted your WP:BOLD addition of the section for now. Given the highly sensitive nature of this incident, we should establish a consensus on how to best cover it. - ZLEA T\ C 05:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There has been significant industry media reporting on Boeing's recent catalogue of failures and the consequent shaking of market confidence (e.g. I saw one industry member reported as saying that the pop-out plug door was "the last straw"). So I think that a section or subsection summarising these lapses and their cumulative effect would be justified. But I am not sure where or how best to place it, and we would need to be careful to keep conspiracy theories and other speculations or side issues out of it. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

History section needs work

The history section needs work. For example, the Origins section seems like a nice overview. The Sea Launch section feels unnecessary. The Corporate headquarters moves is too long. Plus, the MAX issues needs to be mentioned here, either in addition to or instead of in a separate section. I can jump in and work on it... but I wanted to start a conversation here too. RickyCourtney ( talk) 21:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply