Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Orlando incident[edit]

The Orlando incident was removed from the article with the edit summary "not related to the groundings, already discussed at talk page".

  1. I cannot find anywhere in the talk page, nor in the archive this issue being discussed
  2. The text removed clearly stated that "The engine problems were determined to have been unrelated to the cause of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes that brought about the grounding of the aircraft." That does not mean that it is "not related to the grounding". In my opinion, any problems with the plane that are discovered while it is grounded is notable for inclusion — regardless if the problem was related to the crashes that brought about the grounding. It was included under a section heading titled "Additional incidents", and I think that's appropriate.

Banana Republic (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure which bit of "unrelated" is not clear. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I was probably wrong about the topic being discussed here but I still recall there had been attempts to include it, and they were refused. But the fact it is unrelated to the topic of the article still holds true. I do not see why should "any problems" be included. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This edit was the only other refused attempt that I was able to find. That attempt at inclusion was indeed misplaced. The incident should be included in a separate section. Banana Republic (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
With public confidence in the airplane so low, I cannot fathom the grounding being lifted before the engine problems are resolved. Therefore, while the engine problems are not related to the crashes that caused the grounding, they are related to the grounding, and should be mentioned under a heading such as "additional incidents". Banana Republic (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that "engine issues" are part of the cause for the grounding. MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The engine issues were discovered during the grounding, so they were obviously not the issues that triggered the grounding. However, that does not mean that they are unrelated to the grounding. The grounding will not be lifted unless the engine issues are resolved. Banana Republic (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The engine issue was found in flight so could not be related to the grounding, do you have a reliable source that the aircraft will remain grounded even if the software is fixed. Certainly the Boeing website says the grounding will be lifted when the software is released, no mention of engines. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Boeing did not issue the grounding order, so they cannot make a determination that once the software problem is fixed the grounding will be lifted (but they can certainly hope that will happen). The engine issue was discovered during the grounding of the plane, so it is related to the grounding, even though it may not be related to the events that triggered the grounding. Banana Republic (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
So still no reliable source then. And the particular aircraft was not actually grounded when the engine problem was found, hence why it was flying. So without a reliable source this cannot be added to the article so perhaps we should close this now as no consensus to add, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
There should be no dispute that the airplane was grounded. As written in the removed paragraph, Although the 737 Max was grounded for passenger flights, airlines were allowed to fly the grounded planes without passengers.
There is a Bloomberg Press article from April 17 saying that "At least three airlines have conducted inspections on the grounded Boeing Co. 737 Max". This means that the issue is broader than just Southwest Airlines. Banana Republic (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
They use the ground time to perform some maintenance. The grounding is related to the MCAS, not the engines. Somewhere there is a 737MAX flight attendant who catched the flu.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Banana Republic, you seem to be assuming there is some kind of systemic "engine problems" (your quote), but you have not provided a source which says such problems exist in the MAX fleet, which is the clear implication of your comment. Occasional engine problems happen on all types of aircraft. This problem just happened to occur on a grounded MAX during a ferry flight. The incident might be of mild or moderate interest to people following the MAX saga, but it does not seem essential to an encyclopedia article about the grounding. You make a very large undocumented, unverified leap when you claim: The grounding will not be lifted unless the engine issues are resolved. If another engine problem occurs during a ferry flight, then a brief mention of multiple such inflight problems or multiple unscheduled ferry landings caused by engine problems might be worthy of inclusion, but should not be linked to the grounding, unless sources explicitly say the grounding will not be ended until engine problems are fixed. DonFB (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Point taken. We'll have to wait and see what comments, if any, the FAA will make regarding this incident.
Regardless, I think it should be noted in the article that the planes are grounded only for passenger flight service, but are still allowed to fly without passengers, and show this Orlando incident as an example. Obviously, it the planes were grounded under all circumstances, this incident would not have happened. Banana Republic (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
There is brief mention of ferry flights in the "In flight effect" subsection of the article. DonFB (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Didn't notice that. The "In-flight effect" section is for planes that were in the air when the grounding took effect. I therefore moved the sentences in question to the US response within the timeline to say that although grounded for passenger service, the FAA still allowed planes to be flown without passengers. Banana Republic (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

But why have you added this not notable unrelated incident again when there is no consensus to add it? WikiHannibal (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
It was included in a single sentence as an example of flights that were allowed to take place in spite of the grounding of the plane. You cannot say it was not notable when there was plenty of coverage of the incident that took place during the flight. Banana Republic (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, coverage does not mean encyclopedic material. As it seems you edit only ocassionally (nothing wrong with that), here are a few links you might find useful in this context: see for example WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ("While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.") and WP:TOOMUCH. On what is best to include and what not in similar articles, see WP:AIRCRASH. I also found where the engine was discussed - at Talk:Boeing 737 MAX#Engine Issues; sorry for the initial confusion. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is for routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities. I don't think engine problems are routine, and certainly not for a plane that is grounded.
  2. WP:TOOMUCH is obviously subjective and is not policy. I can't see how the inclusion of a single sentence would be too much
  3. I don't see how the sentence is question is not in conformance with WP:AIRCRASH. Engine failure is certainly "serious damage to the aircraft".
Banana Republic (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I tried to show links to improve your editing but you misinterptet them: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is not only for what you think, you omitted the "for example" part of For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports..., and the general idea I quoted above also holds true; Your quote "serious damage to the aircraft" applies to accidents, not incidents (The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport); incidents should be included only if they resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry; turing off an engine overheating due to debris is not serious damage, not an accident. This is my last comment on this topic, as it seems a waste of time. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. I don't think my omission of the words "for example" changes the meaning of the fragment that follows the two words. I can assure you that it was not my intention to change the meaning.
  2. WP:AIRCRASH does not make a distinction between accidents and incidents. To quote (hopefully in full context) "Accidents or incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if: (emphasis added)
However, it won't change the consensus that the inclusion of the incident in the article should only happen if and when the FAA makes a statement that the planes cannot fly again until the issues with the engines that were discovered in this incident are resolved. I just wanted to be on record that I don't think I misquoted anything.
It appears to me that the lack of consensus for inclusion of the incident is not based on policy. It is based on the opinion that because the engine issue that was the cause of the incident had nothing to do with the accidents that caused the grounding, it therefore does not belong. Banana Republic (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Time to close this and to drop the stick, clearly no consensus to mention engine failures in this article in any form, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.
Looks like we are slipping down the pyramid and not focusing on the issues. Per WP:TALKNO, please stay in the top 3 sections. Banana Republic (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the "Orlando incident" is not related to the groundings. I see no reason to include this information in this article. Regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

As a See also[edit]

This edit, along with its edit summary "Four editors refused your addition as unrelated to the groundings, and for the third time you are trying to add it??" seems to me like a grudge. Now that the incident has been accepted as notable, I don't see any reason not to include it in the article under the "See also" section. Since the incident occurred to a grounded plane, it is obviously related to the grounding article. If no other editor agrees that it should be listed under the "See also" section, then I won't re-insert it into the section.
However, if and when the FAA declares that the resolution of the engine issues was a factor in the decision to lift the grounding (or if the FAA will decide that the resolution offered by the manufacturer is insufficient for lifting the grounding), it will be fair game to re-add the incident into the article (and in a much more prominent location than in the "See also" section). Banana Republic (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Article lead section[edit]

Shencypeter, I know that your many recent edits to the lead section of this article are all done in good faith. However, some of the phrasing needs improvement, I believe. Accordingly, I'll be making some changes that I think will make the lead better still. I hope we can come to agreement on all the changes we both make. DonFB (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

DonFB,Thanks and noted. The passenger deaths are an unfortunate consequence of the crash, so I have taken the liberty to prefer euphenisms wherever possible. The words "kill" seem a little strong to me. Shencypeter (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
i.e. 3000 people died in the 9-11 attacks, not the attacks killed 3000 people Shencypeter (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

DonFB In the lead section no other names were mentioned; not Dennis Muillenberg or any of the FAA officials. Why must you revert the mention of Donald Trump——how is the White House not representative of his actions? Shencypeter (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I added his name, didn't revert it. However, I am fine with not mentioning his name. For the sake of accuracy, I think it is better not to characterize the matter as an "order" of the White House--technically, the "order" to the airlines is issued by the FAA, and the sources don't say the President issued an "order" to anyone. Obviously, the Pres and FAA director conferred, and the decision resulted from their discusson. I think the first time that aspect is mentioned, the sentence could simply end: "and grounded its planes on March 13." I really see no reason to repeat the "White House" wording in the very next sentence, where we say the FAA had new information. The important issue is that the U.S. government made a decision, belatedly. From your comment, I'm not sure if you want to mention Trump's name, or you don't want to. If we do give his name, I think "announced" is an accurate description. DonFB (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
It would be great to summarise sections as advised in WP:LEAD: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. I usually trim down the lead by moving every referenced statement to the relevant section, then summarise each section.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the initial resistance to your edits, DonFB, but you can see that your replacement of my synonyms for groundings (restriction, ban, prohibition) into repeated statings of groundings, had broken the flow of the paragraph and has been completely undone. Oh well! Let’s see how the article evolves as we try to mention Dennis Muillenberg in both his initial confidence to the eventual acknowledgment of the system, since all we’re doing as Wikipedians are to incorporate sourceable knowledge from the inter webs. Shencypeter (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Shencypeter - Regarding your recent edit to the lede, please see: WP:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Euphemisms. Thanks. DonFB (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

