Talk:Boeing/Archive 2

Biased?

An initial read of this article seems to indicate surprising amount of bias towards Airbus. Just saying tongue and cheek, but this article seems to suggest Boeing as a large evil corporation and Airbus as fighting the good fight. Is this because Boeing is an American company as opposed to a European one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.80.6.3 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Name

The article is a bit unclear on the name. It says "In August of the next year, Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas in a US$13 billion stock swap under the name The Boeing Company. However this name had actually been Boeing's official name previously adapted on 21 May 1961". Does this mean that the company has been The Boeing Company since 21 May 1961 and as a result of the merger, the new company took the name, without modification, of what had been Boeing? If so, the wording is confusing. The wording used at, e.g. AMD would be better. Nil Einne (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Boeing Boat Works

25 years or so ago I went to a remote cottage in British Columbia and in one of the old boathouses on the property was one of those classic old 1920 or 1930's wooden cruisers with "Boeing Boat Works" on a metal plate on it. Does anyone know anything about this part of Boeing's history? AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Furniture, anyone?

Re Boeing history, NOBODY seems to have mentioned FURNITURE! I went to the Boeing museum at or near Seattle in 1988 and saw at least one specimen of Boeing furniture dating from the years after WW1. The item was a pastel blue dressing table. The museum notes said that with the end of hostilities, the world demand for aircraft had been expected to collapse. Aircraft builders of the early 20th century had the woodworking skills to produce fine furniture, so they went back to their former trade (perhaps only as a sideline, in parallel with aircraft-building?). (As this is my first ever Wikipedia 'talk', please forgive any technical goofs...) Rogerathauxton (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Boeing Red Barn

I was recently on a tour at the Museum of Flight near seattle WA. I got a picture of a red barn they said was the first boeing factory. Is there a reason this is not mentioned in the article? Does anybody who maintains this article think a picture of this barn would be useful? Thanks. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a picture of the Red Barn would be useful. You should upload it and add it to this article. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

References to Airplane Models and Production totals

The 757 total is incorrect. 1050 were produced, not 1055. There is a tendency to mix Boeing engineering model numbers, with marketing model numbers, with military customer model numbers. This does track with popular nomenclature, but can be quite confusing, even to people who have worked for Boeing for a long time. Boeing model 299 was the U.S. Army B-17. Noting that the 299 came before the 307 isw significant, since the 307 was developed using the 299's wing and major systems. This relationship is correctly noted for the 345 (B-29) and the 377 Stratocruiser. It was the 707 that led to a commercial airplane marketing notion of mdoel numbers as something other than just the sequention number assigned by engineering. Engineering used many variations on the model designations, most of which were ignored by marketing. This led to considerable embarrassment with the MD-95 (really as DC-9 Model 95) was renamed the supposedly skipped 717. The 717 had actually been the engineering model designation for the KC-135 series of tankers and related "EC" planes. When this was pointed out to marketing, they quickly dubbed the MD-95 the 717-200, but I'm pretty sure that this was the first model designation totally invented by markeing. Boeing's practice since the 1930's has been to use a 3+3 model number. The first three digits are the master drawing number, including the feature variations. The first digit of the second three designates the major derivative series, and the second and third digits indicate the intial operator or customer (lots of variation here with leased planes, and planes that are subleased or resold before delivery). So from an engineering model designation point of view, the numbering system has not changed with the 747-800 and the 787-300, -800 and -900. Internal drawing references use the same 3+3 system that has been in place for over 60 years. However, marketing decided to drop the second two digits and adopt the Douglas one and two digit sub-model designation, which is they way Boeing did it during the 1920's and 1930's. In fact, the 707 was developed using the deliberately misleading 367-80 designation to suggest that it was a multi-engined turbo-prop, which is what the 300 series models were.

There have been some notable departures. For example, the subsidized Boeing SST was designated model 2707-100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkidofriend (talk • contribs) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The 300 series aren't turboprops; Boeing NEVER, EVER built a turboprop plane. Therefore, the 300s aren't turboprops. --Compdude123 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Concept aircraft

• 367-80 Stratoliner Prototype, N70700, MASDC, November 12, 1973
• EC-137D Airborne Warning and Control System Prototype, 71-1408, Boeing Field, Seattle, June 18, 1973
• 727-63 General Electric Unducted Fan Testbed, N32720, Mojave Airport, November 9, 1986
• 747-121 General Electric Engine Testbed, N747GE, Kramer Junction, California, August 24, 1999
• 1 737-900 Prototype, N737X, Edwards Air Force Base, November 2, 2000 NT-43A Radar Test Bed, 73-1155, Death Valley, January 24, 2003
• 1 767-200 Airborne Surveillance Testbed, N767BA, Southern California Air Logistics Center, Victorville, June 17, 2005
• 1 757-200 F-22 Avionics Testbed, N757A, Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, California, February 13, 2006
• 747-273C Evergreen International Supertanker, N470EV, San Bernardino, May 31, 2006
• 720-051B Honeywell engine testbed N720H, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, December 27, 2007
• 757-225 Honeywell engine testbed N757HW, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, February 1, 2010
• 4 787-8 Prototype N7874, Mesa Gateway Airport, Arizona, May 23, 2010

Source: http://www.air-and-space.com/Death%20Valley%20sighting.htm .... LanceBarber (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What message are you trying to convey by posting this? In other words, why is this section here? Do you want us to add the info to this article? --Compdude123 (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Duopol!!, Geerman American Böing?, American identity?

The duopol of Boeing and Airbus and its reasons (high market entrance costs...) should be mentioned!! It could be added, that Böing/Boeing had German heritage? (relevance: support of the USA in WWI and WWII) Maybe it should be added, that US-Americans identify themselves with Boeing and that there is much negativity towards Airbus in the US media/public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.15.70 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Does not seem that relevant here as this article is about the company. Its founder is covered at William Boeing. -fnlayson (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Boeing to close Wichita, Kansas plant

Boeing started in Wichita, Kansas in 1938 and now will close by end of 2013. During World War II, the Wichita employment peaked at 29,795 in December 1943.

• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-04/boeing-to-shut-plant-with-2-160-workers-as-u-s-trims-defense.html
• http://www.kansas.com/2012/01/04/2162092/boeing-to-close-wichita-plant.html
• http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/Boeing_Calls_Meeting_For_All_Wichita_Employees_136605708.html
• http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9S2B4I01.htm

Quote "Employment at the plant peaked during World War II as the company churned out four bombers a day. Its 40,000 workers included President Barack Obama's beloved grandmother Madelyn Dunham, known as "Toot," who did her part for the war effort by working the night shift as a supervisor on the B-29 bomber assembly line." NOTE: I don't know the correct maximum employees during WWII, because I've seen numbers from 30K to 40K region.

Historical photos and information about Wichita plant, since Stearman Aircraft:

• http://www.kansas.com/2012/01/04/2162186/boeing-wichita.html
• http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/legacy/article.asp?id=375

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100#Vote_on_flag_removal

This (inofficial) voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. Tagremover (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-contraditory!!

The phrase "American multinational" is self-contradictory. Something is either American or not American, and it is either multinational or not multinational.

In reality, The Boeing Company is incorporated in the United States of America, it is taxed by the United States Government and its state governments. The Boeing Company is American, notwithstanding that it might have some subsidiaries of cooperating corporations in other countries.98.81.11.27 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Boeing has always been defined as a multinational corporation for a long time since they deal with contracts that are abroad and enforced under WTO rules and they are based & headquartered here in the United States. There's a lot of google search terms for this so the label is properly applied. There's even a wiki article on this List of multinational corporations. 2) I've reverted a lot of the changes you've made. For example, there is no "Warplane & helicopter" nor is there "civil aviation" market in any trade market whatsoever but rather it's under Aerospace and/or Defense ie: [1] 3) The stuff about the Saturn V Stage S-IC? Boeing won the contract to build that SPECIFIC stage while others had responsibilities of different parts of the rocket. S-IC - Boeing, S-II - North American Aviation, S-IVB - Douglas Aircraft, F-1 engines - Rocketdyne ViriiK (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A well written article avoids confusing the reader by stating facts in a clear way that avoids ambiguity and confusion. It is true and correct that The Boeing Company is an American multinational, however that wording is confusing and needed revision. It is not the facts that are at issue here, it is the way the facts are presented. I revised the article to describe Boeing as a "United States-based multinational". 65.102.187.47 (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

External links website for the artical Boeing

Hi editors! Can you please review my site https://sites.google.com/site/wwwboeingairplaneinfocom/ so that you guys can review it and put it under the external links section? Thanks.

Sincerely, Laxplane (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but we only add external links to websites that add value to the article that would be otherwise missing, your website doesnt really add anything to the article and as a personal website is not a reliable source. Remember also that this is not a web directory. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

With the excessive number of links on Boeing I can see why somebody might think that Wikipedia is a collection of links, but in fact it's not. I've tagged this for cleanup and I'll come back and delete most of them in a week or two. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Government influence

Please someone provide information about the US Governments influence on the company through shares (if any), laws, contracts or other means of inluence. I believe this is important information as Boeings main competitor, EADS is half owned by the French (22%), German (22%) and Spanish (5%) governments who strongly influence the company's decision-making, as witnessed for example in the recent EADS-BAE merger talks.ArticunoWebon (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Boeing in Japan

Here is a source:

• "Airbus struggles to loosen Boeing's grip on Fortress Japan." Reuters. September 2, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Employment numbers section needs serious improvement or removal

In its current form, the Employment numbers section is not encyclopedic and adds little value to the article because there is no context for the numbers. Worse, we're treating WP as a news site, including information that changes constantly and needs frequent updating. If re-creating tables that are already published on Boeing's website is the best we can do, then we need to remove the tables from the article and simply list the link to Boeing's Employment Numbers webpage in the "External links" section, assuming we agree that is worthy of inclusion at all. It is unwise to include information that is only correct at a particular point in time, changes regularly and needs constant updating. Again, WP is not a news site and it is not a collection of indiscriminate facts without context.

A prose section that discusses the ebbs and flows of Boeing's workforce size in relation to events over the course of time would be encyclopedic. A better written section would answer questions like: How quickly did the size of Boeing's workforce grow over the company's first decades? How much did employment increase due to wars? How much did it contract at wars' ends? How much and at what times did employment expand and contract due to economic downturns and upturns? Other ideas include comparing the number of employees in BCA to the number in Defense and relating that to revenue per employee in each division. Facts in context are encyclopedic; random tables are not.

The Employment numbers section needs to go or be replaced by encyclopedic prose. 65.102.187.47 (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Boeing Boat Works

"25 years or so ago I went to a remote cottage in British Columbia and in one of the old boathouses on the property was one of those classic old 1920 or 1930's wooden cruisers with "Boeing Boat Works" on a metal plate on it. Does anyone know anything about this part of Boeing's history? AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)"

I just copied (restored) the above from a deleted version of Talk as I just came across the article reference below and the comment quoted below along with it. Coincidentally, the property I visited was owned by a family that had substantial timberland in BC and the property was once apparently owned by a wealthy a American. (Someday I'll try to remember to ask what became of the cruiser.)

• • 62′ Boeing…. Boat

"Here’s some history of Boeing Boats, courtesy of the Peninsula Daily News:"..,

• • [2]

"In the early 20th century, Boeing acquired substantial holdings in timberland as well as lumber mills in the Pacific Northwest."... "To keep his fledgling business afloat, Boeing’s airplane company began building bedroom furniture, cabinets and boats." By David G. Sellars PDN Maritime Columnist

"Tad Roberts says: August 23, 2011 at 3:09 pm Carl,

It seems Boeing Aircraft of Canada existed from the end of 1928 until 1937. They built quite a few boats, many of them commercial fishing seiners(approx. 75′-85′), I find a dozen Boeing built boats in the current Canadian Ships Registry. The largest was Taconite, the 125′ Tom Halliday designed Boeing family yacht launched in 1930. She was the summer home of Mrs. Bertha Boeing from the 30′s until her death in 1977, and she was always moored in Vancouver. Apparently Boeing had at some point been involved in a taconite mine….perhaps that’s were the (reported) $400,000 (1930) dollars to build her came from….Deerleap II (85′ motoryacht) is another well known product of the Boeing yard. Antiques Afloat reports that the yard built a 130′ car ferry in 1931 (depression years) for the city of North Vancouver. Also in 1928-31 they built 3 stock 48′ triple-cabin cruisers with cedar hulls, yellow cedar decking, and teak cabins with Hall-Scott engines." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertaSunwapta (talk • contribs) 02:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC) AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

