Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings/Archive 2

Removal of information provided by 38 year Boeing controls Engineer
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.


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 86.187.171.30 (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. 86.187.171.30 (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. 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."   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)
 * I am not sure if this has become a tangent, but since you asked I looked up his linkedin 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)
 * "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." — 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; — Unsigned comment added by  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: — Unsigned comment added by  10:25, 18 May 2019


 * Judge Andrew Napolitano on the possible legal implications of the two accidents here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.241 (talk • contribs) 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: — Unsigned comment added by  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, thus effectively making it impossible for the manufacturer to properly test the system, never mind the FAA. — Unsigned comment added by 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 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. &mdash; 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 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 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. 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 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
 * 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." (Click "Show 5 more experiences")
 * Boeing Everett Division Engineering Employee of the Month, 1990

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

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."

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

Article lead section
{| role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
 * earlier discussions
 * , 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)
 * ,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)
 * 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)


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

, 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)
 * 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2. 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)
 * , 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
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 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 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, 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: []
 * current page vs your older top:ce []

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)


 * {ping|DonFB}}, I'm glad we're having this discussion:

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]
 * airliners and regulators is implied. In using the passive voice, the WHAT's being grounded is the SUBJECT, not WHO grounded the planes. So, disputable. :-)

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]
 * deadly crashes implied people were killed.

of the crash. The Civil Aviation Administration of China ordered a nationwide grounding [fails to state 1st regulator]
 * but the CAA was listed first, isn't it implied? We didn't even emphasize the US was the last. So I'm confused.

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"]


 * airlines and regulars worldwide. Your version restates the subject many times.

regulators and airlines in the next days [how many? five? eleven? ans: two].
 * So we need to do the math for the readers, March 13 below...

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"]
 * The Continued Airworthiness from the FAA states that the plane is operable, but the FAA is overseeing changes to the MCAS.

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]
 * how about new evidence received on March 13? again, improvements possible not entirely revertable.

In short: sloppy, careless, ambiguous, incomplete, inaccurate and poorly styled--for the sake of "brevity". Shencypeter (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks a lot, I appreciate it, I think you're just being smug right now due to the page protection.


 * Avoid personal comments. Article protection or not, my analysis on Talk can be seen by anyone. Again, as you've previously commented, you're relying on "implying" important facts in an article. A misguided philosophy for writing an encyclopedia, so that argument will never pass muster with me. Yes, we tell readers upfront that it was two days; don't leaving them wondering; sentence looked like it was missing a word or number (and from point of view of effective writing, it was). I believe, in one of the earlier versions, the text clearly explained that Canada/US got new information and on same day grounded. Some of that was edited out (probably by Marc when he did major cuts to the lede), so what remained was only explicit date FAA grounded: that's the more important fact than knowing the day they got new info, which can be put in body. So, in the interest of brevity, we keep the more important fact in the lede, date of grounding, and state it unambiguously. "Deadly crashes" indeed, as you said, "implied people were killed." Words "deadly" and "killed" (or the tabloid-style "claimed lives") are not both needed in same sentence. Strip the sentence down to its essentials: "The deadly crash killed people/claimed lives." Amateurishly redundant. No different than saying, "The fatal crash killed people." If the crash killed people, of course it was fatal or deadly, so that modifier is unnecessary. Article does not need to imply people were killed; article needs to state it straightforwardly without hints or embellishment. Have you heard of Strunk and White? Very useful. I recommend getting a copy and reading it. Will help you understand some of this stuff. DonFB (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I intended to have a smiley emoticon next to the observation that your closing remarks demonstrated smug. :-) I like to reference other articles as basis of my edits:
 * "The September 11 attacks (also referred to as 9/11)[a] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda[2][3][4] against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000 others, and caused at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage.[5][6] Additional people died of 9/11-related cancer and respiratory diseases in the months and years following the attacks."
 * I hope that the above illustrates that active voice isn't a prerequisite for all sentences -- It is used here and there, and in my case, to use Boeing 737 MAX as a target of the grounding.


 * "attacks were" -- active voice (but weak verb); "attacks killed" -- active voice; "people died" -- active voice. You need to review your grammar school grammar. DonFB (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I have collapsed the earlier discussion. Let's focus on how to summarize the rest of the article (Pilot complaints, boeing, etc...) Shencypeter (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * }

Pending addition in #Airline demands for compensation
Airlines counteract the capacity loss by extending leases, deferring maintenance, rearrange aircraft assignments, and cancel flights as most did not scheduled MAXs until August at least. On May 22, Bloomberg L.P. estimated Boeing’s reimbursements will approach $1.4 billion based on typical operating profit per aircraft, won’t be allocated until "expected deliveries are made" and compensation can include order changes. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Chinese carriers estimates the cost of the grounding at CNY4 billion ($579 million) by the end of June. The delivery delay will cost Ryanair about a million passengers through the summer of 2019, but the low-cost carrier is confident and don’t need cash compensation, but is more interested in better pricing on future orders. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd tweak that last sentence slightly. But otherwise looks fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

MCAS failures - Hazardous or catastrophic ?
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. 67.190.126.82 (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.  67.190.126.82 (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No plans for 737 to add sensor, just that the MCAS now knows when two disagree and at which time to STFU. Shencypeter (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 May 2019
United Airlines has extended its 737 MAX cancellation into August. Source
 * ✅ Shencypeter (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC) latest revision

Also an SEC investigation in to Boeing disclosures has been launched. Source

Please read the sources. I hope you will approve. Thank you in advance! Tigerdude9 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Tigerdude9 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to acquire an "archive" of the Financial Times article? — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)    20:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

. Please outline your proposed changes in the form of from X to Y. El_C 14:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Certification inquiry
"is this a valid piped link?" (diff) [ Hazard_analysis ] might be a better for "safety analysis". It explains "hazardous" and "catastrophic" in the context. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)    10:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, a much better idea. That's what I was searching for. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought you wanted to add the piped link to the article, so I did not do it. Do you want to add it? — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)    16:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How very gracious of you. Now added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to service
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? &mdash; 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.
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/business/boeing-737-max-simulators.html - supports the AA push for simulator training.
 * https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEU_enTW819TW819&ei=Z8HjXMatGoPz8QXYtIco&q=737+max+flawed+simulators+&oq=737+max+flawed+simulators+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39.46967.47130..47522...0.0..0.78.154.2......0....1..gws-wiz.8Sbekpq1hho
 * 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)
 * Pointed to potential refs that could additionally supplement your edits. I tend to &lt;ref&gt; the articles as is, which may lean in either direction. It was this ==> [] you submitted with a remark "neutral rewrote.." and upgraded to better RS Shencypeter (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; 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 archive.org. 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. Boeing promoted the 737 MAX as needing the "same flight simulators", 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. 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. In the wake of the accidents, Boeing said it wanted pilots to train on computer tablets or similar devices, not simulators. According to the aviation source Leeham News and Analysis, few 737 MAX simulators are available."