DonFB, with all due respect please explain your microedits to make the lead section "better" -- Everything has been edited to your preferred writing style. Just as you argue that died and killed are concise and to the point, why would you undo other people's work in phrasings such as "...was subject to grounding." which is PERFECTLY FINE the way it was. May I remind you that this article is written in American English, and it can use a little more sentence structure and diction than Simple English? This is a shared community space and you are taking ownership of it. My experience here has been somewhat frustrating and counterproductive. "Welcome To Wikipedia..." 13:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I made the edit you're referring to. Could provide a diff? DonFB (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
DonFB the only redundancy and wordiness you accept are the ones you added. Everything in the first paragraph is implied to have happened on March 11, but you have a compulsion to begin every sentnce with "Also on March 11" as if it were missing information. You think readers need help doing the math "in the next two days" between March 11 and March 13, even though March 13 is explicitly stated later. So you kept this transition, but you decided that to reach an agreement is unnecessary in the US grounding. Paragraphs have a continious flow and is not intended to be read one sentence at a time. If it were the case you might turn this article into bullet point. Imagine the edits you would make to the September 11 attacks. You would enjoy reintroducing the date for everything that happened on that day. Shencypeter (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The info I added is not redundant, but informative. I don't agree with you that "Everything in the first paragraph [actually, the second paragraph in the section] is implied to have happened on March 11." That's a very big and unjustified assumption you're making on behalf of readers. Furthermore, as good practice, an encyclopedia article should not rely on implying important information to readers. The article should explicitly state information, not imply it. On specifics, it is important to inform readers the actual date when China grounded its planes and that it was the first government to take the action. You objected to including the date of that event "as if it were missing," but, in fact, it was missing after your edits. The date is important encyclopedic information and should not be omitted. However, I actually think the phrase "Also on March 11" is a little awkward, and I am actively considering how to make an edit to improve the text, while retaining the date. The phrase "in the next two days" gives readers clear, upfront information about the timeline of these events, on their way to reading further and learning exact dates when events occurred. Yes, good writing should have an agreeable flow, but sentences are, in fact, read one at a time. It's not possible to read multiple sentences simultaneously. The lead section now generally follows your recent revision, but you are objecting to changes that are relatively small and, I think, quite reasonable. Wikipedia edit pages used to have a reminder on them for people who participate here. You can see the reminder here: Note, especially, the sentence in italics. Everyone who edits here should keep it in mind. It's good we can have a discussion, but try to avoid sarcasm, as you evinced in your closing. DonFB (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
DonFB, I have rearranged the "In the next two days" sentence after all mentions of March 11. Now we have three sentences in a row beginning March 11, not including the topic paragraph. Since you have a more senior status in Wikipedia editing, please suggest how we can reduce the unnecessary mentions of March 11. It's my fault for editing and little "Talking." We have the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems as a precedent guide as to how this article will evolve in the future. Shencypeter (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019[edit]

@DonFB: The Grounding section already covers in much detail the sequence of events leading to the grounding, including *cough* Donald Trump. In my latest brevity edit I didn't remove any information, we connected the FAA in context instead of inserting a next day sentence between. Why would you undo the brevity edits made by me and Marc_Lacoste to the way the article was written a month ago. *whoosa* It is implied that airlines and regulators grounded the plane; otherwise gravity would down them. — by Shencypeter (talk · contribs) 07:26, 23 May 2019 UTC

I can't tell what, precisely, you object to in the current version. Try to be specific about what you think should be added or subtracted, so we can have a productive discussion. DonFB (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi @DonFB:, if you just paste your preferred top: ce over ours ., it is a revert disguised as a revision, and we have a problem. Diffs:
  • current page vs our edit: [[1]]
  • current page vs your older top:ce [[2]]

Shencypeter (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

You have not read too carefully if you don't see revisions, but you do seem to be making a case for infallibility of "ours"--slightly at odds with how the site works. Specific suggestions, as I requested, would be more useful than blanket defense of "ours". DonFB (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC
No Don, you have to explain why you undid my revision before I defend my changes.
The Boeing 737 MAX was grounded [by whom?] [weak passive voice]

globally from March 10, 2019 after two deadly [not needed, hurts brevity]

crashes within five months had [don't use past perfect tense, not needed and hurts brevity]

claimed 346 lives [killed is better for brevity] ["claimed...lives": drama goes in tabloids, not here] [fails to state 'all']

on board Lion Air Flight 610 on October 29, 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10, 2019. Ethiopian Airlines grounded the aircraft from day one [awkward, ambiguous and silly; how many days does the crash have? Use the date and specify 1st to ground]

of the crash. The Civil Aviation Administration of China ordered a nationwide grounding [fails to state 1st regulator]

on March 11, and was followed [belongs in sentence after FAA defense on same day]

by international [misleading way to signify worldwide scope; Europe probably only "international" regulator; all others are "national"]

regulators and airlines in the next days [how many? five? eleven? ans: two].

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Boeing defended the aircraft's airworthiness on March 11, saying [irresponsible, egregiously false combined attribution of upcoming FAA quote; Boeing said "safe"]

no data was given "to draw any conclusions or take any actions". The FAA grounded the MAX citing new evidence from the accident investigations on March 13.[what does this mean? date of new evidence? date of grounding? inexcusably ambiguous, muddies a vital piece of information]

In short: sloppy, careless, ambiguous, incomplete, inaccurate and poorly styled--for the sake of "brevity".
I rest comfortably knowing that my improved version will be stable for the next four days.... :-) DonFB (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


The current text is misleading as regards the FAA grounding and Trumps announcement of it. It is a case of ignoring multiple sources that state that Boeing CEO called Trump assuring him of safety and that then the FAA delayed. This puts a different light on Trumps involvement. I am editing to improve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The editors of this page seem to be overly deferential to both Boeing and Trump. The story is not good for either of them. The FAA does not come out well either since it apparently bowed to political pressure with the initial decisions not to ground and then having the grounding decided by Trump on presumably political grounds and not technical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Article is not misleading. FAA issued "Continued Airworthiness" certification notification on March 11, day before Boeing phone call to Trump on March 12. FAA already was supporting continued flights before the call. DonFB (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear DonFB, what you say is not supported by the record. The news article was dated on the 12'th but the call was on the 11'th. I am undoing your deletion. Please come back to the talk page instead of starting an edit war. The record is mixed about Trump's involvement and I think that a balanced article should reflect that. Not just positive things about Trump and Boeing, but a balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You said: "The news article was dated on the 12'th but the call was on the 11'th."
The source you cited is:
The source shows:
03/12/2019 03:49 PM EDT
The text of the source says,
"Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg reassured President Donald Trump Tuesday that the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft is safe, the company confirmed."
"Tuesday" was March 12.
The FAA issued a "Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community" on March 11:
DonFB (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As a current event article is difficult to maintain because it took only three days to ground the aircraft. Reporters get to publish one story item at a time and this Wikipedia article would cite hundreds of them before the restrictions are lifted against the plane. I had specifically opposed mentioning any names in the lead, as it is a summary of the entire article. Just as no regulator is named in grounding the plane in China, the names of Donald Trump and Dennis Muillenberg seem less noteworthy here. I was grossly offended that Trump's tweets about complex airplane systems or his suggestion to rebrand the whole plane once appeared in the lead; we should be quoting Captain Sullenberger and not a random, unprofessional rant on Twitter. Yes, the US had flip-flopped its policy to ground the plane on Wednesday, and so did Muilenberg -- initially asserting the planes were safe, then acknowedged that MCAS playd a role. Too much information! Shencypeter (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I now understand your position regarding names; I could not tell from your previous post if you did or did not want to mention any names. It's true the article does not give names of officials in other countries. My take is this: because the plane is made and certified in the U.S., the decision by U.S. officials to ground it and eventually unground it is very influential and will basically give other countries the ok to resume flying (even though some other countries/groups will also make their judgement). Therefore, it's appropriate and encyclopedic, I believe, to give a little more detail about the decision-making in the U.S., because that's where the airplane comes from. Furthermore, of course, our personal opinions about the president (or about anybody) cannot influence our decision as editors whether to include such encyclopedic information (wp:NPOV). So, I think it's quite ok to mention Trump in the lead for those reasons, although Muilenburg does not have to be mentioned in the lead--but we can certainly name him in the body of the article, since he's the Boeing chief, and this article is all about the grounding of the plane his company makes. DonFB (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
But I don't agree it's too much information to describe the fact that U.S./FAA/Boeing at first would not ground, then decided to ground. That's a vital part of this whole story and would be wrong not to include it. DonFB (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Only positive things about Muilenburg and Trump are written here. DonFB is correct that the call was on Tuesday, not Monday. But it did happen. Why not mention it as many readers would find it germane. Note that there are very many reports of it in mainstream places. Also don't forget that Boeing gave $1M to Trump's inauguration. Maybe that also should be mentioned. Finally, it is also a fact that many members of congress complained about the non-grounding including public statements by Republicans. Trump is known for not giving a hoot about what members of other parties, or any one else says except for Republicans and his racist base. In this regard the fact that Republicans were complaining is significant. As you can guess from what is written here I do not care for Trump. I also guess from the deletions that some people here love him. Can't we work together to make a balanced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Look more closely at my Edit Summary here, where I directed you to the information about the phone call already in the article. I don't see positive or negative things about Trump or Muilenburg; I see only neutral descriptions of their actions. If you find a reliable source that Wikipedia can use to explain a connection between campaign donations and government decision-making about 737 MAX, be sure to keep everyone informed. DonFB (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Added a few details that would be of interest in relation to the article. These are about the history of the grounding and in particular the political narrative around it.

Delivery of planes[edit]

I added info with references about delivery of the planes, but it was not necessarily the planes in the accidents, but rather, the first of type delivered to each airline. Previously, the article said the accident planes were less than four months old, which may well be true, but there was no referencing in the article for that statement. I'll research more by registration number or other info to find referencing for age or delivery of the actual planes. DonFB (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

DonFB, delivery is in preliminary reports, and age (total time) should be there as well. It is also sourced in the respective articles on the flights. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I sure was working hard to reinvent wheel on this. DonFB (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The Ethiopian plane was two months old and the Lion Air Plane was four months old. The Ethiopian Plane "left the factory" after the Lion Air crash. Shencypeter (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

MCAS failures - Hazardous or catastrophic ?[edit]

This one blurb bugs me:

MCAS failure was potentially rated incorrectly as "hazardous" rather than "catastrophic". The system relied on a single sensor, an unusual and inappropriate design for the lower rating, and certainly incorrect if failure should have been rated catastrophic.