References

History

I came across this reproduced 1938 article on Boeing. Thought it might be of value to improving or verifying the history section for Boeing should someone want to undertake the task. THE BOEING PLANES in Modern Mechanix, Mar., 1938 [[3] AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Boeing spokesperson Gayla Keller not a RS for Boeing policies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing&oldid=627856340&diff=prev

Exact quote from company spokesperson is not acceptable because? Hcobb (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. I am currently adding more info about Boeing's history from 1917-1927 as there is a big "gap" in the History section for this time period. Compdude123 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday, I added info about Boeing building furniture; also was surprised nobody has mentioned this. And this afternoon, I just made a big edit and added info about planes that Boeing built between 1917 and 1930. I filled the "gap" in the history section from 1917-1927. --Compdude123 (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing Criticisms section?

Just curious, why do european companies/products often have a criticisms section (see EADS for example), and american companies and products don't need one? Where is the NPOV? Supersymetrie (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dedicated criticism and controversy sections are not required to present negative view points. These section are often magnets for biased and unsourced additions. There is even a template that discourages these sections ({{Criticism-section}}). Also there are multiple negative sections under the 2000s section already. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Record

Is it just me, or does it also appear to others that an effort has been made within the Boeing and Airbus articles to present Airbus in a more favorable light? There would appear to be several examples of this, but the most glaring are the Environmental Record sections. This section of the Boeing article is almost exclusively devoted to what a huge polluter Boeing is, while the equivalent section of the Airbus article is exclusively devoted to efforts Airbus is making to save the environment. Since we now know how Boeing ranks as a polluter in the U.S. and how many superfund sites it is responsible for, would it not be appropriate to see equivalent information for Airbus instead of just reading about how aggressive Airbus is in developing alternative fuels? Full disclosure: I am a Boeing employee (non-management), which is why I am bringing this to the discussion page rather than attempting to revise the articles, which should be done by someone without my conflict of interest.Doobie61 (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a look at both. In my view the only major balance problem with the sections is that the Airbus article is lacking information regarding its pollution as a result of its activities as exists in the Boeing article. The biofuels section of the Airbus article seems NPOV to me - with the expception of the final sentence: "This flight and the company's long term efforts are considered big strides towards environmentally friendly airplanes." -- I believe it to be written in good faith but sounds a bit like marketing speak. In comparing the biofuels section with that on the Boeing article it does appear that Airbus are more pro-active in this regard, perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could let us know and/or edit the articles if that is incorrect. Mark83 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to founder's article

There should be a link from the name "William E. Boeing" in the history section to the respective article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.243.128 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

His bio article is linked twice in the article, including in the Lead section. That is generally considered enough, per WP:OVERLINKING. - BilCat (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

KC-X default winner?

An item in the KC-X article, dated March 2010, indicated that the Northrop Grumman/EADS consortium has pulled out of KC-X bidding process, thus making Boeing the default winner -- if it submits a bid. It would improve the article if this major news proves true and is citable from reliable sources.--TGC55 (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The KC-X article certainly does not say that. Wording about Boeing being the only remaining bidder was in it briefly however. If you have issues with the KC-X article use its talk page directly. There's nothing that really needs to added to this article until the bids are turned in (WP:NOTNEWS). -Fnlayson (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See also

I think a link to Boeing Commercial Airplanes is needed here. Who would like to paste this: Boeing_Commercial_Airplanes? Big thanks.--83.135.26.175 (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The link is in the Infobox, and in the Divisions section of the text. It's probably not necessary in the "See also" section too, per the guidelines on those sections. - BillCJ (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, two links to one article are enough. -Compdude123 (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing aircraft

Odd that we have an article on the Boeing P-26 but no mention of it in this article. Also, and I'm not sure about this, but I seem to remember that Boeing built a trimotor passenger plane before the 247 -- Anyone know of it? Sca (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Update re above: What about the Boeing 40 and Boeing 80? Sca (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

True, there's nothing on the 1917 to 1927 time in the History section. If you could write something mentioning those and any notable other models, that would be good. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I Just added info about Boeing's history earlier this afternoon, using info from the history section on Boeing's website. The history on Boeing's website is very extensive and there's narratives containing a lot of info about Boeing and other companies Boeing has purchased over the years. There's also info on pretty much every Boeing aircraft. Here's the link to the website: http://www.boeing.com/history/index.html

If I missed anything in my edits or made any mistakes, feel free to make changes. --Compdude123 (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

SUGAR Aircraft concepts

Could we possibly add in the SUGAR concepts? Maybe it could be in the Future Concepts section. Here's a link that may be helpful. http://aviationweek.typepad.com/files/boeing_sugar_phase_i_final_review_v5.pdf Thanks! 66.67.22.212 (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Boeing updating elements of the Boeing entry

Hello everybody. I'm Todd Blecher with Boeing's Corporate Communications department in Chicago. We appreciate the efforts of everybody who works on this entry. I do have a question for the community. Elements of the entry are outdated, such as the information about the US-EU trade case and Boeing's environmental record. How can I best help the community update those and other elements of this overview of our company?

