Talk:Skylab controversy/Archive 1

Needs work
Very difficult to read -- it reads either like a automated translation or was written by someone who's first language is not English. There's a lot of repetition too. Needs a good bit of work done to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.112.150.11 (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Debunked
The legend of this purported "mutiny" has been debunked. Not sure of the best way to proceed regarding this article. See Best quote attributed to Gibson:  "In an effort to increase our efficiency, we occasionally would have only one of us listening to the voice traffic from the ground and responding to it while the other two of us turned off our radios and worked without interruption. We each signed up for an orbit as the radio-response guy. Well one day we made a mistake and for a whole orbit we all had our radios off!" Macduff (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Most major newspapers, as well as multiple books, report this event as fact. The only source I found contrary was that Homesteading Space book, written by a Redditor and published relatively recently. Even if we came to believe in Homesteading Spaces interpretation, Wikipedia's policies follow reliable sources and would thus agree with the consensus of most major sources. However, given the dispute, it can be deemed fair to show all sources and the dispute between them, as I somewhat recently added to this article. ɱ'  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 02:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think that it would be straightforward to check the transcript for December 28, 1973 and see if the astronauts said nothing or they were quiet for 90 minutes. Depending on who published the transcript, that might be considered WP:OR, but we oughtn't willingly reiterate incorrect information (on either side) if there's a relatively simple way to suss out the truth. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, not truth. If multiple independent, heavily reliable sources corroborate this, it takes much more weight than NASA's own published transcript, which, like NASA's other material, suppresses information about this incident. Sometime when I'm less crazy busy I can check the transcript again nonetheless, though it's admittedly rather difficult to navigate. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 17:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , pages 360-365 and thereabouts, show the transcript for December 28 GMT (day 362). There is no section of Houston calling Skylab and not getting an answer that I can see (though I do understand that there was one orbit when they were unresponsive because they had planned to take turns responding to the radio and somehow missed swapping turns).  Suffice it to say there was plenty of conversation on December 28 about astronomy, earth observations, exercise, and station maintenance - not the sort of communication I would expect to see during a mutiny.  See also  which references Canby, T. (1974, October). Skylab, Outpost on the Frontier of Space. National Geographic, 146(4), 441-469. and Hitt, D., Garriott, O., & Kerwin, J. (2008). Homesteading Space: The Skylab Story. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.  I will also dig up some other resources. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't care that NASA says the event never happened. The New York Times, LA Times, and plenty of other heavily reliable sources, including published books, say that it did take place. Those are more reliable than going off of the "official record". Per WP:SELFPUB, we shouldn't even consider NASA sources, as there is a doubt of authenticity, and it is making a self-serving claim in wiping the record that the event ever took place. And regardless of NASA or your dispute, Wikipedia's standard is never to judge truth, but to report the disputed fact openly and accurately, as I edited the article to do so. So your claims hold no ground. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 01:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:INDEPENDENT. You should know that Wikipedia is supposed to have reliable, third-party, secondary sources. The NASA transcript is both first-party and a primary source, and is thus highly likely to be biased or misleading, especially in covering up a scandalous event NASA would likely wish had never happened. It would be thrown out in any Featured Article review. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 01:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But in this case isn't NASA the *only* possible source? It's not like a third party who was listening on frequency transcribed it.  I'm not sure how you find a WP:RS for this.  I don't think it's possible.  Perhaps some note in the article that the facts are under dispute would be appropriate?  I think the allegations are important enough to warrant the existence of the article itself. Ron Schnell 01:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate these standards and respect them, and I understand why NASA information would be suspect. While NASA is the primary source, different people listened to the radio communications as they happened and potentially took transcripts or notes, so there could well be third-party reporting on exactly what happened.  I'm also looking for more, and particularly reliable secondary sources to elucidate what happened.  I also notice that the cited LA Times article hinges its claims of mutiny on a blog post by Eric Loomis, and that's where the date came from for this article.  