Not trying to nit pick here, but... Numbers of sensors, levels of redundancy shouldn’t have a bearing on how severe the fault is once the fault has occurred. That text reads to me as an invalid argument for a more severe rating. Does it have a credible source or can we replace it with a statement that will hold water. (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The text is based on the referenced Seattle Times news article; see section "System failed on a single sensor" part of that article for details. But you are free to suggest revised wording in the Wikipedia article. DonFB (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what the issue is - lower levels of hazard need less redundancy to me that seems straightforward. The Seattle Times article goes into a lengthy discussion of whether the assessment of the level of hazard was too low but it is impossible to resolve until the accident reports are final and even then it will be debated endlessly.Greenbe (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
the statement tries to link the severity of the fault having occurred to the likelihood of the fault. Severity of a fault correlates to what impact the fault has, not how likely the fault is. More sensors does not make the fault less severe (XL Germany flight 888T - had three senors, but a fault in the sensors still caused the plane to crash. Qantas flight 72 suffered a fault related to angle of attack that injured crew and passengers, but the fault was not related to any sensor). I’m not trying to say that one sensor is a good design or a bad design. Just that the argument used here is not at face value legitimate. Bluntly, likelihood and severity are unlinked properties. (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX crashes[edit]

Just to note that a new article Boeing 737 MAX crashes has been created which duplicates this article. Although a merge request to this article was started I have been WP:BOLD and redirected it here. As far as I can see it provides no new information. MilborneOne (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on the article's talk page, it seems like it was a class project. I don't think your redirect would be too controversial. Banana Republic (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


This message was left elsewhere on the talk by user User:, who now added the NPOV tag to the article: "I think that the current text contains a highly selected set of "facts" and excludes other "facts" to the extent that it does not represent the story as it is understood in mainstream sources and that it particularly is much more favorable to Boeing and Trump that the collected sources are. I nominate this article for deletion." Making a seprate section in cae some kin of discussion emerges before the tag is removed. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, could you plaese be more specific what facts are excluded? Without that, the article cannot be improved and the non-neutral tag will be removed. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the template because it seems to me as unfair to tag the entire article with an NPOV template if the dispute is limited to a single section. I will let the editor who placed the template to choose which section they would like to tag with this template. Banana Republic (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Reading this article as a whole one has the impression that Boeing and the FAA both behaved very properly throughout the process. Trump took the lead and announced the grounding in the US out of abundance of caution. A careful job is being done for improving the almost perfect aircraft. The strong and effective leadership exemplified by Trumps announcement of the ground and the FAA abundance of caution. The de-emphasized story is the close relationship of Boeing and Trump, with the delayed response of the FAA. The severe criticism of the certification process used for this aircraft. The doubts about the effectiveness of the software fix. The strong doubts around Boeing's denial of defects in the aircraft. The fact that Trumps announcement followed severe criticism by people in his own party including Congress. The racist allusions that the foreign flight crews in crash planes did not follow procedures contributing the crash, which were made by Boeing (and reported here as if factual) even though other sources strongly dispute that. This page is written as if it were designed to help Boeing and not to present a balanced picture. I am restoring the npov. Please improve the page instead of just reverting. The page as written is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) Latest revision as of 13:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You lost me. The article must be written from a neutral point of view. Are you saying that the article should pass judgement against Boeing? Have you read the Certification inquiry section that says that "it was announced that experts from nine civil aviation authorities would investigate how MCAS was approved by the FAA, if changes need to be made in the FAA's approval process and whether the design of MCAS complies with regulations."? Banana Republic (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I think now that the article contains criticism from Sullinberger, you'd be hard pressed to make the case that "This page is written as if it were designed to help Boeing and not to present a balanced picture.". Banana Republic (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC), Thanks for your input but I am afraid that is your interpretation only. You grossly misinterpret the article, for example there are no "racist allusions", and Boeing statements are/were not "reported here as if factual". (= "he said the pilots did not "completely" follow the procedures that Boeing had outlined.") There is no "strong and effective leadership exemplified by Trumps announcement" in the article, just "Trumps announcement" etc. Removing NPOV. But I am not oposed to changes. Could you perhaps write here at the talk page how would you like to present the Boeing statement? WikiHannibal (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please keep a civil tone. The remark "your interpretation only" is not civil as you have no way of knowing how many or how few people share an opinion. Clearly there is a dispute about neutral point of view, which is all that npov is about. This is to be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  1. Please sign your posts by typing 4 tildas (~~~~)
  2. Nothing uncivil about pointing out that you are the only one who thinks the article is biased. We obviously cannot count the opinions of editors who do not participate in the discussion.
  3. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. The way I am seeing it, there is no consensus that the article is biased. While other editors and I are trying to work with you to address your concerns, all you do is re-insert the {{npov}} template. Please do not reinsert the template and either add more information to the article to balance things out, or keep discussing here how you think the article could be improved. Banana Republic (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps an Airbus employee is pissed that the page is not a tabloid where rumors and non-verified data is not part of the article? If you have data to back your claims by reliable sources, sure add it, but do not claim the article is biased towards Boeing. The existence of this article itself is a big trashing of Boeing if you think about it.Bohbye (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The unregistered editor who keeps adding the {{npov}} template is doing so from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Accusing them of having a personal grudge is not in line with WP:AGF. I do agree that they have not made a good case that the article is biased. Banana Republic (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Tables to prose[edit]

Marc, the conversion to prose makes the info almost unreadable and certainly unsortable. I ask you unconvert and refrain from prosifying the airline section. DonFB (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The information does not need sorting, and is not tabulated data. It's been a few weeks since I added the prose template and nobody was against it, so I went ahead. I won't do the same for the airlines yet, but the sorting feature is of very little interest either.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
You're right; I should've voiced my objection then. I've already used both the date and alpha sorting functions; they're quite convenient. Aside from inconvenience due to loss of sorting functionality, it looks awful. DonFB (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
It looks awful but saves space so no opinion on this; however, the airlines section would be worse, so please do not do that. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Alphabetic sorting does not convey interest. There is a point to sort by date (the chronology order) or by number (to sort by size), but sorting by the random letter placement of the alphabet is meaningless. For the countries, only the date sort had a purpose. It looks ugly, but takes less space than a long table. The ugliest thing are the endless references for non controversial facts. I would be OK with removing most, at least non-english refs. And even removing all European countries after the EASA ban, and to stop listing countries after the FAA ban as the aircraft was forbidden to flight anywhere since.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Alphabetic sorting by country name in both tables is of interest to me, whether or not it is of interest to you. I had a feeling you might have disliked the space it took, and collapsible is acceptable to me. I am going to edit the header portion of the country table, so it will have some visibility/color when collapsed. It definitely would not be proper to remove countries that acted after FAA & EASA bans; that is encyclopedic information and provides noteworthy details about which countries were very late in taking official action, regardless of the existing bans. DonFB (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed it took too much space. It is still sorted alphabetically for each date, so finding a country is still easy, and you can find any one with your browser find function anyway. Keeping each late country is not crucial and may give it too much WP:Weight, especially with the references size.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
It is very hard to read in prose form; a table allows much easier scanning. Thanks for the great tip about using the browser Find function, but I prefer an instantly sortable format to find single or multiple countries by name. A lot fewer key strokes and clicks, I'm sure you'll agree. I strongly disagree with you that keeping late countries is unimportant; I see no undue weight doing so. On the contrary, as I've stated, it is encyclopedic information. For example, a mainstream published source said the FAA was last regulator to act, and Wikipedia has sourced information to show that's not so. I find it incomprehensible you would want to eliminate that information from the encyclopedia. DonFB (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
It is even harder to read in a table, and for easier scanning, everything is on a single screen! (To avoid manipulations, use ctrl-F. Works everywhere) I understand if you want to keep late regulators. A good way to have a better list would be to have a single reliable source for every inclusion. To look better and to have a more semantically correct html, I used Template:flatlist.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but it looks just as bad as before. You know, we have three people in this discussion, and all three say it looks ugly, including the editor who made it look that way. A sortable table that includes parameters like name and date will always be more reader-friendly than the jumble we now have. DonFB (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert it, but I wanted to make my opinion clear. DonFB (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
For me, it's less ugly than the single column table (just a list then) of before. WikiHannibal have "no opinion". For now there is no consensus, we need more views.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
WikiHannibal may have no opinion on whether to restore table, but he does have an opinion about existing prose that "It looks awful". DonFB (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
he said "but saves space so no opinion on this" --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I too prefer the table, as it is more concise and easier to scan. If the interest is saving space, we can just have the flatlist inside the table, as I have done in this edit. Banana Republic (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

To all: I'm not going to revert, but will just point out: the new flatlists are sort of an enjoyable, jumbled riot of color with all the flags, but less useful for readers, because: If you're looking for a particular country, you now have to look at each group separately, because each group is separately alphabetized, whereas the orig sortable table allowed you to instantly alphabetize the entire list, and you could quickly eyeball it and maybe even exercise your index finger on the scroll wheel, but very quickly find what you wanted, multiple times, no muss, no fuss. With the prose, you have to re-eyeball and maybe hunt through all of the groups, each time, to find your quarry. And of course, as has been said, if space was a concern, the collapsible function for the table made that a non-issue. So, in exchange for colorfulness, we've lost ease of use. DonFB (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Could we add a Countries column to the Airlines table below? It would combine the purpose of two tables, albeit some tedious work grouping the airlines by country and applying the rowspan. The reader is free to sort the WikiTable; the grouped rows become single again. Shencypeter (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC) However, prose is readable on mobile devices.
DonFB: using ctrl-F is faster than scanning a list, be it horizontal or vertical.
Shencypeter: mixing airlines and countries would be mixing apples and oranges, they do not compare.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
You must be a fast typist. Repeated keyboard input and name-typing not likely faster than eyeballing a relatively short alphabetized list. DonFB (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marc Lacoste, I’m looking at the table now with mobile and I think each country could use a line break. Shencypeter (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a list so it could be made as a vertical list (one just need to remove the Template:flatlist header and footer) but it would be too long again, perhaps by collapsing it by default it would be OK but then it would carry less information than an horizontal list.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I have completed pivoting the colums as a best compromise for vertical list and screen space, "Calendar style" Shencypeter (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Good work, but Marc has finally seen the light. DonFB (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, it boiled down to how the resultant table looked on my mobile screen, so the thin list is better. Shencypeter (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

MCAS transclusion[edit]