 * [sourced, mostly, to the Leeham "pontificate" (May 20) and "how Boeing promoted" (May 16) articles] DonFB (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I prefer the shorter present version.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * similar statement with another ref: Some regulators are expected to require [simulator sessions]. Simulator availability is an issue. In North America, only one of the five MAX major operators—Air Canada—has a MAX simulator.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. For now, I'm not inserting that longer version, though I think it explains the situation nicely. The shorter version talks about the difference between NG and MAX simulators, but I see almost no discussion of that issue in the sources. Rather, the sources are focusing on the question of whether any simulator training should or should not be required for transitioning pilots (and the sources seem to imply that requirement might apply to pilots who already were flying the MAX). I agree with your point above that it's not always easy to find a good place to put information; that's one of the reasons I've hesitated adding my proposed simulator text. My text is longer, but still concise I believe, because I think the article needs a clear explanation, which is currently lacking, of the background to the simulator debate; namely: When developing the MAX, Boeing emphasized that sim was not needed and a lot of money would be saved; now, after the accidents, the sim issue is debated, and Canada, notably, has pushed back strongly, saying it wants sim training. The paragraph somewhat offhandedly mentions the FSB report and Transport Canada. I am working on a separate edit to give Canada's opposition to the FSB position on sim training the importance it appears to deserve. My text draft:
 * On April 16, the FAA Flight Standardization Board (FSB) said Boeing's proposed MCAS software upgrade will not require existing 737 MAX pilots to get new training in a cockpit simulator, but the FSB said training for new pilots should include "special emphasis" on MCAS. [upi] After the FSB report was released, Transport Canada Minister Garneau said he strongly favored simulators for the training and opposed the idea of pilots merely "pulling out an iPad and spending an hour on it." [bloomberg-Canad,disreg]
 * Paragraph would continue to include info on ALPA and Southwest and American airlines sim opinions, and should include info on scarcity of MAX sims (which I've seen sourced in a couple of mainstream media). DonFB (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What I've seen over the last few months is that Ethiopian had a Max simulator on order at the time of Lion Air. It seems it came online in the next several months but unclear whether it was up and running or not fully operational or what the issue was. I presume it was made by CAE because that is the only source of such simulator I could find.  I believe Ethiopian already has NG or other 737 sims - you guys can dig up the list it is definitely online.  What I took away from several mentions of this in multiple sources is that Ethiopian intended and planned to offer sim training over and above what was required by the FAA.  Whether they were first in the world or one of the first hard to know but it seems they are leading.  I've never seen a detailed list of the differences NG vs MAX sims anywhere ever.  It just did not happen in time, and whether it would have made a difference nobody may ever know. I suspect this will become a big issue in the ungrounding debate - should sim time be required, and is CAE ready with enough units in the field?Greenbe (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sideline
"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)


 * 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 06:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Disputed WP:EL
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)
 * 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.
 * What do you say? Could you return that 3 links?   Aron M🍁   (➕)   08:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.   Aron M🍁  (➕)   09:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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


 * "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)


 * 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 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)

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🍂  <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)  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🍂  <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)  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" "Don't reverse the burden."(1) "it was disputed (not by me)" "If the source is that good it should be used to add to the article and be used as a source." – Milborn
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    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. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(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?

"opinionated, therefore biased" That's very different: https://wikidiff.com/opinionated/biased (+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🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    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. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    17:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 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.

would you like to share your thoughts for the consensus? — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    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)


 * Sorry I have been unable to get on Wikipedia for a couple of weeks. I didn't see any major issue with the Verge as a source and the rest of the list.  Videos are fine (although bulky) but my rec is to use them where they bring something unique to the story and point to the specific minute in the video of that unique item in the notes so people can see for themselves.  It is very hard after a few weeks to follow what is going on.  I support efforts to get the page unblocked if that is still an issue.  A single revert imho is fine (with a clear reason) but if the edit is rewritten attempting to address the concern please post on talk stating your quibbles to gain support from other editors before a unilateral second revert.  Isn't that just simply reasonable?Greenbe (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback! Marc and Andrew - who reverted 3 times - were not respecting the consensus process, did not post to the discussion, but we are over the edit-war now, and the Vox video survived. — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    23:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Long live Vox. ;-)Greenbe (talk) 23:51, 30 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 

 Overview   Videos   Details 
 * — A summary.
 * — Explanation of the technical reason.
 * — About the certification process and the senate hearings.
 * — Graphical illustration of the trim issue.