I don't dispute that they were overworked and had to do something about it, nor that there were studies and other consequences from their being overworked, but I do dispute the characterization of it as a "mutiny" and avoiding the radio for a whole day. I think we will do well to visit the library and find some contemporary sources. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting looking at the December 29 and December 30 NYT - no mention of a mutiny, but talk of what Skylab was doing each day. There was no Skylab news on December 28. On December 31, an article titled "Astronauts Debate Work Schedule With Controllers" says they had a "'soul-baring' session" that "ended in apparent harmony." the day before.  CAPCOM Ruchard Truly, "acting as the Mission Control spokesman, said a slackening off of the schedule had 'turned things around' and the schedule had been 'as smooth as glass' in the last two weeks."  A previous report from December 19 says Mission Control over-scheduled them and made it hard, but there is no word of an actual day with no radio contact.  A December 15  article  talks about a news conference in which mission controllers specifically denied that there were physical or mental problems with the crew, or disappointment with their performance. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Ron, there is plenty of note about it being disputed. Ke4oh, I appreciate the digging you're doing in attempting to clarify the matter. Perhaps we'll find more details, yet I don't think the record will change: that NASA denies that it happened, confirmed by no transcript, and that multiple reliable sources do claim that it happened, thus making this dispute (and what it entails) worthy of mention. If you'd like to elaborate on the dispute and move it up in the lede, be my guest. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 02:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet, thinking and reading again, the NASA script and those sources Ke4roh mentioned don't deny the event took place; they don't ever make any claim that it didn't happen. For all we know, the NASA transcript of the event, if it did happen, has been kept confidential since the day of its recording. The only source I've found that explicitly denies the event took place is Homesteading Space, the recent book by a Redditor, that holds no ground when facing The New York Times, the LA Times, and numerous authoritative books. So I find that how the dispute is mentioned is very prominent, given the relative lack of sources disputing it. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 04:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Homesteading Space was published before the author was a Redditor so I don't see how mentioning that he is a Redditor is relevant to the conversation. That Homesteading Space, recently published in 2008, was co-authored with 2 of the Skylab astronauts is much more relevant.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.33.50.205 (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's utter nonsense that such a thing could have been "kept confidential" on a public, non-classified space mission. Reporters were paying attention.  There were transcripts and NYT news reports of their doings from those days.  (I did find a report from NYT Dec. 28 - they talked about comet observations.) They would have reported a day of nothing.  They would have mentioned a strike had there been one, in an article about work difficulties.  The contemporaneous NYT reports say they were overworked, but they don't say they just took a day off.  I agree we should have the article, much in the way we have Chemtrail conspiracy theory, but our article can be more useful than just a debunking piece because they were overscheduled and they did learn about workload and errors.  First let's figure out what happened (I'm still researching), and we'll see. -- ke4roh (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This article goes to great lengths to explain what happened, and goes to some trouble to suss out the source of the error. It also references this well-sourced Reddit post investigating what happened in some detail. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll read the AO article soon. It's an ok-ish source, not as reliable as most of the references in the article, but certainly okay. It's also pretty new; it didn't exist when most of this article was written. I won't even bother reading the Reddit post (source/catalyst for that Homesteading Space book), as Reddit is not a reliable source. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 17:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The idea that NASA's official record of what happened is somehow "unreliable" because it somehow "suppresses" the facts about what happened is, by definition, a conspiracy theory. It literally would require a conspiracy within NASA to suppress facts to suit a pre-determined narrative. It is a wacky idea that holds zero water, and is unworthy of serious consideration or any further discussion. Given that verifiability and reliable sources are the basis of Wikipedia, to try to assert otherwise is, suffice to say, very un-Wikipedian. Furthermore, to dismiss a book about the Skylab program, published by an academic publisher as merely "written by a Redditor" is a smear unworthy of being taken seriously. It does not seem to be a good faith statement. Arjuna (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * While I don't think the reddit post would ever fit the "reliable source" criteria, it does a good job of collecting some 50 URLs and quotations from various sources, including Cooper's 1976 introduction of the idea of a "strike" based on what he calls Carr's "declaration of independence" on the B-channel, "And I think really up here my biggest concern is keeping the three of us up here alert and healthy.” The post also details activities day by day around December 28 supported by linked and quoted primary and secondary sources.  