@DonFB: why are you against a transclusion to avoid sync problems?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't perceive "sync problems." Transcluding forces editor to edit a different article. Editing styles and choices differ. The section is much briefer than it was and satisfies purpose of Summary style. DonFB (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I recall previous problems with transcluding MCAS in this article or Boeing 737 MAX or another related article. MCAS is a quite complicated issue now and seems to develop in time (cf. Dennis Muilenburg). Sometimes the emphasis needs to placed on different aspects in different articles. (BTW you did not transclude MCAS in Boeing 737 MAX, why?) WikiHannibal (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
DonFB: there are sync problems since the MCAS lead section is used in its main article, in 737 MAX and here. Transcluding allow to edit only one place instead of three, avoiding errors. Style and choices should not differ in different articles.
WikiHannibal: indeed, I did that to avoid those problems! I want the reader to have a clear view of the MCAS and having short summaries here and in 737 MAX should help to consolidate all info and news there. (did not had the time yet!) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with WikiHannibal's view that "Sometimes the emphasis needs to be placed on different aspects in different articles." Transcluding puts a straight jacket on editors. Yes, editors should avoid errors, but the idea that one-size-fits-all does not work in a dynamic editing environment with different articles emphasizing different aspects of the story. Styles and choices do differ among editors. For example, the phrase "flight envelope protection system" is, in my opinion, an absurdly jargonized expression that should be replaced by ordinary English, so I did in the Grounding article. I don't know about you, but I'm writing for general readers, not for engineers or bureaucrats. That's what I mean about style and choices. DonFB (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
What would be the different emphasis here, in 737 MAX and in MCAS intro? Transclusion is more dynamic as every article is updated simultaneously, no one is forgotten. Flight envelope protection is explained in its own article and is the perfect description for the MCAS. WP:jargon is useful for precisely describing a feature, and describing it as an "anti-stall system" is equally specialised as it needs an article to explain (and is about a very complex phenomenon, not: "do not pull too much, you'll lose speed and lift!") Anyway, this discussion is relevant but should be better had in talk:MCAS than here and should apply equally in all three copies.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
For one thing, if text is added to the master article, that runs the risk of expanding the transcluded Summary elsewhere, beyond its appropriate length. So, in effect the editor is constrained in what he can write, because expanding in one place will produce unwanted expansion in the other, and the editor is forced to make a compromise he otherwise might not make. In the Grounding article, Mcas is repeatedly mentioned; it is crucial to the subject of the article. It therefore deserves more than a cursory introduction, and should not be confined to an arbitrary length. Your drastic reduction of that section was not entirely unjustified, but attempting to now confine that section to a bare minimum is a disservice to the rest of the article. DonFB (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I took the liberty to split the discussion in 2 themes. For the first, "is a transclusion appropriate?": It would be neat to have a great WP:LEAD section in MCAS, itself needing great body sections to summarize. I'm pretty confident it would fit perfectly here as an MCAS explainer, but if not, it would be easy to split the transclusion between here and a specific MCAS intro. Wikipedia is a work in progress!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am also opposed to the use of section transclusion for a lot of the reasons already stated. I think it causes more problems than it solves and winds up making both pages worse as it gets tweaked to fit two completely different articles. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Right now there is no transclusion, so we can't know.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm opposed to it on general principle not this particular instance. The same content in two places isn't necessarily a benefit to readers so unless there's a more substantial benefit that outweighs all the negatives already listed I am generally opposed to article content being transcluded from other pages. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The benefit of having the most informative and updated summary possible outweighs the tradeoff of maybe not being tailored for each use, not demonstrated yet.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Flight envelope protection is the perfect description for an engineer or pilot, not for a general reader. And yes, it has its own article, which also launches with a laughably jargonized opening: "a human machine interface extension". It should not be necessary to make readers hover, or click, to find out what an opaque expression means, when it's entirely possible to use plain English for the description. Yes, some very technical terms or phrases cannot be reduced to simple English, but many if not most expressions can be made understandable to the general reader without resort to, in effect, telling them to go look it up. You said "WP:jargon is useful for precisely describing a feature." I'm not sure if you mean that Guideline is useful, or if you actually mean jargon is useful. If the latter, we disagree profoundly. Jargon is only useful among experts who are already knowledgeable in the subject--for everyone else, it's a pain in the a$$. DonFB (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
For the 2d theme (the content of the MCAS summary), i added a link to Flight envelope protection because it was much more appropriate than the previously used control law which had Fly-by-wire in mind, but the 737 is still not FBW, and links to an entirely different Mathematical optimization article. And indeed the article is not very intelligible, but as you said it is "the perfect description" for specialised readers. A good way to have the best of both worlds would be to write it plainly and then link to the specific article: Based on sensor data, the MCAS automatically lowers the nose when the aircraft pitches up: a Flight envelope protection--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS flag[edit]

Can we have a discussion about the proper application of WP:MOSFLAG within what has become the truely horrendous groundings by country table WP:TOOMANY. Currently the flags appear purely decorative as per WP:ICONDECORATION with no real purpose. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I concur: they are decorative, not informative.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree, they need to be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Given the obvious consensus here I changed it back to how it was but it was reverted so I'll just note I'm also against the change. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the flags help separate the countries so that the list of countries is not presented as a wall of text. It also helps quickly find the country of interest. Banana Republic (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
To quote from WP:ICONDECORATION, icons "should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". I therefore think that the flags are compliant with WP:ICONDECORATION. Banana Republic (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Why are the flags better than normal established punctuation to seperate the listed countries? Andrewgprout (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
They are used in addition to the "punctuation" (I think you're talking about the bullets). The problem with the bullets is that they are small and not quite as easy to see as the flags. Banana Republic (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Given that the table has changed recently, it is now even more obvious that the flag icons are simply decorative, as they do not now seperate elements.Andrewgprout (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

New external links[edit]

I'd like to share a few articles that give valuable information to the accidents, going into more details than the wiki article does. These are analytical articles, or essays, that shed light on many unanswered questions:

Long essay reconstructing the timeline, the cockpit environment, taking the human factor into account. Self-published aviation journal of Courtney Miller.
Explains a few basic aspects of the FDR chart, giving a timeline of the accident. Aviation journal.
Explains and illustrates the elevator generated forces on the stabilizer, in a suitable format for the layman. The illustrations were copied by many mainstream articles. Aviation journal.
Long essay mostly about the development of the Max. Mainstream media, a bit superficial.
Reconstruction of the timeline. Self-published.

Two popular videos as well:

This lacks any over-exaggerated dramatization (like the 60 Minutes video...)
Similar tone as the Vox video, different topic. Just released.

I'd like to add these to WP:EL. Any opinions?

One extra news video - not for EL - that briefly summarizes the basic causes: - with transcript - non-US viewers

If anybody hasn't seen Mentour Pilot's new simulator demonstration of the trim jamming:
The difficulty to trim in a severely out-of-trim situation

Aron Manning (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A (new) "Further Reading" section might be best location. I've read most or all of these, and truth to tell, I'm not sure in which article they can best be used. This article focuses on the grounding and its after effects, but not strictly on the investigation. We also have the two accident articles, the airplane article and the Mcas article. In any case, we don't want to overload External Links, per wp:EXT. DonFB (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@DonFB: I prefer 5 EL, no more. "Further Reading" maybe 10 max? Or that's more lax?
"ET302 crash report, the first analysis" can go to ET302 page.
The 2 videos FR "Further Reading" or EL?
Aron Manning (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
no self published sources please, and prefer aviation media to general media.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bonus video: FAA admin Daniel Elwell stating repeatedly "the 737 Max is a fly-by-WIRE aircraft" –

Most of these are not really needed in external links wikipedia is not a replacement for Google. If the source is that good it should be used to add to the article and be used as a source. We may likely have to cull some of the external links already in use so please no more it just makes more work when the article gets cleaned up latter, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Only those are necessary, which directly address the grounding, and the design issues that Boeing is working on to fix:

Both secondary RS, referenced by other RS articles. The two article about the ET302 crash report should go to the ET302 FR section, not here.

The illustrations from the first article could be used in the wiki article, if CR allows: it's been copied all over the media. — Aron Manning (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Theverge is a generalist media and this article is the only one from this author, with no bio. While it may be well written and well documented, I'm not sure it could bring something new like aviation media or the Seattle Times' Dominic Gates could. seems to be a single-man work, again with no bio, and may fall under self-published, while it does looks like interesting. The Air Current and Leeham News are reliable aviation media and could be added to EL, before being used as references hopefully.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste: I see. What do you mean by "generalist media"? — Aron Manning🍁 [➕] 22:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Trade publications (here, Category:Aviation media) dives deeper in details than general public news media and are more useful as interesting sources for new content.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
As it is now turning into a dumping ground I have removed the external links, no objection to links being added but they really need to geta consensus here so we can make sure they add to the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't want a mess, so

  • I've removed the prelim report, it's related to ET302 page, not specifically to the groundings. Similarly JT610 has the the other report.
  • TheAirCurrent, TheVerge articles has been agreed upon above, added.

WSJ and Vox videos found no objection. Both are factual, no ridiculous dramatization like in the 60 Minutes video:

  • WSJ video is a digest of the DER system, how the FAA certification works, how the Max will get re-certified.
  • Vox video summarizes the design process and constraints of the Max that contributed to the unfortunate chain of events that grounded the Max.

Both videos and the articles are very informative, neutral and accurate, thus acceptable according to WP:EL, and give great value to the wiki article. I've added both until there are better / more up-to-date videos, or a neutral consensus arises declaring these negatively impacting the page.

Can we agree on a limit of, say, 5? More really looks messy.