Please share your comments before adding this to the article. — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    13:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Added links, fixed 60 minutes link... prev link was dead. Discuss further additions/removals below: — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    21:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Nobody noticed that [The Air Current article] is only related to ET302? — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    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)


 * 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🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    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)

EL consensus to unprotect the page
We are here after 2 weeks of discussions, mainly between me and, regarding which External Links to include. After Marc left the discussion, and no other editor replied for 2 days, I wrote a summary, see above. After half a day I edited the article. This was partially reverted by Marc, then me, then an uninvolved editor, me again, then Marc, and the page was protected for 4 days.

Neither the consensus, nor any policy supported removing those links, and this is the second time in 3 days Marc chose multiple reverts instead of a discussion. It would help all of us to read [ Negotiation ] again.

After the page protection the beneficial resolution would be to let go of this dispute, agree on the included links, and ask to unprotect the page, so contributing editors ( and atm) can continue their work.

In the previous discussion 7 links were proposed, only 1 article and 3 videos are disputed now. I let go of The Verge article, as it's tone is debatable, and the 60 minutes video, which is over-dramatized. The Vox video is necessary imo: it explains and illustrates the reason for Mcas, the design decisions, and its role in the accidents. Many people will rather watch a video than read the very good, but long BBC article, and possibly read the article later for more details. The Wsj video is a good source of interviews, Boeing statements, an overview of the DER system, FAA certification, and how the Max will be re-certified. This information is not available in the wiki article (and not many media articles), thus it adds great value to the wiki page. That's a reason to include according to WP:EL.

Negative opinions (only regarding the videos):

Marc wrote before leaving the discussion: "I find the videos unnecessary", then: "Because it's non searchable and imposes its linearity." — Marc. agreed. I wrote: Linearity "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" — Aron. Marc answered, referring to a previous answer: "Exhausting and confusing indeed" — Marc.

To have a discussion, we need to provide real arguments about the content. Please share your views regarding the 2 videos (Vox video, Wsj video, optionally the 60 minutes video). Thank you. — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    17:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added my real arguments, or observations at least, already and do not intend to repeat them here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I can support the fact-based Vox video, which gives good explanation of how Boeing-Airbus competition led to MAX development and very good visualizations of MAX engine issue and reason for MCAS. I don't support the WSJ, which one-sidedly tries to blame accidents on "self-regulation", nor the 60 Minutes piece, which says nothing about Boeing bulletin nor FAA AD after the Lion Air crash; slanted to avoid explaining what info besides QRH may have been available to crew of ET302. DonFB (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will, however, wholly endorse the comments of DonFB above. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the Vox video. I don't have any strong opinions on the ELs, except that robots can automatically police external links by anonymous IP editors. The page is set to self-expire, just saying. Shencypeter (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a similar opinion to DonFB, although I did not notice the WSJ blaming the crashes on self-regulation. It shows a connection, attributed to "critiques". Some outtakes:

4:12 "Today, under the ODA system Boeing employees certify the safety of Boeing's own planes. Per [Ralph] Nader and the agencies critics this is a clear conflict-of-interest, but for the FAA's defenders these concers are overblown." Then Randy Rabbit former FAA administrator states FAA, Boeing, Airbus pilots, engineers work together on certification. 4:46 "And that's something both sides can agree on: today the FAA simply cannot do all of thses inspections, because it does not have the manpower or resources." Then comes the statement from acting FAA admin, economic calculations. An old statement from Dany Elwell about de-regulation. 6:10 "...despite these recent crashes modern air safety for large transport aircraft in America is better than ever." 6:40 "Since both investigations are still ongoing, it's too early to say but former FAA head Dabbit thinks the answer is an uncomfortable one: "... 7:08 "...every now and then the holes in the swiss cheese line up, and that's what happened." 7:15 "But the agency's critiques see very differently: for them the two recent crashes are further proof that de-regulation has gone out-out-control and that industry has taken over the FAA. 8:42 The final sentence: "The long-standing collaborative engagement between FAA, Boeing, its customers and industry partners has created the safest transportation system in the world." - Boeing
 * If that is one-sided, what is the other side(s)? — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    12:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a balanced selection of quotes from the video, but does not, in my view, represent the thrust of the piece. It leans heavily on many sound bites from a skeptical Ralph Nader, and generally, in my perception, suggests that the crashes represent a failure of the ODA. That may well be correct, but I'm inclined not to steer readers to an external source that's grinding an axe. DonFB (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well then let's wait with this, and add only the Vox video now – that's the important one. Note: "grinding an axe" seems an over-exaggeration to me in relation to the demise of 346 passengers. Wsj is a reputable, neutral RS. It shows that the ODA contributed to the crashes, not that it failed universally. "It was a chain of events." — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    02:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, WSJ is a RS, but not necessarily neutral, although, in fact, it need not be neutral, nor is any RS required to be. I perceive the piece to be pushing a pov, which it is fully entitled to do; I just don't think that's a good choice for an EL. Of course, they offered pro-forma counterpoints from Babbitt and Elwell, but giving them a forum was not, in my view, why they did the piece. I'd rather see strictly factual info, as in the Vox. Nor do I, personally, conclude one way or another whether ODA "contributed to the crashes." If I held opinions like that, I would need to be all the more cautious in my editing and referencing choices. But yes, opinions from noteworthy authoritative persons like Sully and James Hall are appropriate in the article. DonFB (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * And Randy Babbit, former FAA admin... Imo this video is reporting on Ralph Nader's pov, but does not endorse it, actually he comes down as a bit extreme. Babbit's tone is much closer to the general tone of the video. That's between the two extremes of Nader and Boeing. I believe we tend to be vary of voices that contradict the deeply ingrained image of Boeing safety, and hear bias, where only reporting happens. Regarding the ODA I referred to the widely reported fact, that the Mcas authority was increased significantly after the Faa's review. — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    03:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * They interviewed Nader, didn't merely "report" on him. Though, because his niece died in ET302, there was more legitimacy for them to seek him out. My view is not based on an ingrained image of Boeing safety; it's based on the tone of the piece itself. I think the only thing about the WSJ vid that is substantively different from what can otherwise be seen in RS about DER/ODA and the predictable defensive statements from the likes of Elwell and Boeing is that it has extended comments from Ralph Nader. DonFB (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear all, According to WP:ELLIST I believe that the eventual outcome is an integration of links to related articles and External Links under the See also section. WP:YOUTUBE does not explicitly allow or forbid any content as long as the links conform to WP:ELNO and otherwise do not violate copyright. But I agree it should not become a dumping ground. Shencypeter (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:ELLIST applies to WP:List article, or do I misundertand something? — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    12:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: Greetings all, I have declined the request for a third opinion due to the fact that there appear to be four editors involved in this discussion already. If you cannot resolve this here, I suggest trying WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There seem to be agreement on the Vox video from those who took the effort to contribute to the consensus. One final round: any arguments against adding the link? — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    14:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Marc Lacoste
Hi, Marc!