I understand that we can't use a primary source to synthesize a conclusion, but they might do well to support the conclusion reached by another reliable source in conjunction with secondary sources such as the National Geographic article (Oct 1974) and post-landing summaries of the flight in other publications.  NYT, for example, says, "None of the three had flown in space before, but all are expected to be candidates for future missions.".  I believe the preponderance of contemporary reliable evidence points to Harvard Business School popularizing a myth based on Cooper's 1976 biased and ultimately incorrect interpretation of events, but I haven't found a reliable source that articulates the spread of the mutiny story.  I also believe we can assert that the "mutiny", "strike", or "day-long sit down" is incorrect based on Atlas Obscura and the bevy of supporting contemporary sources, both primary and secondary; the contrary later sources being impugned because there is no supporting information in the contemporary record. -- ke4roh (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Article Title and pejorative implications of "mutiny"
I've added "citation needed" flags to two areas. One is the use of the term "mutiny" and the NASA/government agency documented source that denotes this. The second citation question asks the source for the "hour long shutdown of communications", which I am fact-checking at this time. A major point is the article name that actually pushes into mischaracterization of the crew and improper use of the term. Commander Carr and Pilot Pogue were active military at the time of their flight (US Marines and US Air Force, respectively). A true mutiny would've been not only egg on the face of NASA but also a court-martial offense while Pogue and Carr were working as US Government employees and still in military service. There are no records of any military disciplinary actions sought by NASA or these respective armed services. For the article to use the current title is not only a pejorative to the astronauts involved, it is categorically inaccurate to what an actual mutiny is, and appears to be sensationalist as purported in the many article written around the event and long after. Spencerian (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not stating anything new, look at the conversation above. Everything's in dispute right now. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 00:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me open the nominations for new titles by proposing Skylab 4 human factors. I might have suggested "Skylab 4 workload challenge," except we probably do need to cover crew mistakes (especially the camera filters and the barf incident) and the reprimand because they set the stage.  I notice in  that Carr and Gibson say, "we rebelled," but I haven't gotten to this incident in poring over the newspapers day by day (yet?).  Cooper '76 introduces the word "strike" as far as I can tell, and I haven't tried to figure out who turned it into a "mutiny."  I strongly prefer the article avoid the confusion of naming a certain event to remain neutral on something so contested. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I second Ke4roh's proposal. This seems like a very reasonable compromise. "Mutiny" is not at all accurate - they didn't burn the spacecraft and become marooned on Pitcairn Island. Less cheekily, I will note that they weren't fired by NASA upon their return. Anyway, the undue valorization of newspaper articles over published academic titles is untenable. Arjuna (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * At minimum "mutiny" should be in quotes, thus Skylab "mutiny" or "Skylab mutiny" would be acceptable. While we agree that some people believe in a mutiny and some do not, "Skylab mutiny" was never an official event, like the Bounty mutiny or Sepoy mutiny, was a term that came out of journalistic cleverness.  It would be more proper to review the history not of the event but of its description.  Who first named the work slowdown a "mutiny"?
 * As for the events on Skylab 4, this what we do confidently seem to know:
 * Three highly trained rookies participated in the longest to date flight in space; it is is the only NASA space flight staffed by three rookies.
 * The crew withheld information about how spacesick they were in the early stage of the flight.
 * In late December there was some sort of dispute over the schedule management.
 * Two of the astronauts grew prodidgeous beards, still evident upon return.
 * Two of three astronauts were active military.
 * At the conclusion of the mission, the work accomplished exceeded the initial plan.
 * The crew returned as scheduled and their station remained docked in orbit where expected and as required.
 * All evidence suggests that the crew left the interior of the station in clean and good order on departure.
 * None of the three astronauts flew in space a second time.
 * NASA consistenly omits personal details involving private hygiene, conversation, and behavior out of respect for crew privacy.
 * While I find the term "mutiny" misleading and the degree of rebellion likely overstated, this was a long unique mission and it seems equally unlikey that the mission scoped out by Mission Control anticipated every contingency. I would be startled and disappointed if there were no differences of opinion. When isolated in a large orbiting travel home, there are only a limited number of ways to make one's point and be heard. As outlined above, ambiguities do abound.