 Aron M🍁 (➕)  03:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The verge is not agreed on, neither the videos, see #Disputed WP:EL below. No limit should be stated.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


Political interference accusation already covered in Political section, including Sen Warren quote. No source for "FAA moved slowly...following call" from Boeing to Trump. Boeing campaign contribution and "close ties" is editorial wp:Synthesis with this article. DOT sec. Chao MAX flight already covered in Political section of article. No source saying it was "unusual move". No source FAA satellite tracking data decision was "disputed soon after". Tracking "resolution" not in cited source. Pilot complaints already covered Pilot Complaints section of article. No source for "unclear" how FAA reviewed complaints. DonFB (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Good move because we already said no basis to ground before Wednesday Shencypeter (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It is unusual for a regulator to promote the product it is regulating. Therefore I think that no source would be needed to state the Chao's public flight on a MAX during this period was unusual. I don't know of any other similar instance. Do you need a source to state that Paris is the capital of France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk · contribs)

Do you mean it's WP:Common knowledge#Acceptable examples of common knowledge? That's not the case, if it can be challenged. WP:You do need to cite that the sky is blue in this case. To meditate on the difficulty of this question, the opposite WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is a great reading.
Albeit in this case I think you reach a "conclusion" or with other word "interpret" a fact: "[his] flight [...] was unusual", based on your experience of what is usual. Thus it would be deemed as WP:OR.
Writing "Chao and her staff flew on a Southwest Airlines 737 MAX 8" will get the attention of the reader. The "unusual" comment has to come from the media, or more accurately some WP:RS, and need to be attributed to that source.
Aron Manning (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

" The acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration will face questions from members of the House Transportation Committee on Wednesday about the regulator’s role in approving Boeing’s now-grounded 737 Max airplane to fly. "
" “Despite what you might read in the press, I believe the F.A.A. still is the gold standard, still has the credibility around the world to make change,” said Mr. Elwell, a former aviation industry lobbyist. "
 Aron M🍁 (➕)  17:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of information provided by 38 year Boeing controls Engineer[edit]

Information provided by a 38 year Boeing control engineer has been repeatedly removed with false reasons being given, including that it was speculation. The information the engineer provided included company logs proving the change was made to the aircraft, as well as manuals, diagrams, and black box information. This is clearly not speculation. Please refrain from making disruptive edits and removing information using known false premises. This is against wikipedia guidelines. (unsigned message)

I added a supporting source, note that your information falls under the investigation subheading. Shencypeter (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Anyone think the resulting investigations would eventually all become part of the MCAS main article? Shencypeter (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Another source. Since Peter Lemme retired from Boeing 20 years ago, maybe this would end up with the Sullenberger remarks under public.[1]
So really the Engineers opinion is no more valid than your "mate in the pub" who knows stuff. Did he really retain or acquire proprietary company documents and data illegally since he retired or just an armchair detective using public documents like hundreds of others are doing. MilborneOne (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Apology about his use of proprietary documents it is clear from his various blogs and such like he has just used public documents like everybody else. Also interested to note he was not as claimed by the OP a "Controls" engineer as he worked at Boeing as an avionics engineer mainly on satcoms before becoming a consultant and blogger. MilborneOne (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I cannot see why the section "Trim cutoff changes" is in the Investigtion section: 1) it is not connected to the official investigation, dealing only with speculation/analysis by parties not involved in the investigation, and 2) deals almost only with the Ethiopian Airlines flight so should be described in that article, if appropriate at all, and perhaps briefly mentioned here in the "Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash" subsection where the same topic is already partially covered. This article is not on MCAS or the Ethiopian Airlines flight. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@WikiHannibal: It is not directly connected to the official investigation (but I'm not sure the official investigation would avoid or dismiss relevant issues) but you should not delete referenced content, but move it to a relevant place, either in a new section in this article or in the MCAS article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry but there is no relevant place in this article for the content regardless if sourced or not. I have to repeat myself: The article is about the groundings. This is clearly WP:UNDUE. In what way is the context connected to the groundings? Only through MCAS or the Ethiopian Flight, as it is about switches and analysis/speculation about why the aircraft crashed and how the pilots might have been able to save it provided they knew about a procedere deleted from manuals. Or am I wrong? What is the connection that should warrant a separate section? As I said it can be perhaps briefly mentioned here in the "Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash" subsection where the same topic is already partially covered. But I am not capable of trimming it and merging it with what is there - too technical; and your suggestion for me to add it to MCAS article is also out of place - I am not editing that article. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@WikiHannibal: I agree it's not the best place, but almost all the article is not about the groundings themselves, so I moved it to MCAS where most material should be anyway.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
What's a "control engineer"? Thanks. (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Presumably a term being used by User:2600:100A:B01C:2427:60DC:1324:C3E7:D5DD and those that support the addition of the information to make it look like the information came from an expert rather than a blogger. MilborneOne (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person.
I see. Perhaps they'll get called to give evidence if there's a criminal trial. (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I seem to remember that I passed my Control Systems course (but not sure how). I recall the final lab was to control a supertanker in Matlab in a channel between a small island and the coast, a EE Scylla and Charybdis if you will. I took chunks out of either on every attempt, I think one time succeeding at hitting both. Control experts are highly mathy types I would expect Masters/PhD in some combination of Math, EE/Mech or other Applied Science. There are a lot of details and problems in these real world systems that render them fundamentally unstable either at the micro or macro level and those people overcome it. [2]Greenbe (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Those are some tight corners...
The expert, Peter Lemme, a Kirkland-based former Boeing flight-controls engineer who is now an avionics and satellite-communications consultant, has no direct personal knowledge of the airplane’s development or certification but he did a detailed analysis of the October crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX. He was extensively cited as an expert in The Seattle Times, and subsequently in multiple press accounts, including in The New York Times."[3]

 Aron M🍁 (➕)  02:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

So is Mr Leeme a highly mathy type, whom you expect to have a Masters/PhD in some combination of Math, EE/Mech or other Applied Science? Does he have one of those? In the analysis of how many previous air incidents has he been cited as an expert? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: I am not sure if this has become a tangent, but since you asked I looked up his linkedin [4] He has BSEE/CS from MIT with extra year in Avionics it seems. About 8 years practicing in the field. So mathy? Yes. MIT types are mathy, I know a few. I'm no dummy but not in their league. Only issue is a cursory reading of his resume seems like he moved out of controls into datacom/satcom in the 90s, so he may not be current on the latest hardware & software implementations. Does he know the principals? Pretty likely. MIT is an important center in Avionics/Controls technology, they did the Apollo flight control computers. These are wild guesses of mine - Lemme was not my reference and I have no knowledge of him I just researched it 5 minutes ago. Obviously I would lend more weight to a currently practicing ADIRU or FCC engineeer from Honeywell or Boeing but until we have that source not sure what can be done.Greenbe (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 and Greenbe: "Does he know the principals?" Peter Lemme has direct experience with another "augmentation system" that also gave commands to the elevator trim, with less authority, yet much higher redundancy: "My first job at Boeing was on the Pitch Augmentation Control System (PACS) for 767 and 757. It was a stand-alone dual computer system. There were about ten engineers dedicated to the project, working together for years. I spent ALL of my time testing failure scenarios of inputs and of outputs."[5]Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   11:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about his reduced authority. And indeed his redundancy. Let's hope he didn't let down his principles too badly. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Peter Lemme was subpoenaed by a Grand Jury to testify in an investigation of the 737 Max so presumably the Grand Jury considers him adequately qualified; [3] — Unsigned comment added by (talk · contribs) 10:13, 18 May 2019
US "Aviation Subcommittee Hearing: “Status of the Boeing 737 MAX” May 15th 2019 hearing where the manufacturer and the FAA are still trying to blame the pilots, here: [4] — Unsigned comment added by (talk · contribs) 10:25, 18 May 2019
Judge Andrew Napolitano on the possible legal implications of the two accidents here: [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes thanks, that CNN report is very clear. Lemme appears at 2:47- 3:11, captioned as an "aviation expert", talking about AOA vane failures. Andrew Napolitano's analysis is very incisive. Sounds a bit like there was a loophole in the aircraft's qualification and certification process whereby it was assumed "the pilots will be able to cope with this failure", but without any evidence for that assumption. But trying to ascertain where any responsible "Boring executives" were, when that "decision" was made, might prove a little tricky. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
News report that the 737 Max simulator was unable to replicate conditions that lead to the two crashes, hence has had to be updated, here: [6] — Unsigned comment added by (talk · contribs) 10:49, 19 May 2019
Are you suggesting this link should be added to the article? I don't think it would any value whatsoever. Could you please sign any further posts you make here with four tildes like this: ~~~~? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
No, but the linked news report adds to the overall picture, Re: the seeming lack of regard for prior standards in both design and in certification. According to various other reputable news reports the manufacturer's own test pilots were unaware of the existence of the MCAS system,[7] thus effectively making it impossible for the manufacturer to properly test the system, never mind the FAA. — Unsigned comment added by (talk · contribs) 11:00, 19 May 2019
You're welcome to suggest any factual additions or improvements, supported by good sources, to the existing text of the article. I wonder did you notice above that I asked you to sign your posts here using four tildes? It's so readers can easily keep track of who has said what. If you feel you might want to contribute on a regular basis, to this or any other article(s), you might even consider creating an editor account. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks, for some reason the system doesn't add a timestamp and IP address to my posts. I used to have an account but stopped using it a number of years ago. I only very rarely edit articles. — Unsigned comment added by (talk · contribs) 11:39, 19 May 2019 (edit) (undo)
That is because you are not signing your posts with four tildes as repeatedly explained. If you simply type them in as the last four characters of your post, you will find your sig/IP address and timestamp magically appended. On my (UK) keyboard, the tilde is typed by pressing and holding [Shift] then pressing [#] four times. If I dare offer two pieces of advice in one post, I would suggest that you do always use your account, so that nobody can get het up about you trying to play the system. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but I know all that, I started editing Wikipedia back in 2004-5 but by 2009 I had had enough of some of the petty bickering that occurs. That's why I restrict my edits to Talk Pages and leave it to others to decide whether to add any information I provide or not. Sometimes I just explain things that other posters seem to have misunderstood. — Unsigned comment added by (talk · contribs) 12:31, 19 May 2019
If you can't be bothered to type four extra characters at the end of your posts, don't be too surprised if you find other editors can't be bothered to respond. Very sorry if this comes across as "petty bickering". I do hope I haven't misunderstood you. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The four tildes only works if you are logged in.
... I'm not really bothered if anyone responds or not, but once I have added information other, perhaps more partisan, editors can't then claim they don't know it exists. In addition, other editors may find it useful as being indicative of what information is available.
BTW, I added the simulator news story link because certain people had been claiming the crews were 'untrained' or somehow lacking in adequate experience, which is a bit rich when it subsequently turns out the manufacturer's own flight simulator was, until a recent post-crash software update, unable to simulate the flight conditions that it would appear led to the crashes, an application of logic on the accuser's part that would not have been out of place in Alice in Wonderland. — Unsigned comment added by (talk · contribs) 14:15, 19 May 2019
As far as I know, the statement "The four tildes only works if you are logged in" is untrue. Have you tried it recently? Some of the crews (it's not yet clear to me how many) were "untrained" because there was no training? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The 737 Max simulator is made by CAE, not Boeing. [6] I have not yet seen a precise explanation on why MCAS was not included in first round, but it may be out there. Please be accurate when writing this up. Ethiopian lists which simulators they have, not sure about Lion.Greenbe (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Thank you for the Alice in Wonderland parallel, the sense of humour is much appreciated 😂 —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   11:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Qualifications and relevant jobs of Peter Lemme (thanks to Greenbe for the linkedin research):