I appreciate your consideration. --Todd Blecher (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Todd. I'll give you my two cents. Pointers to reliably sourced (i.e., secondary sources) articles that support areas of the article that are unsourced today, or to articles of the same caliber that cover aspects of Boeing that might be important to an encyclopedia article about Boeing but are not covered in the WP article today, are very helpful. You are, indeed, doing the right thing by not editing Boeing-related Wikipedia articles yourself! Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Boeing's intentions with commercial space

This topic seems to not be covered in the current Boeing article. This source—Boeing flags its intentions in commercial space, BBC News, 2010-07-23, accessed 2010-08-04.—provides a verifiably sourced set of information about Boeing's plans in the growing commercial space industry. This is the first article I've read that is as explicit and clear on this subject. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Boeing plane manufacturing in China

Hi. I find it odd that there is no mention of the Boeing planes made in China in this article. http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/aboutus/international/docs/backgrounders/chinabackgrounder.pdf Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is minor overall compared the company's US production. The MD-90s were the only ones assembled in China, and that is a carry over from McDonnell Douglas. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I hardly think that the country outside the USA assembling Boeings is "minor overall". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• There is no airplane assembly for Boeing occurring in China now. That page lists freighter conversion work and part manufacturing. That still seems like a small portion of the overall manufacturing performed by Boeing. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Tsu Wong

Consider adding something about Tsu Wong to early Boeing discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Tsu R.hrsn (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Boeing International Corporation India Private Limited

No standalone notability. Has been a stub for more than 2 years and has nothing to improve upon. Lakun.patra (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think deletion is probably better it has no real relevance to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Approve, but still needs expansion.-Mr. Man (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Approve. Where would you intend to put it within the article? Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

History of Boeing

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. The consensus is that the history section should be split to a new article titled History of Boeing. Jax 0677, MPS1992, and Fnlayson support the split. MPS1992 mentioned that the 737 Max crash information should be retained in the history summary section in Boeing. There is no consensus on this point about 737 Max so this should be discussed further if there are disagreements.

Cunard (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Support split - History section takes up more than one quarter of the article, and should be split to a new article entitled History of Boeing. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, your history split proposal comes about two weeks after the second 737 Max crash.

I don't oppose the split of the article, but reality says that this article (Boeing) will need to include mention of significant problems faced by the company. This article must still mention the 737 Max crash incidents and problems, and trying to hide such incidents and problems will never be successful. MPS1992 (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You've provided no substantial evidence that the user made the suggestion in order to hide the 737 Max crash information. He regularly works on a wide range of corporate articles of companies from many countries, and his suggestion is completely in line with such work. - BilCat (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply - @BilCat:, thank you for your feedback. 210.84.48.144 just deleted my attempt to add such information to the history, so per WP:BRD, we will need to discuss its addition with MPS1992. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The summary History of Boeing in this article should contain brief mention of the 737Max issue. It is certainly far more relevant than the factoid that Mr Boeing had been a timber salesperson. Of course, the summary History of Boeing in this article should also contain a few other brief highlights of the history of the company -- currently everything after 1934 is missing. Events like the launch/success of the 747 (and arguably perhaps 707 or 737), or any mention of the handful of extremely significant military aircraft built by Boeing, would be curious omissions. MPS1992 (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply - @MPS1992:, be bold! --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm waiting for the discussion to finish first. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply - @MPS1992:, you are absolutely correct, sorry about that... --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The History section has already been split without a clear consensus here to do so. So do we undo this split and return the history text this this article or go forward with the split and expand the existing text to be a better summary? I'm OK with either would prefer the keep the split and do a better summary here. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with keeping the split and expanding the summary here. By far the easiest solution. MPS1992 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boeing plane crash

I recently added a few sentences regarding the reasons behind the Boeing plane crash with citations and have been removed without prior information. More information regarding the crashes should be provided Foxxjames66 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Apart from not being referenced it is not really relevant to this article. We have other articles that cover these accidents and subsequent events please have a look at Boeing 737 MAX and Boeing 737 MAX grounding, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Advertising article?

In contrast to the Airbus article, Boeing doesn't have a "Controversies" section even though Boeing lives through a huge and well documented controversy about its general culture and behavior and about its best selling product 737 that can't be delivered anymore. Total deliveries are more than 50% down compared to last year, it is not even clear if and when that crisis can be stopped. Such a crisis effecting more than 50% of your deliveries can easily kill companies. Should the mentioning of this "mega crisis" really be avoided? --Betternews (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The Boeing crisis is so huge that it caused major other crisis in other organiszations. One being the FAA reputation crisis as major agencies around the globe stopped to recognize FAA certifications as they did before --Betternews (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The History section here was split off (see section above) to History of Boeing recently. Controversy and criticism sections are often magnets for biased and unbalanced coverage, see WP:Criticism. It's best to avoid those and distribute the coverage with rest of article content. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Well-documented major controversies and crisis that can easily kill the whole company the article is about should be withhold? Even though it is so huge that has major impacts on others like the FAA too? And phrases like having been on the list of the "World's Most Admired Companies" (before the crisis) should stay? As I assume you are not the marketing manager of Boeing, why should you want Wikipedia articles to be unbalanced?--Betternews (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That last part of my post was only a general comment about not centralizing content in a section, not about omitting that content. Please review WP:Criticism for more explanation. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:Criticism says: If "corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism" then it is ok to have it in the article, or may even "justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism". As I am a bit struggling to understand your intentions in this talk page, just to be clear: you are not for "omitting that content", and you are not for "biased and unbalanced coverage". If you google various major corporations, it is hard to find anyone that is more criticized than Boeing, when googling "Boeing" it is almost impossible to get any other coverage than criticism and crisis reporting. So I may conclude that we are in agreement as to WP:Criticism that this controversy justifies a section in the Boeing article. --Betternews (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• If you are on about the 737MAX then it has its own article Boeing 737 MAX groundings which is linked from this page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree that the grounding decision for the 737 MAX is certainly an important step in this crisis.--Betternews (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there still resistance to adopt from sources (in this Boeing article, not in side article about the 737 max) that the company Boeing itself is said to be in its largest crisis ever, in terms of financials, culture, strategy, organization, market position, competitive position, power over regulators, lobbying power?--Betternews (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed self-sourced items

Self-sourced items are WP:PROMOTIONAL and cannot be used in articles on Wikipedia. Facts must come from secondary, independent sources, per WP:IS. See discussion at Talk:Knights of Columbus and later Talk:Mises Institute for more information. Elizium23 (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:Identifying and using independent sources states it is only an "explanatory supplement". (WP:Identifying and using self-published works is another relevant one btw.) Refer to the main polices pages such as WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability (section WP:SELFPUB) instead. Self published sources can be used for non-controversial info and non-WP:BLP uses. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That is not the policy that has been established by editors at Talk:Knights of Columbus. They contend that WP:SPS material lends an inherently WP:PROMOTIONAL tone to articles, and that organizations that publish their own information (such as membership numbers and financials) always inflate those numbers (they lie) to promote themselves and their self-published data can't be trusted, only information in secondary, independent sources (WP:IS.) @Avatar317: @Slatersteven: @Slywriter: @Gnu57: Elizium23 (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

On this issue, Boeing can't lie about its employees or financials without facing severe penalties. And no one has ever disputed the numbers they publish unlike the KofC.