 * In the country this was a time of some turmoil, as Gerald Ford as POTUS was the first (and to date only) unelected [vice] President, Richard Nixon [ Spiro Agnew ] having resigned a few months earlier. [Watergate hearings were in full swing and within the year President Nixon would resign.] Regarding a Pitcarn Island moment, there was a fiery destruction and sinking of the vessel, five years later. Those who were ultimately responsible for its loss were never brought to trial, although there was significant finger pointing and public inquiry; in its destruction the nine Skylab astronauts were always considered blameless. GeeBee60 (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Made some revisions -- see new section for comment, below. GeeBee60 (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- ke4roh (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the restoration of the previous title, the title is the subject of a neutrality dispute in an article subject to WP:BLP rules. WP:NPOVNAME offers relevant guidance.  Owing to the variety of names for the alleged incident/rebellion/strike/mutiny in literature, and its absence from contemporary literature, I don't think Skylab mutiny fits the exception for non-neutral but common.  It certainly is worthy of having a redirect, though, since it is popular enough that people are apt to search for that title.  WP:NHC and Closing_discussions suggest that a rough consensus has been reached, having no objections and one second to my proposed title over the span of four weeks.  I'm not enamored of the title, but it will suffice.  If we can come up with something better that fits NPOV, I'm for it.  In the meantime, WP:NOCON says, "…for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal were to add, modify or remove it."  It would seem appropriate to stay with Skylab 4 human factors until we can come up with that better title. -- ke4roh (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reversed? Really? Who lets these conspiracy theorists name articles? The "mutiny" DID NOT HAPPEN. This is an embarrassing failure of neutrality.--Jtle515 (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This article's title is disputed by all editors, including me. This means that a simple move is out of the question; there must be consensus on the article title. I recommend opening an RfC. I reversed the move, pending a discussion and consensus for the most preferred title. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 16:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel the title should be changed. I have reviewed all available mission audio, TV news reports, and TV telecasts made by the crew on or around December 28, 1073. None of the TV networks refer to a mutiny. The NBC and CBS splashdown news stories from February 8, 1974, (Vanderbilt Television News Archive https://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/) reference the cover-up of Bill Pogue's space sickness, and the publically heard reprimand by Al Shepard. That occured on November 18, 1973 and had nothing to do with any alleged mutiny. Additionally, for the film, Searching for Skylab Director: Steven-Boniecki AHAB/1080VMC 2018 www.searchingforskylab.com, I spoke extensively to Ed Gibson. He openly speaks of the space sickness cover-up, but vehemently refutes any notion of a mutiny. For the film we also acquired the Deke Slayton apology to the crew for "sandbagging" them with schedules. I also had JSC pull the mission audio from the archives https://archive.org/details/Skylab4. No indication at all is evident on these recordings of a strike or mutiny.

Additionally, none of the news stations refer to a mutiny on or around December 28. A CBS nightly news telecast made Januray 14, 1974 (Vanderbilt Television News Archive https://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/) summarizes the mission upon its record breaking time in space mark. There is mention of Bill Pogue's sickness but again NO mention of a strike or mutinyby reporter Morton Dean. Similarly a NBC nightly news story on the same day (Vanderbilt Television News Archive https://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/) makes no mention of any mutiny or strike. On the day prior to undocking, again no mention is made of a strike or mutiny in the mission summary. I think it is time to acknowledge that Cooper and the Harvard Business article got their facts wrong. Dstevenb (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You've only edited one article so far, so you're likely a of another editor commenting here; you seem to have all the evidence and writing style of Ke4oh. Even if not, you're definitely a, which is highly suspect. Regardless, a new formal discussion needs to be opened here, and perhaps even an RfC on the evidence, though you're using Original research here, which is not permitted on the English Wikipedia.  ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 21:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't bite the newcomers. Dstevenb is not a sockpuppet, though he did help me find a few references.  Also, your fervent opposition to OR on talk pages is quite tiring.  OR is explicitly permitted on talk pages, just not in the article space. -- ke4roh (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ɱ, I would be very interested to hear your comments (and those of others) on what the title should be, and why. Please particularly address the concern that the present title is not in the Newspapers.com archive (of a great many newspapers from well before launch until quite recently) suggesting that it might not be a common name, and the concern that it is non-neutral and therefore a violation of NPOV and BLP. -- ke4roh (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ke4oh, how do you know he's not ? That seems to imply that he might be, or that you have some undisclosed direct relationship with him. And my talking about OR is because you and him continue to abuse that policy. If OR is not permitted on the article space, it's not permissible evidence here. As for the term I suggest, I mentioned it in the BLP discussion. I think "Skylab 4 crew strike", "Skylab 4 strike", or "Skylab strike" would be much more accurate and neutral here. If you agree, perhaps let's consider renaming it to that for now, until we open some RfC or similar large debate again into the truth of how to present what the sources say happened that day. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 23:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He's not my sockpuppet, which was your accusation. I do know the account stands for a real human, and I would be surprised if he has another account.  Your assertion that OR is not permissible evidence here is against WP:OR which says, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content…" (and, I would presume, their titles are a part of that content).