  • MIT B.S. in Electrical Engineering & Computer Science 1976 – 1980
  • +1 year in Aeronautics & Astronautics, Avionics 1980 – 1981
  • FAA DER (Designated Engineering Representative), Systems and Equipment 1992 – 1996[7]
  • Avionics Engineer at Boeing 1981 – 1982: "Engineer responsible for testing dual channel, in-line signal monitoring and management function of automatic pitch augmentation control system for 757 and 767."
  • Lead Engineer for Thrust Management System 1982 – 1989: "responsible for control law development and test of Thrust Management System (Autothrottle) for 757, 767, and 747-400."[8](Click "Show 5 more experiences")
  • Boeing Everett Division Engineering Employee of the Month, 1990[9]

As Avionics Engineer he worked on a "Pitch Augmentation Control System (PACS) for 767 and 757" ... "testing failure scenarios of inputs and of outputs".[10]

He is endorsed by The Seattle Times: "The expert, Peter Lemme, a Kirkland-based former Boeing flight-controls engineer who is now an avionics and satellite-communications consultant, has no direct personal knowledge of the airplane’s development or certification but he did a detailed analysis of the October crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX. He was extensively cited as an expert in The Seattle Times, and subsequently in multiple press accounts, including in The New York Times."[11]

Entry at WP:RS/N. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   13:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Boeing says no flaws in 737 Max. Former engineer points to several". 7 May 2019.
  2. ^
  3. ^ "Grand jury subpoena shows sweep of criminal probe into Boeing's 737 MAX certification". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 3 Apr 2019.
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^ "Grand jury subpoena shows sweep of criminal probe into Boeing's 737 MAX certification". Archived from the original on 3 Apr 2019.

Disputed WP:EL[edit]

Here are the Ext Links disputed, consensus is necessary to restore:

I find the videos unnecessary, but trade publications could be kept before being WP:MINEd for referenced material (Aviation Safety Network, The Air Current, Aviation Week)
--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought air current and the verge already had consensus above? Shencypeter (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
All were challenged. for the verge, I said Theverge is a generalist media and this article is the only one from this author, with no bio. While it may be well written and well documented, I'm not sure it could bring something new. Also, please indent your replies, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
ok. I guess I’ll read it over again and try to summarize the eye popping allegation: that the single AoA was “deliberate” as having the redundancy would void the common type rating. I didn't know the colon indentation worked on the mobile reply. Cheers everyone Shencypeter (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I guess an automatic bot took over and basically allowed no external links. Shencypeter (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shencypeter: No, it was Marc, then IP re-added, XLinkBot refused it from IP. We can count it as +1 for the links from a shy participant :-) As there were no concerns raised before, I suggest we add back the links, except the challenged Verge essay, until the consensus is established, and update them along the way.
The reason: to not be deletionist, nor get [ stuck ]. The poll was up for like a week for everybody to give pros or cons. The videos were not challenged, I gave the pros, the balance is on the positive side now. Also the aircurrent is all pro.
The Verge essay: Lets wait with this. I find it very valuable, summarizing all aspects of the grounding and the events leading to it. Marc questioned the reliability of the writer. I'll look for confirmations, need some time.
@Marc Lacoste: What do you say? Could you return that 3 links?  Aron M🍁 (➕)  08:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste: It seems you went offline... until you come back, I'll add the 3 links not challenged, in the spirit of notstuck.  Aron M🍁 (➕)  09:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I totally missed this section when adding the links.

  1. "List of global aircraft groundings in history" - a category link in the footer would do IMO
  2. TheAirCurrent - Cited by mainstream medias, even the illustrations are copied. reliability ++, added value ++
  3. VoxVideo - Very well stuctured, factual, popular on reddit and yt. Explains the technical reasons in a very understandable, yet not superficial way. rel ++, value ++
  4. TheVerge - [ WP:RS/P ]: "There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles." It has the green light. The Verge is a strong backing, and if you look at "Illustrations by William Joel": Joined: Aug 29, 2016 Posts: 9 Comments: 1 Design Director. It's cooperative effort, and presumably got vetted by the more established contributor. rel +, value ++
  5. 60minute - Hmmmm. This is controversial in itself. The interviews with the pilots are worthy, even with the silly directed questions of the lady. The reconstruction is ridiculously dramatic, in the wrong way. No stick shaker, no rollercoaster, most importantly not pulling the yoke with all his strength while wrapping his arms around it, as Mentour demonstrated in the simulator. And then the lady says "It's got a mind of its own!" Yeah... "Sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't raise the nose." /rant over, sorry, it's personal opinion. The overall content is good. I'm ambivalent about this, or neutral.
  6. WSJvideo - New content, just a week old I think, almost as well presented as the Vox video, but different topic: FAA, DER, certification procedures. I like the Vox better, but this might be more relevant currently. rel ++, value ++
  7. AviationWeek - Had no time to read it yet, the navigation was weird, made me stop, but it might be a good overview. neutral 0

 Aron M🍁 (➕)  09:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: "The verge is not agreed on, neither the videos, see #Disputed WP:EL below."
The Verge was not added, as it was properly challenged for RS. To address that concern, see above: William Joel Design Director cooperated on the article.
Why do you "find the videos unnecessary"? Imo that needs some details to challenge the popularity of the videos and the relevance of the information provided.  Aron M🍁 (➕)  16:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Because it's non searchable and imposes its linearity. Written content is more reusable. And an encyclopedia nurtures itself on facts not pathos.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Marc Lacoste. I tend to agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

One can’t even cite the verge when adding content. FML..... Shencypeter (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Sry, I dont understand this. Why can't cite the verge? Not that I need to, just curious. And what is " Fix My Lighthouse "? No matter how many policies i read, there are still new magic words popping up.  Aron M🍁 (➕)  00:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Shencypeter: In MCAS, you modified a sentence already referenced by the reliable AirCurrent and SeattleTimes, and you added a verge cite, but when steelpillow reverted your modification he said "it's more complicated than that. Best to avoid opinion judgements unless backed by RS". For aviation, the verge is less reliable than the others. If you want to add material from the verge, do so without modifying already established facts.Aron M, this is not the real meaning--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I was met with a rather hostile triple revert warning by @SteelPillow: as if I had reverted his writing twice; but I wasn't the first guy to revert. My writing gets changed too, but that's part of Wikipedia... Shencypeter (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you add your material outside of already referenced parts?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste and All: Thank you for the clarification. To return to the original focus of vetting the proposed WP:ELs, this just reminded me of WP:ELMAYBE, to support verge article as EL, even if not reliable enough to be a source:
"4. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." The verge article does just this: it is a digest of the many RS articles also linked in the article sidebars throughout the essay.  Aron M🍁 (➕)  10:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

How it is a better digest than other refs?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Better than which digest? 'Tis the only one i know. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 17:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
"only digest read by one wikipedia editor" is not a good reason for inclusion.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought you read it too... That's not the reason, anyway. Let me correct that sentence 😉 It's the only digest along bout 100 articles read by a wp editor. I didn't choose it randomly/by accident: it's a uniquely thorough summary, that has many times more info than this wp article can contain. "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to [...] amount of detail [...], or other reasons." [ WP:ELYES]
Please, instead of making a strawman, answer the question in a straightforward manner: "Better than which digest?".
I've edited and clarified my prev sentence to say "it is a digest of the many RS articles linked in the sidebars throughout the essay". It did not mean the articles we are discussing for EL, and it did not compare the essay with any other article, so nobody stated it's better. The question remains: what other digest do you know? — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 23:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't reverse the burden. As it was disputed (not by me), it's your burden to prove it's worth the inclusion. You can easily find other digests in aviation media (aviationweek, flightglobal, theaircurrent, leehamnews...) or in the seattle times. In your cite due to [...] amount of detail, you omitted such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks. The verge article is not too deeply detailed, if anything, the verge article is less detailed than specialized media. An author bio would be relevant as it is lacking in the verge. For me, the verge is a relevant reference on gadgets, but that does not makes it assertive for all technology.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"the verge article is less detailed than specialized media"

  • Indeed. As it is a digest, it can't be as detailed as aviation media, but it's more detailed than the usual mainstream media articles. Aviation media articles are only detailed in one aspect/finding of the accident, and do not give an overview of the whole story, which is one of the purposes of this wiki page.

"Don't reverse the burden."(1)

  • It would be unfair if only I was answering questions, don't you agree? Currently it seems deleting information without seeking consensus is normal, but adding fresh sources that would make the article more informative is strongly critiqued. The pattern of which information is criticized seems to support the recent concerns about a subtle POV-bias. This is worrying.(2)

"it was disputed (not by me)"

  • So where are those who challenged it? Be correct: I don't see them disputing, just simply saying an opinionated "no". If they had reasonable concerns, that should already have been raised more than a week ago in the (previous thread). There was one such claim:(3)

"If the source is that good it should be used to add to the article and be used as a source." – Milborn

  • This is a generic contradiction, lacking detail and evidence necessary for a discussion as per WP standard, and a misinterpretation of WP:EL, which clearly states "What can normally be linked?" ... "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail". Relevant parts highlighted, the part which addresses "professional athlete statistics" and other unrelated aspects, removed. (4)
  • There were reasonable pros and cons by mostly you (Marc) and me (Aron), with supporting evidence, that show an NPOV approach to evaluating these links. As you say it's not you who dispute the links, therefore who is, should actually dispute, and take part in the consensus, if they have proper, evidenced arguments to support their claim. The lack of such argument in the discussion, but saying no in edits seems to be an attempt at WP:Stonewalling, that defeats the purpose of WP. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   09:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)(5)
(1) Not more than the BBC digest or the aviationweek timeline.
(2) You don't want to add a source but an EL. it must gain consensus. I'm trying to help you do that. if an EL is disputed, you have to prove its usefulness. The best way is to add it as a ref.
(3) MilborneOne
(4) the point of the policy is to avoid copying a whole list of details, like an almanach. The verge article is a summary, not more detailed than the wikipedia article. If it's more detailed, it should be used as a ref.
(5) Brevity could help you make your point. Having to go through walls of text discourages many (and breaking the text layout by bullet points does not help).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty helpful here but I won't comment anymore. Let other people reply to see if anyone is interested in keeping the verge article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
OK. In reply to that last appeal: The Verge piece is clearly opinionated, therefore biased, therefore cannot be treated as a reliable source. Anything worth having that it contains needs to be cited from a more reliable source anyway. It also lacks some important technical details. As far as I am aware, we do not link to biased sources (unless discussing the bias), nor to sources that fall short of adding more to the topic than is already in the article. So no, I do not think we should include it. For a more neutral and possibly more informed alternative, see the next topic down. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: (2) "You don't want to add a source but an EL. it must gain consensus"
Please cite the policy that says so, I have not found one. What makes an EL so special? Apart from that, the consensus is important, even if not necessary, and thank you for helping with it.