This seems to be a WP:POINTy edit to achieve a different consensus with a different set of editors from an unrelated topic. As it is, you have an RfC on the KofC page and another on a project page. Let's keep the debate in one place and skip the WP:forumshopping Slywriter (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says you can't have one standard for Boeing and another standard for the Knights of Columbus article. Either self-published sources can be used in a certain way or they can't. I don't seek a "different consensus", I seek a uniform one. Elizium23 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Boeing, as a public company, go through Financial audit. It can't lie about it, or it's a felony. For raw financials (eg revenue), there is no interpretation,WP:Primary sources are acceptable in this way. There are some mishaps, but WP:Secondary sources can't know more. To make a parallel in aviation, aircraft specifications from the manufacturer can be reliable as they have a type certification. Editors here or for other large companies are aware of avoiding primary sources for controversial topics (eg "the best product in the world"). I'm not sure taking a fraternity club or a 21-people think tank as examples are meaningful.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you trying to get arguments for your own fraternity club?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is a POINTy edit. Elizium23 seems to do this often. At John Mulaney, they were trying to make some sort of point about gay people getting noted for coming out of the closet but straight people not getting the same treatment(?) in a similarly veiled/"straw man" way.Cerebral726 (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SPS can be used as long as the information is not seen as unduly self serving, and (as has been pointed out) subject to auditing. Personally I would never use a company for information about itself, but some commonsense must apply. Boeing (for example) have no need to really lie about how many people they employ whereas "MyNewCompanySeekingInvestment" might. Its contextual.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to discus users actions, that is at wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

And Elizium23 already brought his complaints about my edits to ANI in Nov 2019: you can see that discussion here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Avatar317_removing_WP:ABOUTSELF_material ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Avatar317, that is not WP:ANI. Elizium23 (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Boeing runs out of cash / needs bailout to avoid bankruptcy

Even optimistic reports see no way anymore that Boeing has a path to survive on its own after burning an additional 13bn credit line since January. How should the path from a successful company to this situation be reflected in the article? --Betternews (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

By using references.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

History 1931-1960?

No history between 1931 and 1960? No explanation of why the manufacturing base is in Seattle? This is really a crappy article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnWysong (talk • contribs) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@LynnWysong: It's in summary style, i.e. with the main article clearly linked at the top of the section (History of Boeing). Anyway, pitching in and fixing it would be better than complaining about it on the talk page? Mark83 (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I must have been in a really crappy mood.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries :) Mark83 (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC on hatnote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus view of this discussion is not to include hatnote for The Boring Company. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Is the hatnote for The Boring Company needed? In other words, is it likely for users to accidentally land on this page while looking for The Boring Company? -Zanhe (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• No. It makes no sense to have a hatnote for The Boring Company without a corresponding hatnote for Boring/Boredom or Boring (earth). -Zanhe (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe. On most keyboards, the E is right next to the R so a typo could be done between The Bo(e/r)ing Company (and maybe between Boeing and Boring). That said, access stats would be welcome, and symmetry would be needed in The Boring Company to point here (it is the case).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes provided that {{Redirect distinguish}} continues to be used, rather than a plain {{Distinguish}}. There is room for potential confusion with the full title The Boeing Company, though admittedly it is unlikely that many users will be searching for Boeing under its full name. What would be even better would be the ability to have the hatnote displayed by this page only if coming from the redirect, but AFAIK that can't be done on wiki. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• No. Seems unnecessary since Boeing is better known as simply Boeing and not The Boeing Company. Additionally, while both The Boring Company and The Boeing Company are both arguably transportation technology companies, one works on tunnel building and the other on airplane manufacturing. There is enough difference for readers to not accidentally confuse the two. Central Midfielder (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, God, no Kill it with fire. We don't just think up hypothetical typos or imagine all the ways somebody somewhere might be confused. Is there any evidence that anybody is having trouble distinguishing between these two companies? Why not focus on real, rather than hypothetical, problems? What next? The Boerke Company? The Book Company? The Bouqs Company? The Flooring Company? Ad infinitum. Hatnotes {{Distinguish}} and {{about}} and {{other uses}} are for when topics have the same name or have a strong resemblance, not slant rhymes or all the ways someone could fat finger typing the word. It really makes us look silly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, since The Boring Company, unlike Boeing, does use the initials TBC, the only hatnote there should be to TBC (disambiguation). There are no plausible confusions with Boeing, not even Boeing Boeing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes It is entirely possible that people searching for "The Boring Company" will accidentally type "The Boeing Company". While this is an uncommon name for Boeing, it is a redirect to Boeing, and is a 1-character typo that is the adjacent key on standard QWERTY keyboards. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Other one character typos from Boeing include Being Inc., doeing, Goeing Goeing & McQuinn PLLC, hoeing, Koenig (?), Roeing Corporation, and on and on. Do you know of an actual case of anybody making this mistake? How could topics as significant and well-known as these two companies suffer from this confusion without anybody ever mentioning it? If this problem were real, people would say so. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• No. The chances of someone confusing the two seem so slim it's practically implausible. What's next, Nike and Nuke? Ford and Lord? Qatar and cuter? ZaneGlaze (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes I think someone could be listening to a story on the radio or television and turn to WP to get clarification. Upon mishearing it, they mistype it in the search and we should help the for WP:CHEAP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• WP:CHEAP is about redirects and has nothing to do with hatnotes. Hatnotes are not cheap because they clutter up the page. If "The Boring Company" were considered confusing enough to warrant a hatnote, there would be no reason not to add Boring, Boing, Being, Booing, and other words that bear more similarity with Boeing. This page would be dominated by numerous irrelevant links on the top. -Zanhe (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• No - Anyone who makes typing or aural errors should be able to sort it without our cluttering up the page with possible corrections. (Invited randomly by a bot) Jojalozzo (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Either way is fine Summoned by bot. One way or the other doesn't really matter, in the big scheme of things. There are far more bigger content problems to focus on. I personally dislike the practice of putting in redirects for misspellings. Learn to spell people! That being said, I can see a better argument for adding a hatnote at the top of The Boring Company, distinguishing it from The Boeing Company, a more well known brand, versus having a hatnote at the top of Boeing, a single word that is not likely to be typed by people looking for The Boring Company. I just don't see that anyone will type "The Boring Company" when they mean "The Boeing Company" They'd just type Boeing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• No Disambig is for where there is a real chance of confusion, not to cover the zillions of possible mis-types.North8000 (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• No As others have stated we cant list every wrong spelling of a word that is particulary well known. MilborneOne (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cocacolaperson. Peer reviewers: Haileylab.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Financials section