An update on the External Links on Boeing 737 MAX groundings: they are no longer disputed. As you left the discussion, please join again and raise your concerns on the Talk page instead of making rushed edits. Thank you, have a nice day! — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    09:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus yet.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You state your opinion as the consensus, but You left the discussion after your concerns were proven wrong ("videos are linear and unsearchable"??), made a few moody comments, and went on to edit other topics. There was no other editor to oppose these additions since. A disagreement does not warrant removing other editor's contributions, but you have done this the second time. This looks like you are WP:Stonewalling an addition so much, that you don't mind another edit war in 3 days. This is unexpected, as your contributions generally are very positive about the WP:AIM of Wikipedia. Could we discuss this factually with practical reasons? Thank you. — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    11:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The original deletion was not because of me, and I was almost the only one to show some interest for ELs. You are not grateful.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am grateful for moving forward an unrelated white-listing, won't forget that, thank you! But removing the ELs 3 times now was not supported by any policy, yet you seem very adamant to do so, and then you state it's not because of you? I'm sorry I can't be grateful for that. I've given plenty reasons to include those, to address your opinion you don't think these are necessary, then You declared to leave the discussion. It's fine if you don't want to participate, but then please don't Stonewall the additions. Thank you. — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    12:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The first deletion was from MilborneOne Consensus is ok-ish for everybody, not "I state what arranges me and wait few hours". You did not wait, many editors come a few days apart, maybe a week. Most editors don't want your ELs: MilborneOne, Shencypeter, Andrewgprout, Martinevans123 and me. You pile WP:wall of texts after another, and nobody can follow the discussion. You restore your disputed ELs with no consensus and call an edit war when two different editors revert them. Please refrain. This discussion should be moved there, BTW. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please be truthful. MilborneOne, Andrewgprout did not participate in the dispute at all. Shencypeter did not share his views, Martinevans123 wrote one sentence between our "walls of text". It's basically you and me, and you sadly left the discussion when I disproved your argument. As there was nobody else disputing the links, I summarized after 2 days, and edited after another half day, not "few hours". Please do not state false facts.
 * Neither the consensus, nor any policy supported removing those links, and this is the second time in 3 days you choose multiple reverts instead of discussion to resolve a situation, last time even going to 3RR. This is how you understand "consensus"? Please take your time reading Negotiation. I've made compromises throughout the dispute.
 * After the page protection the beneficial resolution would be to let go of this dispute, agree on the included links, and ask to unprotect the page, so contributing editors ( and atm) can continue their work. — Aron M🍂  <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    15:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) Just because they haven't participated in the discussion does not mean they share your views. The fact they have reverted your edits is enough to show they don't agree. From what I see, you're trying to force your will on everyone in that discussion. Editors have lives outside the internet and don't necessarily always have time to comment.Garretka (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As explained by Garretka just above, MilborneOne removed ELs, Andrewgprout reverted you, Shencypeter thanked me for removing theverge and the videos, Martinevans123 explicitlely stated his thoughts as I am. You did not find any suppport. It's not the end of the world, move on to other, more constructive work. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * (friendly response to friendly TP stalker ;-) "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." (WP:CON) The problem is there were no efforts made to voice those concerns for two weeks. Reverts just take us farther from a consensus, which makes me think this was an effort of WP:Stonewalling starting with the first removal of the links that stated "really looking like a dumping ground -if you add an external link then please explain why it adds to the article, thanks" 4 days after that was [explained]. Marc continued this for reasons I can't understand, he stated "it was challenged multiple times, please wait for a consensus, thanks!" (only Milborne removed it, there was no challenge). In the discussion he shared his opinion ("not necessary", "linear", "not searchable") - nothing about the content -, but avoided to answer why these have to be removed (eg. why it makes the article worse). My legitimate points about the content were answered by strawmans, then my answers to the distractions were "walls of text". Awesome. Way to engage in meaningful discussions. — Aron M🍂  <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    19:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Continued on article TP...
Please could you add something to the discussion that moves this towards lifting the protection? — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    12:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User_talk:El_C--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was right to expect a very short and effortless answer from you, but tbh I expected something humorous, like "Anything to add? 3 days. 😁 ".
 * Anyway, please read WP:CONSENSUS, I believe your actions were the opposite of that policy - in the name of that policy. From your reluctance to straightly discuss your point (that's fine, unless you do repeated reverts) it seems you understand this is the case (if not, you should explain). Please consider that it's been just 2 days after you made a 3RR violation, and one would expect you to be more mindful and negotiative. I respect when a person can realize and move on from a counterproductive notion - that's a win-win for all -, thus I hope being straight with you might change your mind. Note: This message should be on your TP, but I respect your choice to move the thread here.  — Aron M🍂  <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    20:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The protection will self expire, consensus is difficult to prove right this instant I think, would seem like a desperate attempt to get this page “ungrounded.” How stress relieving to not have to defend your edits for five days. That is the point of edit protection. We’re acting like the airplanes we’re writing about now. Shencypeter (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm just too result-oriented... It seems so, we are unable to overcome our barriers, and that's fine. Nice to have a little relax. 😂 — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    20:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Self- impose a break from all 737MAX watchlists. We need to be like a refined MCAS that takes input from all POV sensors and activate our DISAGREE indicators before downing all MAX articles to administrative protection. The aircraft is flying just fine despite the false indications, ya? Shencypeter (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The Boeing Section
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)