(2) "you have to prove its usefulness"
I did. There was no counter-argument, not a response even, although I was brief. If the "usefulness" is still argued, I'll be more thorough.

(2) "The best way is to add it as a ref."
No such guideline, and inapplicable to the verge article (tertiary source), as there are more specific and detailed av media articles (secondary source) to cite directly.

(3) It's been 5 days since he deleted the ELs, while we were discussing these, only other pages benefitted from his contribs. He also initiated the deletion of this article in its infancy, and did not contribute to it since. In lack of factual arguments that support deletion of the links, this is no more than WP:Stonewalling.

(4) "the point of the policy is to avoid copying a whole list of details, like an almanach."
The WP:EL guideline does not say so.

(4) "The verge article is a summary, not more detailed than the wikipedia article"
It is more detailed. E.g. this fact does not fit the wp article: "In 2018, for instance, Southwest Airlines’ fleet of 751 Boeing 737s burned through 2.1 billion gallons of fuel at an average cost of $2.20 per gallon for a total of $4.6 billion. A 1 percent increase in fuel efficiency would save $46 million."

(4) "If it's more detailed, it should be used as a ref." - Marc Lacoste
Again, no such guideline. Also, it does not make sense to me, why would you say that. It's the opposite of what WP:EL says: "Sites that [...] cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail" can normally be linked.

I hope my "lengthy" posts do not come down as arguing your feedback. I find it valuable, and debate what I don't agree with. I'm reading the guidelines fresh, without knowing how these guidelines used to be applied in practice, therefore we might have a different understanding on how to apply these. Is this the case?

@Steelpillow: "opinionated, therefore biased"
That's very different: (+google it), biased would mean prejudiced. The verge article has a very strong opinion, but it's not even opinionated in the negative sense: it does not distort the facts; that would make it unusable as EL. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   10:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"It also lacks some important technical details." - Steelpillow
Not that much to make it unsuitable for EL, but I'm curious what you miss from it. Is it the stuck jackscrew?

"It can’t 'sanity check' its data against a second sensor" is not correct. The system has an alert module built in to trigger an "AOA disagree" warning. What it cannot do is to act on that sanity check. Also, through a bungle over code received from a subcontractor, the baseline system is unable to display its sanity-check information to the crew.
It fails to explain the safety case which led to increasing the MCAS trim authority.
It leaves out the updated software intended to address perceived weaknesses of MCAS, such as the ineffectiveness of the sanity check and the excessive re-activation, instead it paints a false picture of Boeing in total denial.
Overall, The Verge piece pours out a slam-dunk case against Boeing, cherry-picking its anecdotes and presenting many allegations currently under investigation as established fact. Opinion does not always distort the facts as you suggest, it sometimes merely selects and/or interprets them with one-sided bias and that is the case here. For example Boeing has issued several denials of responsibility, subsequent to the admissions claimed by The Verge. Each such claim needs cross-referencing before we can accept it at face value. And if we have that reliable reference then we don't need The Verge. The piece may be clear and well-written but pointing readers at it would endorse its bias and that is also unacceptable.
This list is incomplete but I hope it helps. I have no more to say here and will not respond to further questions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Steelpillow: Thanks for the reply! It does help ;-)
"The system has an alert module built in to trigger an "AOA disagree" warning."
The AoA disagree module was part of the "extra package", not the Mcas system, thus Mcas has nothing to do with it, and the cited sentence is correct. In programming terms this is only one line of code, so we are just splitting hairs. Just for curiousity: imho the disagree light would be realized in the Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU), not the Flight Control Computer (FCC), where Mcas runs.
"It fails to explain the safety case which led to increasing the MCAS trim authority."
I've read this only in Peter Lemme's article, I don't remember mainstream articles mentioning it, that would explain leaving out this detail. That's not a failure. Could you point me to the articles that explain it?
"paints a false picture of Boeing in total denial."
As you say "Boeing has issued several denials of responsibility". It is accepted that Boeing has responsibility to an extent yet to be decided by the many legal proceedings in progress. If Boeing totally denies such responsibility, than how is this a false picture? This sounds very subjective.
"Opinion does not always distort the facts as you suggest, it sometimes merely selects and/or interprets them with one-sided bias and that is the case here."
I agree that the tone is strongly against Boeing, and I prefer the tone of the BBC article myself, but the 'picture it paints', what you point at as false is very subjective, if not in contradiction with yourself.
The very same editing that "merely selects and/or interprets them [facts] with one-sided bias" has happened in WP in favor of Boeing and/or personal views, without any objections, therefore a consistent evaluation would give some leeway in the opposite direction as well. That being said, including the BBC article is more important imo, and the Verge article can wait for more opinions.
Cheers! —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   17:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@All: The BBC article - that was released 17 May, after asking for a comparison between digests - is very good, better than the verge in a few aspects, thus I support it. There is one thing better in the verge piece: readability. The different tone is suitable for different people, therefore I support adding both, the BBC article first. The AVweek article is good as a timeline, not as a digest, imo. The readability of the BBC and Verge digests is much better. This also brings us back to the videos: "it's non searchable and imposes its linearity" (Marc) is an inherent nature of videos, thus this point would ban all videos from wp, so please provide a reason why not to include the videos, if you still dispute it, as all other points are in support of the videos.

Tl;dr: If we don't impose a limit on links, and do not want a "dumping ground" either then I suggest categorizing links. Under "Overview": BBC, Verge, AviationWeek. Under "Videos": Vox (tech issue), Wsj (faa and cert), 60 minutes (if somebody supports it). Under "Details": TheAirCurrent article (illustration of trim issue). I've addressed most concerns about including the links: while good points were raised, there are no issues that would block using these links as WP:EL, according to the guidelines. Why to include them was explained a few times, in more length than ppl have patience to read.

To Greenbe and DonFB: would you like to share your thoughts for the consensus? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   10:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I confess I find this discussion exhausting and confusing, and I'm not really trying to follow it. I'm focusing on the article and its clarity. I think the article can be well-sourced from mainstream news outlets and one or two semi-technical sites like Leeham. DonFB (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Exhausting and confusing indeed. I would prefer the opposite proportion (mainly aviation media and some mainstream news) :) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

As no more opinions seem to be added, here's the summary of the current state of consensus after more than a week of discussion:

  • Those who opposed and/or deleted the links did not participate in the discussion, nor provided any argument why not to include these links. It looks like this was WP:Stonewalling, that successfully delayed the inclusion of valuable information for more than a week in this article, and for 2 weeks before that on ET302 article.
  • The Verge article was the only one debated with proper arguments that show effort and an honest concern to include neutral content. While those concerns have been addressed, the article will remain in limbo, until it gets more acceptance.
  • The BBC digest and AviationWeek timeline seem to be unanimously accepted, there were no objections.
  • The Vox and Wsj videos were only questioned in their inherent nature as videos, and videos in general are not banned from WP. The remaining arguments support the inclusion of the videos as neutral, factual, adding valuable information to the wiki article.
  • The 60 minutes video was not challenged.
  • There are 2 accepted articles in EL atm: the trim illustration by TheAirCurrent, which is strongly supported, and the recent Leeham article "This is not simple".

Altogether this will look like:

External links




Please share your comments before adding this to the article. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   13:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Added links, fixed 60 minutes link... prev link was dead. Discuss further additions/removals below: —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   21:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Nobody noticed that [The Air Current article] is only related to ET302? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   23:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Aron M: please do not draw conclusions too fast, nobody is here 24/7. And please do not monopolize the discussion, you are obstructing others as few people can read a discussion so long. Anyway, videos are not consensual (you're in favour, but me and Martinevans123 are against), and you are the only one supporting the Verge article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste: You have made 14 edits in 2 days since the summary of links 13:32, 21 May 2019 +3,479‎ Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings ‎ →‎Disputed WP:EL: summary, before removing them [05:22, 23 May 2019 -1,109‎ Boeing 737 MAX groundings ‎ →‎External links: removed disputed theVerge and videos], also ignoring other discussions, that you initiated. You were here, and chose to not participate. Now you act on your WP:OWN, after you declared to leave the consensus, and falsely state the consensus is against the videos. There was only one opposition made by you, that the videos are linear and unsearchable, which is pointless. All videos are linear, and with a little savvy you can search the subtitles on the videos.
Tl;dr: Marc, you failed to raise valid concerns, then left the discussion, made a few moody comments in other thread, and now started an edit war the second time in 3 days. This is not the WP:AIM of wp, it's time to act like you are [here to make an encyclopedia], not just to start fights. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   11:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I would reiterate my general agreement with Marc Lacoste that videos are not necessarily to be the preferred medium for external links. I'm all for linking to YouTube videos in music articles; indeed I've even been indef blocked for such. But for articles such as this one, which depend on the clarity of precise technical information, I think textual sources are better and far more easily searched. Personally I find the bulletins, presented as part of news and current affairs TV programs, to be often too selective and to involve too much editorializing. But I'm happy to consider each on its own merits. I would welcome the views of other editors on this topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Aron: I prioritise my contributions as I see fit. Neither me nor you own any wp article. Stay WP:CIVIL please, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

You guys have triggered edit warring protection.... for the sake of external link inclusion. We’re all taking a 5 day break from this now Shencypeter (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Useful secondary-tertiary source(s)[edit]