Do additional citations need to be added here to verify still? Shelbyhoward423 (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Citations belong in the article per WP:Verify. The Revenue data for years 2005 to 2008 in the Financials table are uncited now. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fnlayson Thank you. Having trouble uploading the Revenue info for the year 2008. Any suggestions? Shelbyhoward423 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Shelbyhoward423, I went back to the main Annualreportowl.com Boeing page and looked for 2008, which is this one. Is this what you are looking for? -Fnlayson (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Boeing owner

Who ownes Boeing? 24.118.221.221 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Its shareholders. BilCat (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Corporate headquarters

Should we change all mentions of corporate headquarters from Chicago to Arlington, Virginia? Dmford13 (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states that the HQ has been officially moved? Also, we won't change all mentions of Chicago being the location of the HQ, only the mentions of the current HQ. (That might seem obvious, but you'd be surprised how often stuff like that happens!) BilCat (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I found one (after a bit of searching) - "Boeing has moved its global headquarters from Chicago to Arlington, Virginia, a major transition the company says will align it closer with customers and help it advance development of new technologies. The relocation to Arlington, a suburb of Washington, DC, is effective immediately, Boeing says on 5 May."

References

• Boeing announced on May 5, 2022 that it had named the Northern Virginia Office Its Global Headquarters, though it is unclear when this move would be completed [at least to me]. I can not find any other news releases on this move. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

See above ;) Mark83 (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Divisions

I have a book called: "Making It Count - An Introduction To Computers and Their Applications", Student Manual. This book states that it was copy righted to "The Boeing Company" 1980 at the top of the first page it says "BCS" - Boeing Computer Services Company". Under that it says "A Division of The Boeing Company". 40701-003-R2 March 1982 Printed in "The United States of America". To me this means that "The Boeing Company", must have had another division(BCS), since it is referenced as such on The Title Page of the book copyrighted to "The Boeing Company". Why is this division not listed under the "Divisions" or the "History" of the company? Kyde2023 (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sea Launch, North American, Rocketdyne ...

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

• There's nothing wrong adding this info, but source(s) need to be added support it. North American and Rocketdyne fell under Rockwell as I recall. Rocketdyne was sold off to Pratt & Whitney in early 2000s.[4] -Fnlayson (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm just expressing surprise these significant acquisitions and divestitures were not already mentioned, but somehow Sea Launch was. Yes, both NAA and AJ were both part of what they got from Rockwell, none of which is mentioned in this article. I just think that was a significant acquisition, even if one part was eventually sold later. At least the Santa Susana piece of that is mentioned in the environmental section. Even the Hughes acquisition is mentioned. Boeing also got out of Sea Launch which went into bankruptcy, and in the history of the company it doesn't appear to me to have been significant enough to note in this article (as opposed to History of Boeing, where, by the way, Sea Launch is not mentioned at all). But that's just my opinion.

  I'll give it some more thought and might come back with some proposed prose. Or not ;-).  — Archer (t·c) 23:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Statistics

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

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

‘Importance’ and ‘Jargon’ flags

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

I only added the importance tag for the 777X content. It looks like User:TypistMonkey added the jargon tag. Boeing's Commercial Airplanes division article would be the more fitting article to cover commercial airplanes details. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I checked there however there is an article already specifically devoted to the Boeing 777X and IMvHO the defect(s) that have plagued the yet to be released 777X also belong in this article's section (Defects and crashes), as they are very much material to the now established picture of difficulties in the company's compromised manufacturing safety record, and the general impression of dereliction following lawsuits since the merger with Douglas. So for now, I have expanded this paragraph to show the six years of delays in the release of the 777X have been due to safety and technical problems, and linked to the Testing section of the Boeing 777X article, added two citations and taken down the tag. Happy to throw this open to general discussion for consensus if you're adamant. I will also ping User:TypistMonkey re the jargon tag. Chrisdevelop (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@TypistMonkey: Thanks for your recent cleanups to this article. Re your 'jargon' tag, the self-explanatory term ‘blowout’ of the plug door is used in all the mainstream press articles I have linked to in citations, e.g. here, and is industry-standard terminology: e.g. here. So for now, I have taken down the tag, but if you have a better term, please go ahead and substitute. Chrisdevelop (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Door plug vs. plug door

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

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

The FAA refers to the part that fell and the parts that need inspection as "door exit plugs": [5]. The New York Times calls it a "door plug": [6]. Both of those sources are cited in the paragraph where "door plug" was changed to "plug door". So, I am going to revert that edit and restore "door plug" as the proper that reflects what reliable sources say.  — Archer (t·c) 06:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This had already been corrected, however several reversions by Fnlayson (instead of copy-edits - see above) may have undone this correction. Chrisdevelop (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It was not a reversion that restored it. It was likely just a simple mistake due to confusion about the distinction between a door plug and a plug door that even reliable sources appear to be confused about. Please assume good faith.  — Archer (t·c) 13:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The confusion was originally introduced by me based on media reports I cited, and the error was correctly reverted by User:Fnlayson, however Fnlayson‘s subsequent multiple reversions of entire edits reintroduced the error, so far as I can see going back through the edit history. Anyway, it is correct now, so thank you for spotting and fixing. Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken, but maybe I've got it wrong. But it doesn't matter. I suggest that you find something else to debate. Just let it go and find something else to be productive with. This haggling over who introduced what is just a waste of everyone's time.  — Archer (t·c) 13:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It was originally my misunderstanding that caused the error, and it is good that the door plug issue has been corrected. My point about wholesale reversions remains, in that they can unintentionally revert edits that in some instances may have been originally requested by the reverter, as in this case. There is nothing wrong with making this observation, so your paternalism is uncalled for. Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The more reliable aviations sites use "door plug", e.g. this by FlightGlobal and this by AviationWeek. This should settle the matter. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and agreed. There is something called a plug door, which on a cursory examination resembles the plane door on the MAX 9, hence the confusion. Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Both types are used in aviation, the difference is in the way the door fits into the frame: a plug door is formed as a tapered plug, a door plug bolts on to a conventional surround. Must be an easy mistake to make if you have only ever come across one of them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