 * I don't think any of those suggestions meets NPOV, given that the term "strike" was introduced in a dramatization of the events two years after the mission. (And if you doubt that it is a "dramatization," I would encourage you to get a copy (Would you like me to send you mine?) and observe its third-person omniscient style, and observe how several days' well-documented conversations and events elide into a single "strike" at a time of the author's choosing.) Per BLP and NPOV, I encourage a title that doesn't presuppose there was a single rebellious event. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

ɱ why did you ask for a census if the first thing you do is personally attack a newcomer to this discussion? For someone who regularly points out regulations of wiki, you seemed to have ignored three key points clearly seen at the top of the talk page. "Be polite, and welcoming to new users. Assume good faith. Avoid personal attacks." Why did you refuse to follow these guidelines? I expected better. Wiki also highlights that newcomers may not be familiar with the rules and that leeway must be afforded. I can't say my welcome here by you ɱ has been an enjoyable one, and I hope that was a moment of bad judgement and that it will not happen again. I will say this only once: I have staked my professional writing and filmmkaing on accuracy and attention to detail. I take my research of space history very seriously.

I would like to offer 2 books as evidence of no alleged "mutiny": Live TV From Orbit (Steven-Boniecki, Apogee Books 2010 216 Pages ISBN 9781926837284, and Skylab 4: The NASA Mission Reports Steven-Boniecki, Apogee Books, 2016 ISBN 13 9781926592299 - 440 PAGES. Both these tomes make absolutely no reference to a strike or "mutiny". I would also like to offer the film, Searching for Skylab Director: Steven-Boniecki, AHAB/1080VMC 2018, in which evidence against any type of mutiny is solidly presented, and in which the topic is thoroughly dissected. I think it is outrageous that a historical event may not be permitted to use original materials to rebuke allegations of a mutiny. Skylab is not something that happened in the closed Soviet Space Program. It was done on open channels and in front of news media, and this serves as evidence that no mutiny ever happened. To simply brush off this evidence because some people feel it violates Wiki T&C's seems to go against everything I am reading what wikipedia stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstevenb (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me rather like no one but "ɱ" strongly objects to using a neutral article title like "Skylab 4 human factors". Can we just call a poll and force the issue? --Jtle515 (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I propose that, per WP:NOCON quoted above, we move the article to "Skylab 4 human factors" now and then initiate an RfC for what the title of the article should be, expecting to achieve some official consensus over the next 30 days. I propose an open-ended RfC: "What should we call this article?"  Should this be a science or biography RfC? -- ke4roh (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Your notion is incredible. Calling it a strike is much more neutral and accurate to the reliable sources than the totally confusing/vague "human factors". What does that even mean? You can't just tack words together, a factor has to have effects/consequences. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Human factors is a legitimate field of study. This article skips the ergonomics because it's only of minor relevance.  Humans are involved in the equation, their workload, their ability to produce, the psychology of isolation and confinement, of being subordinate and controlled by Mission Control, and how everyone deals with it. -- ke4roh (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, but this article is about an event or incident, it is not a summary of the stressors factoring into the performance and behavior of the crew. Therefore the title is misleading and only tangentially related to the content of the article. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ɱ, I think you've got the cart before the horse here. The topic is worthy of study, as is evidenced by its coverage in a number of articles on psychology, group dynamics, management, and so forth, regardless of some alleged incident.  The article should cover the topic.  I would agree that it could stand some expansion to cover other human factors influences (the discovery of missing filters being one of the first that should be added). -- ke4roh (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And if it were about an event that definitely happened, that might carry more weight. But it's actually about an event that some people believe happened, without much good evidence. If you really hate the name "human factors," why not something that implies an event but, unlike "strike," sticks to the verifiable facts—like "Skylab 4 radio silence incident"? --Jtle515 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I say we vote on the title, and I am more than happy to have Skylab 4 Human Factors to describe the circumstances which lead to 1: the space sickness cover-up, and 2: The workload placed upon a crew who were rookies. As there was no "mutiny" there is absolutely no need to have that in any title. There was also no strike, nor any solid evidence to back up that assertation.Dstevenb (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way ɱ, I addressed you personally, isn't the by-the-book procedure to acknowledge the points I raised, given that you falsely accused me of being a sock puppet? Wouldn't it have been more advisable to respond to these important topics, rather than revert the page back? Does this not go against the guidelines of Wikipedia? If you think your attitude is conducive to a friendly environment, would you care to explain how you think it is? Dstevenb (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What happened is that someone published an article that described a "Mutiny", long after the fact. The article happened.  