It's used as a ref in #Certification inquiry (ref 194 right now)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to service[edit]

Bit of an edit war developing, so I thought I'd open a discussion to seek consensus. My understanding is that the simulators are not distinct - that is the whole point of Boeing's strategy. We need to build consensus on sourcing any differences. Can anybody provide suitable RS? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marc_Lacoste, I see what you did to make my revision more NPOV. Under this topic however, the Leeham News advocates that all pilots should go to the simulator training specific to the MAX. I have a number of refs that could support the claim that pilots went through the iPad training for the MAX (which Boeing advocates), but train the 737 NG simulator, which does not replicate MCAS/aerodynamic resistance on the trim wheel.
By the way, what is the policy regarding citing paywall sources? (read: Subscribe to read the full story) on them? Shencypeter (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Steelpillow: Thanks for opening the discussion! Leeham states the MAX simulator is different. CAE Inc. stated its MAX sim was the first, implying the NG sim is different.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Shencypeter: what edit to make your rev NPOV? Whatever Leeham advocates, the point I want to keep is that the NG and MAX sims are different. Leeham also notes different views from different organisations. what do you want to point with your nytimes ref and google search? WP:paywall sources are OK (when in doubt, ask for or provide a quote).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste:Pointed to potential refs that could additionally supplement your edits. I tend to <ref> the articles as is, which may lean in either direction. It was this ==> [[8]] you submitted with a remark "neutral rewrote.." and upgraded to better RS Shencypeter (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Shencypeter: Paywalled sources are usually acceptable, as ease of access is not a criterion for reliability. Otherwise, scientific articles could not even cite Nature! I usually circumvent online paywalls by taking a trip to a suitable library. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a cite template parameter, url-access=subscription. It's often possible to find a copy by googling a sentence with quotes, or an archived version in Science papers are often available on sci-hub. It is possible to challenge a paywall ref with template:verify-inline, so someone with access can verify or provide a quote.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The phrase -- "While the 737 NG and MAX simulators are different" -- is a non-sequitur. If the sentence clearly said, "Boeing wants pilot transition training on computers, because there are very few MAX simulators available, and NG simulators are not the same, so they can't be used," that would have appropriate internal logic, and would make sense to a reader. However, the cited reference does not support that statement, and the opening phrase was a clumsy and indirect way to hint at such an interpretation. DonFB (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
DonFB: Improve the logic if you want, but you must keep the referenced fact "the 737 NG and MAX simulators are different", but you can not draw conclusions instead of the reader ("because").--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not drawing a conclusion for the reader. I'm illustrating for you how the sentence would have to read to make sense. What is the purpose of including the factoid that different simulators exist? DonFB (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
DonFB: Even if you cannot see the fact importance, you should not remove it as it is referenced, but maybe challenge its importance.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
What "importance" is communicated in the sentence you originally wrote? Answer: Your original sentence attempts--indirectly and awkwardly--to "draw conclusions" (your phrase, above) about the fact that different simulators exist and that Boeing does not want pilots to use simulators. Your use of the word "while" in your sentence is a camoflauge for the clear and direct word "although" or the phrase "despite the fact". "While" is a poor substitute, but its meaning is clearly seen in the alternate and more proper choices I've just shown. Your sentence attempts, clumsily, to convey the same meaning as the straightforward sentence I wrote (above), which illustrates what your sentence is really intending to say. Except---the reference does not support that meaning. See OR/SYNTH. DonFB (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Certainly an imperfect attempt to have a flow, you are welcome to perfect it. See also WP:NOTSYNTH Nothing is insinuated by the mere fact that these sentences are in the same paragraph. It helps the reader to understand why Boeing wants to avoid sim training: there are almost no MAX sims.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Marc, this is the second time you have cheerfully displayed your personal opinion, your deduction, which you would like to insert into the article, without support from a reference. Just now, you said, "It helps the reader to understand why Boeing wants to avoid sim training." According to whom is this the reason Boeing wants to "avoid sim training"? Where in the footnoted source for the sentence you wrote does it say that? Where in any source does it say or explain Boeing's reason? In an Edit Summary earlier, you said "if the sim is mandatory, it have to be on max sims, and there are almost none right now". More of your opinion, which you, perhaps unwittingly, are trying to insert into the text, without a supporting source. The source at the end of your sentence does not support the connection you made when you wrote: "While the 737 NG and MAX simulators are different, Boeing would prefer...." I know what Boeing prefers, and that is supported in the reference. What does your phrase, "While the 737 NG and MAX simulators are different" have to do with what "Boeing prefers"? What meaning do you intend by the word "While"? Earlier, I offered some alternatives, but there are more: "Because", "Even though". Which word or phrase of all the alternatives I have given comes closest to what you mean? When you choose the one closest, can you see how it conveys your opinion, and not what is stated in the source? Earlier, I said I was sure I knew what you meant, but I drifted away from my original statement that your phrase actually has no meaning; that's why I called it a non-sequitur. On its face, it's a non-sequitur, because the meaning of "while" is utterly vague. I do think I know what you mean; you stated your meaning in your post: "it helps the reader understand why Boeing wants to avoid....." There is no support for that in the ref, and your indirect attempt to make that point in the text you wrote is SYNTHESIS. DonFB (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
remove "while", no importance. i don't want to draw a conclusion, just provide facts.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Good, but you did draw a conclusion here in Talk, and I perceived that you made an effort to draw that same conclusion in the article text. That's why I removed your opening phrase from the sentence. Right now, I don't see a logical place in the article, or a reason, merely to state the bare fact that NG and MAX simulators are different. If you have a suggestion about where that fact belongs and how it should be worded, please offer it here in the discussion. DonFB (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not always easy to find a good place, this section is the only one talking about sims.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────── To seed an agreement:

The Boeing 737 MAX simulator is different from the previous 737 NG simulator.[1] Boeing promoted the 737 MAX as needing the "same flight simulators"[2], and Boeing wants training of pilots who transition to the 737 MAX to be computer-based rather than done on a simulator. Computer training is deemed sufficient by the FAA Flight Safety Standards Board, the US Airline Pilots Association and Southwest Airlines pilots, but Transport Canada and American Airlines pilots prefer simulator training.[1]

Use this as you wish. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   17:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

For all concerned, here's a proposal to replace the disputed text (does not change other sentences in the paragraph in question):
"As Boeing worked toward FAA approval of the MAX returning to service, debate occurred whether cockpit simulator training should be required for pilots who transition to the 737 MAX from an earlier 737 version. From the time the MAX entered service, pilot transition training was done on computer devices like tablets, not simulators. Because the FAA certified the MAX as a 737, full simulator training was not required for pilots who already had qualified in simulators for earlier 737 versions. [by DonFB--open to correction/and/or sourcing] Boeing emphasized that the simplified training was a cost-saving advantage. In 2012, Boeing promoted the MAX by saying it used the same simulator as the earlier 737NG.[2] In the wake of the accidents, Boeing said it wanted pilots to train on computer tablets or similar devices, not simulators.[1] According to the aviation source Leeham News and Analysis, few 737 MAX simulators are available."[2]
[sourced, mostly, to the Leeham "pontificate" (May 20) and "how Boeing promoted" (May 16) articles] DonFB (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b c "Pontifications: Mandate sim time for MAX return to the skies". Leeham News and Analysis. 2019-05-20. Archived from the original on 2019-05-21. Retrieved 2019-05-21.
  2. ^ a b c "How Boeing named, promoted the MAX in early days". Leeham News and Analysis. 2019-05-16. Archived from the original on 2019-05-21. Retrieved 2019-05-21.
I prefer the shorter present version.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


"What catches the eye today in the aftermath of the two MAX crashes is the promotion above that the NG and MAX share the “Same Flight simulators.”"(another Leeham article) – Boeing promoted those as the same. "here’s something I learned over the weekend (and which I am adding at the last minute to this article): the NG and MAX simulators are not the same. There are differences between them."(Scott Hamilton @ Leeham)
This sounds like an opinion, not RS. Did he sit in one of the few Max sims, or a pilot said so? Or he means the Max sims have to be different to properly replicate Mcas related failure modes? What "referenced fact" are you (Marc) referring to? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   09:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

They are a lot more than just the MCAS and stab trim differences that make the cockpit of the MAX very different from the NG. MilborneOne (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Aron M: "the NG and MAX simulators are not the same. There are differences between them".--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste: Yes, that's the same - actually just part - of the sentence I cited above, but without the problematic context. It's obvious the Max sim is different for a more modern flight deck, with bigger displays (google "737 ng flight deck photo", NG, Max). The problem is that's an unreliable WP:PRIMARY source to cite: "here’s something I learned over the weekend"... The other - CAE - source is a promotional material, and it does not say anything about the 737 NG simulators. "the world’s first airline operated Boeing 737MAX full-flight simulator" implies to me that Boeing already had Max simulator(s), but nothing about the NG sims.
This is very sloppy. Why would you go into war for this, you've been much more diligent. We should find an RS that says the sims are different, or decide it's so obvious that doesn't need a source. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   14:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Fairly obvious physical difference if you have seen the flightdeck of a MAX compared with an older B737, just need to look at the aircraft displays to release how different they physically are. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The Boeing 737 has picture box galleries documenting the evolution of engines, flight decks, and cabin. But unfortunately there's no MAX 8 photo currently in the Commons yet. — by Shencypeter (talk · contribs) 06:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The Boeing Section[edit]

The Boeing response section is cluttered with a "list" of chronological Boeing responses. Though we can verify that some information that was released at that point in time, some of the information would seem outdated, such as the push-back of the software release date making the earlier information obsolete. Any ideas how to better present such information? Shencypeter (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

To Shencypeter: The cleanup you are doing looks good, I'd mention only one sentence that I found weird: Boeing "continued to have full confidence in the safety of the 737 MAX." I think this was better as Boeing said it "continues to have full confidence..."Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   15:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I sought to remove redundant quotations. Is it possible to rewrite the whole thing without using quotes? Shencypeter (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Done— I mean, are there any alternatives to quoting verbatim? Shencypeter (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't have an alternative for this. MOS:QUOTE says not to overuse quotations, but a few is acceptable. A verbatim quote seems natural in this case, and it's easier to search and confirm. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   16:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, got it Shencypeter (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)