No, this is a high level corporation article. The details of released objects and debris are out of place in this article. The accident article would be a proper location instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I notice you entered {{citation needed}} in several places in this article, for all of which I sourced citations. Why didn’t you source these yourself, instead of making it someone else's problem? I say this, because if you believe the material adduced regarding found detritus should be placed in a lower level article, why not move it there yourself? Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You seem to not be assuming good faith towards Fnlayson. Not everyone has the time or resources to fix problems immediately after they discover them, so they add maintenance templates to make others aware of the problems and fix them if they can. That's why the citation needed template exists in the first place. There is nothing wrong with using citation needed templates, and to compare the use of them to somebody else's problem is uncalled for. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

My time is not less valuable than Fnlayson's, who probably spent as much time continually reverting my edits as they could have spent doing the job themselves. When I see a citation is needed, I research it and place it myself. The only time I ever place a {{citations needed}} tag is when I cannot find the information myself after looking for it. In this instance, all Fnlayson needed to do was to move the contested edit into the article they said it belonged in, instead of grandstanding. Reversion undoes a lot of work in the twinkling of an eye, so I am not a fan of deletionism. You may also note from the door plug post below, that one of these reversions undid a reversion that corrected the door plug entry I made. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:Third opinion request filed here: Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements - currently 8th in queue. Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It's great that you have the time and resources to do research instead of adding citation needed tags as soon as you find unsourced content, but that doesn't give you the right to attack other editors for using citation needed tags. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

My argument relates to this specific editor who continually reverts instead of making corrections themselves. The activity this generates indicates they have well enough time to find citations, which for something this notable are easy to find, and come at the top level of a Google search. Take a look at their Contribution History: 143,203 edits. That is a lot for someone "without time and resources".

A case in point was the editor's reversion of a substantial contribution I had made, because (quoting from all the sources in the citations) I described the hole in the fuselage as a 'large' - some sources described it as 'gaping' and 'vast', neither of which I used - nevertheless the editor went ahead and reverted my entire contribution as "hyperbole". The editor said the hole in the fuselage was only "door-sized". So to keep the rest of my contribution I then had to undo the reversion manually with copy-edit because other edits had happened in-between, and sustitute 'door-sized' for 'large', which the editor thereafter left alone. The preferable course of action would have been for the editor to make the change from 'large' to 'door-sized' themselves, instead of reverting the entire edit. This is deletionism as already mentioned.

For some reason, you seem to think it is your business to climb in to my dispute with this editor, with frankly, patronizing commentary. Kindly leave it to me and User:Fnlayson to sort out our differences and let them speak for themselves. I have called for a WP:Third opinion and will abide by the finding, whatever that is. Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I cannot just stand by and watch an editor be attacked for normal, constructive editing behavior. For some reason, you seem to not understand that. You have turned this into a discussion about an editor rather than about improving to the article. If you think Fnlayson was wrong to use citation needed tags, bring it up on their talk page. Don't use it to try to discredit their opinion here. If you want to work out your differences with Fnlayson, then you can start by retracting your disparaging comments against Fnlayson and start a more civil discussion about your feeling about their edits on their talk page. If you attack other editors for normal editing behavior, do not expect others to turn a blind eye. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Fnlayson reverts any additions I made to their Talk page, as is the policy stated in the Notes on that page. The “attack” is all in your mind. And I repeat, Fnlayson are surely able to speak for themselves. Note I am using gender-neutral terms, since I do not know this much detail about the editor. You are climbing in where your intervention is not called for. Leave Fnlayson and the 3rd Opinion Editor to speak for themselves. Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Incivility calls for intervention, whether you like it or not. This is becoming disruptive, so drop the attitude and learn from your mistakes. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The “disruptiveness” started the moment you inserted yourself into a non-confrontational dispute between Fnlayson and me, in respect of which I have sought WP:3rd opinion. I will abide by whatever the consensus is. Your intemperate intervention however is what has been disruptive. Fnlayson is clearly an experienced editor and they don’t need you to stand up for them. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Why didn’t you source these yourself, instead of making it someone else's problem?" is non-confrontational? I'll let your third party be the judge of that. I'll continue watching this discussion closely, but in an attempt to de-escalate the situation, I will no longer comment on your behavior. Whether or not you are willing to de-escalate with Fnlayson is entirely your decision. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I “attacked” nobody. It is entirely up to Fnlayson, the 3rd opinion editor and me to speak for ourselves. No-one, least of Fnlayson asked you to chime in here vicariously. Your confrontational rhetoric has been anything but helpful and has no place in the resolution of this disagreement, which was civil until you chimed in. I have already said more than once, I will abide amicably by consensus, even if that is not in accord with my opening position. Seriously, leave us alone. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I did go a bit too hard on you. While I still believe that your reaction to Fnlayson's use of the citation needed template to have been unwarranted, I should have not overreacted in the way I did. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, at least some of the reverts relating to the size of the hole were me, not Fnlayson, and it was me that mentioned "door-sized" in an edit summary. I didn't change the description to "door-sized", partly because it isn't a particularly encyclopaedic term, and partly because I feel that any mention of this level of detail is inappropriate for the Boeing article. Not deletionist, just a matter of due weight. Faced with your insistence I let "door-sized" remain, but I still don't believe it is/was necessary here. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. In the haze of edits, I did not realise that edit was not Fnlyason’s. Be that as it may, I used ‘door-sized’ because you used it in your reversion text, and so I assumed that would satisfy the challenge. Feel free to substitute another adjective for the hole in the fuselage. I don’t think removal of the hole-size descriptor improves the article, but I do agree with you that a separate article may warrant fleecing some of this content from the Boeing main article. Meanwhile, I don’t see a problem with building this until someone starts the new stub article. Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Fnlayson and ZLEA that the arbitrary debris is too far down the rabbit-hole for this article about the company. I am pretty sure that this incident will soon merit an article all its own (despite there being no crash or loss of life as such), though media claims of its significance to the company are not really solid enough yet. There might be some leeway in building the stub of that article here before splitting it off, but I think we are not even at that stage yet. Either way, a bit of debris needs more significance than media chit-chat before being added. This is not an easy incident to get our coverage right, so I trust we can tolerate alternative approaches from our colleagues; in particular, Fnlayson is a long-time and highly responsible editor on these aviation pages and I'd advise any complainant to think things through carefully first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Let’s see what the 3rd opinion comes up with. As I said, I will abide by whatever consensus is reached. There is no place for the invective that has crept into this conversation on the part of a certain other editor. Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the WP:3O criteria are met – firstly, there are more than two editors in disagreement, and secondly we didn't have a thorough discussion before you posted the 3O request. It seems to me that consensus is emerging to keep the section brief and give the details elsewhere (be that in the MAX article or the AS1282 article, or in a hypothetical 2024 groundings article depending on how the investigation plays out). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