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🍂  <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    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🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    16:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, got it Shencypeter (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Transcript of Boeing CEO interview, check this out. [] Shencypeter (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Leading-edge slat tracks problem
Should the leading-edge slat tracks problem, which is now news, also be mentioned, although unrelated to the original reason for grounding? e.g. ABC News here Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No as it doesn't really relate to the grounding and is not just MAX related. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

On Boeing 737 MAX and Boeing 737 NG or Boeing 737 at most. Related, off-topic, relax:
 * — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)  22:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, so cardboard's out then. Thanks for clarifying there. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, so cardboard's out then. Thanks for clarifying there. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Just pointing out this is not a new problem to the 737 family: China Airlines Flight 120 737-800 fire after landing 12 years ago, related to leading slat tracks puncturing the fuel tank.  Shencypeter (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Boeing 737 MAX which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Endless move requests, for stupid nonsense reasons. Well played Wikipedia. Bohbye (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing move review: Move_review/Log/2019_June
 * Closed move request discussion: Talk:Boeing_737_MAX
 * Previous move request discussion: Talk:Boeing_737_MAX/Archive_1

Supporting arguments are based on policies – WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM and MOS:ALLCAPS being the most relevant –, and opposing arguments mostly refer to the previous move request without consensus, the manufacturer's stylization (explicitly disregarded by MOS:TM and WP:OFFICIAL), and WP:COMMONNAME that has nothing to say about capitalization. — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    21:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Useful secondary-tertiary source(s)

 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/boeing_two_deadly_crashes &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's used as a ref in #Certification inquiry (ref 194 right now)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * http://fortune.com/2019/05/20/at-boeing-the-flap-over-one-tiny-light-indicates-much-larger-flaws/ &mdash; Also shares my sentiments why Boeing is making their planes like Airbus... (pilots don't use the light much, but the disagree signal is connected to data that would prevent MCAS activation in the future.....) Shencypeter (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * — video
 * — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    22:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18518176/boeing-737-max-crash-problems-human-error-mcas-faa  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shencypeter (talk • contribs) 02:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... we discussed adding it as EL... — Aron M🍂  <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)  03:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah we did. :-) But still a lot of usable material to shape the MCAS article. Shencypeter (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a tertiary source, most of it is available from secondary, mostly av-media sources, that would be more reliable. If you have something specific in mind to cite, I can help finding the secondary source in my notes.
 * We can add it as EL however. seems to endorse it, I can't find anything definitive from, only "I'd rather see strictly factual info, as in the Vox." — Aron M🍂  <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    11:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not my intention to restart the EL debate, sorry -- we may find little things that could add towards the MCAS article, and then other editors may revise and substitute better sources. Shencypeter (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a tertiary source, most of it is available from secondary, mostly av-media sources, that would be more reliable. If you have something specific in mind to cite, I can help finding the secondary source in my notes.
 * We can add it as EL however. seems to endorse it, I can't find anything definitive from, only "I'd rather see strictly factual info, as in the Vox." — Aron M🍂  <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    11:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not my intention to restart the EL debate, sorry -- we may find little things that could add towards the MCAS article, and then other editors may revise and substitute better sources. Shencypeter (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments
Some of these would better develop the MCAS article. Shencypeter (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)