At the time I lodged this, only two editors were in disagreement. Up to 6 days are allowed before the 3rd Opinion request lapses, and others appear content to abide by one, if it emerges. Be that as it may, I am astonished by such hardline insistence that this information be excised from such a major story, and it now seems to me to have become more a brinkmanship of 'winners and losers' between editors than how to improve this article. It is surely not beneficial to the encyclopedia to withhold from readers the fact that the crucial doorplug, 2 mobile phones and the missing fuselage miraculously landed in people's backyards without killing anyone or demolishing a house. Moreover, there is talk of siphoning this subsection off into a stub article and that being the case, it should be being built to the point where it outgrows this space, as commonly occurs in Wikipedia. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It should go without saying that I'll abide by any 3O opinion that may emerge. I'll just point out that we are not talking about "excising" information or "withholding" it from readers, simply about determining whether it is important enough to constitute an improvement to this article (which is about the Boeing company as a whole) or whether it is better left for more detailed articles. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Reversion excised the information completely. The editor who reverted it did not move it to a lower level article. Had they done so, then I would have accepted that. Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The information has been added to Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 § Aftermath, where it provides an appropriate level of detail. It is of no importance whether that was done by the editor who reverted it here or by someone else. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

Thank you, but I couldn’t disagree more. My concern has been with the behaviour of certain editors contributing to this page. I am not other editors’ amanuensis, and my time is not less valuable than theirs. Speaking for myself, if I believe a contribution belongs in another article, I move it there myself and leave a courtesy note to the editor who made the contribution either on their talk page or the talk page of the article, or both. I do not engage in edit wars, and they’re not allowed on Wikipedia anyway, yet this came close, had I not stopped undoing repeated reversions of my contribution. These are the opposite of helpful and courteous, and do not WP:AGF. Reversions or deletions of comprehensive contributions should not in my view be made as the first resort, since they may undo a pile of work just to correct a small part thereof, and can come across as high-handed and borderline contemptuous of the contribution. I use reversion only in the case of vandalism, or when an entire contribution is unsustainable, or where I believe a wrongful reversion has been made of my contribution. This was debated at length here and there was a deeply toxic RFC after an editor deleted an entire Awards table instead of posting a {{citation needed}} tag at the very least, or finding the source themselves. When one considered that the table had remained unchallenged for 7 years and received 2 million views, it was clearly not in the “likely to be challenged” class such that necessitated its complete disappearance, thereby vacating the possibility of citing sources. Likewise, peppering an article with {{citation needed}} tags next to contributions that are unlikely to be challenged can lead to WP:Citation overkill, making it hard for readers to navigate the text. Citation overkill also puts other editors to a great deal of unnecessary work, especially where existing citations may already contain corroborative material, if the challenger took the trouble to read them before posting the {{cn}} tag. If I believe a citation is needed, I source it and put it there myself. Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC) I regret having to address this again, but I'll try to not overreact this time. You still seem to be under the impression that only your way is correct in regards to the use of reversions and citation needed tags. Self-righteous behavior is incompatible with Wikipedia, as it inevitably leads to clashes with editors whose contributions do not meet your standards. If you prefer to limit your use of reversions or to add sources as soon as you find unsourced content, that's perfectly fine for you to do. However, collaboration between editors is a lot easier when you recognize that not everyone contributes to the project the same way. - ZLEA T\C 03:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Arbitrarily deleting another editor’s work that may have taken hours, days or weeks to prepare, is analogous to the class bully who goes around the art room destroying the other kids’ work, or kicking over sandcastles on the beach. Kicking down sandcastles instead of collegially trying to improve them is not “contributing in a different way”. It is the opposite of “collaborative”, and whatever else it assumes, it is not assuming good faith. As for your accusation of self-righteousness, that’s a bit rich considering the way you interposed yourself in the dispute between me and another editor. Let them speak for themselves. Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC) I'll go with whatever the consensus is here. Until then I have nothing further to add. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Consensus here is now four to one. Subject to any late and overwhelming response via 3O, I think we should all move on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Read WP:Consensus. It is not supposed to be a ‘vote’ scoring winners and losers. I have not changed my view that arbitary deletion should not be editors’ first choice, unless the contribution is WP:vandalism. Deleting other people’s good faith contributions instead of reassigning or improving them I consider lazy, bullying and disheartening for the contributor, and its ubiquity is the reason I choose not to write any articles for Wikipedia and instead file them under WP:Requested articles. Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC) While consensus isn't a vote per se, it is generally safe to conclude that if all the other editors contributing to the discussion disagree with a suggested addition, there is no consensus to make the addition. And FWIW, the 3O request was declined [7]. So let's just move on. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

accidents section is too contemporary

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

You're right, Boeing aircraft have crashed before the last few years, but none have caused such controversy for the company as the MAX accidents. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)