The writer stated his conclusion.  The parade of enthusiasts began.  The actual event was a blip of a few disputed hours.  The controversy is far more note-worthy and needs inclusion.  See User talk:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors for more discussion.  You can respond to my revision, below Talk:Skylab_mutiny. Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi GeeBee60, thanks for your input. For the record I do not for one minute deny the crew did not communicate with the ground for the approximately 90 minutes or so. I do have problems with the reverted passage claiming the crew announced their "strike" and did not communicate with the ground for the whole of Dec. 28, 1973 as a given fact. The "The Skylab 4 mutiny, 1973". Libcom.org. Retrieved 2017-01-31 actually does not state this as a given fact, but as "reportedly". As dictionary meanings of "reportedly" are as follows: "...according to what some say (used to express the speaker's belief that the information given is not necessarily true).". Given that the press were all over the coverup of Bill Pogue's space sickness, I find it odd that a mutiny is held in tangible esteem, when no evidence exists for the announcement, and direct contrary evidence to no communications in the way of a televised downlink for the date SL-4 DOY362-TV27, additionally, one a day after the date, SL-4 DOY361-TV-81-6 occured. The claim no communications with the ground holds absolutely no water as these telecasts were publically available and broadcast by the news networks. Rather than holding authors' claims in high esteem, I think examination of publicly available facts is most definitely in order. This also conflicts with BLP, as mention of an alleged mutiny only seeks to sensationalize a claim for which there is rock-solid counter-evidence. I have added the balanced "allegedly" to these claims in keeping with the libcom "reportedly". It is a grose misreprentation to make a solid claim of the stike, when one of the very articles used to justify the term doesn't itself commit to it.Dstevenb (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We won't, anytime soon, make the "Mutiny" disappear, but we can place it correctly in history. The "Mutiny" happened years later when the press started uncoiling a tangled tale with eyecatching language, each telling slightly more askew of truth. Certainly on board there were some personality differences, Pouge later agreeing almost gleefully that maybe it was a strike, while Gibson demurred and said not really. That two out of three returned with full beards was clearly a bit rebellious. Pogue quit NASA within months while Gibson helped test Enterprise and only left NASA in 1981.GeeBee60 (talk)16:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP violation?
There is no doubt that this incident occurred and I believe that it ought to have its own Wikipedia article. I do have a problem with the word "mutiny" in the article and its title. Mutiny is a criminal conspiracy, punishable by death in the United States, and which was a death penalty offense in the United Kingdom until that country abolished the death penalty. Two of the three astronauts are alive and this article title states in Wikipedia's voice that they committed a terrible crime. I see two references in the article that use the word "mutiny". One is LibCom.org, a libertarian communist blog that talks about "class war in space". The other is a brief article in Motherboard, a sensationalistic "gonzo journalism" website. I believe that neither is a reliable source and that both references should be removed from the article. , extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What is the basis for use of the inflammatory charge "mutiny" in the title, or in the article at all? I believe that word is a BLP violation in this article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "There is no doubt that this incident occurred" is too vague. It is not disputed that for one orbit (about 93 minutes) the astronauts didn't talk to the ground. It is disputed that, for all of December 28, the crew did as they pleased without talking to Mission Control.  On December 28, they talked to an astronomer via video link. according to an AP report which fails to mention the radio silence.  National Geographic Oct 1974 reports on the over-scheduling and settling of that problem, but not on a day of radio silence.  The mission transcripts also include ordinary conversations for December 28. Cooper's book (and New Yorker article) from 1976 disagrees.p. 290.  Cooper calls it a "strike" and "rebellion".  It is not disputed that they took breaks.  It is agreed that they originally planned have 1 day of rest out of 10 days, and that they worked through their first three days off to try to get back on schedule.  It is disputed that the crew deviated from Mission Control instructions to take a day off.  The day off that they took on December 26 was scheduled.  It follows from these disputes that there was no "mutiny", "strike", or "rebellion".(Hitt 2008) -- ke4roh (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: These two comments are portions cut and pasted from the discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎. These conversations should be continued in one single place, preferably there, where there are more editors involved in the ongoing discussion. Please do not continue to duplicate copies of your comments. Refer to the BLP template on this page, directing you to discuss the issue there only. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 16:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Expressing concerns about violations of BLP policy is always appropriate on the the talk page of an article. Always. That template does not say that BLPN is the only place to discuss this BLP violation . Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying. It's fine to mention a BLP discussion or summarize, but this here looked effectively like you or you two were trying to wedge the discussion to separately happen here too, in a way erasing other people's comments from the record for future readers of this talk page. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 21:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is baloney, . You are the main defender of this article. Do you support or oppose removing the word "mutiny" from the title and the body of the article? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not baloney, this is serious. Future readers could gain a completely different opinion of the debate and its outcome from these first 2 snippets here, without a direct link to the full discussion. That's a strongly immoral thing to do, if it's purposeful. Regardless, I've stated my opinions and preferred article title on the full discussion. Please let's continue the conversation there. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 12:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what this event is called "in common parlance". There is a strong argument to be made to merge this article elsewhere. Nevertheless, if it is just a "term of art", I am not opposed to the WP:COMMONNAME being kept. What I object to is the first sentence claiming that the events constitute a "mutiny" which is, as Cullen rightly points out, a matter of criminal conspiracy. I used the term "work stoppage" to move us in a better direction, but likely this isn't quite right either. Wildcat strike is also too specific. This is just something that happened like a mental health day. jps (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "There is a strong argument to be made to merge this article elsewhere" is patently false. The common name is to refer to it as a strike, which is the term I support using. The majority and most reliable sources indicate it was a purposeful strike, so kindly quit your conspiracy thinking. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 16:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Added many sources to address the BLP problems. Hopefully it's somewhat better. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a notice – when the article was translated to Russian, the translation of "mutiny" (бунт), as a too strong word, was changed to a more neutral "strike" (забастовка). So, maybe article should be renamed to a something like Skylab strike or something, using a less loaded word. -Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Revised "mutiny" per above discussions
Mostly I skip edit wars, but this one seems clear. Am calling it a work slowdown, put onus of "Mutiny" on journalism. See my longer comments under Talk:Skylab mutiny. I toned down and cut some of the disputable parts, as the arguments are just not sustainable. Not much more to say here except I know some(one) will disagree. GeeBee60 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In revising William Pogue, found several different references to "mutiny" event, including quotes from Pogue and Gibson, and little support for the most extreme of the "mutiny" hype. Obviously something happened, and even the astronauts characterize it differently, Pogue almost gleeful while Gibson a bit embarrassed. One article refers to dropping some tasks. Based on multiple interviews, "strike" is more suitable if less interesting than mutiny, but I will continue to advocate for using "slowdown" in the opening description as closest to actual events. GeeBee60 (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Strike and mutiny are both dubious overstatements, though "Mutiny" is the preferred press verbiage. I have reinserted my opening paragraph that stood for several weeks unchallenged, where I describe it as a "slowdown". Suggest that we keep most of the extended revision made by User:Ke4roh, but not gloss over the name or that this is a disputed and ultimately unprovable event. User:Ɱ, you were included in Ke4roh's revision proposal on his talk page but remained mute until his revision was published. GeeBee60 (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft RfC: How best to proceed with this article?
I propose the following RFC for the science category (it might also belong in biography, but I'm not sure we can do both): {{divbox|radius=10px|navy|RfC: How best to proceed with this article| To summarize the discussion so far, there are WP:BLP and WP:NPOV concerns about the article content and title Skylab mutiny. These concerns were raised on the talk page, discussed, and a wider consensus needs to be reached, following disagreement between the primary editors of the article. Contrary to the article's content, a draft of the opposing view of what happened to the crew is at User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors, which includes more information about what happened aboard Skylab over time as well as an exploration into subsequent reports of "rebellion," "strike," and "mutiny," variations on those accounts, the spread of that message, and into refutations of the idea of a "strike."

This version was moved to replace the current content, though subsequently reversed; it has been asserted that previous discussions, primarily on this talk page, were insufficient notice for a change of such significance, and that these changes are controversial, rely upon original research (WP:OR), lean unduly on unreliable source(s), that the title lacks clarity and consensus, and/or that the draft has insufficient sourcing to justify calling into question the reliability and quantity of sources supporting the "strike" approach. WP:NOCON may apply to the current situation.

How should we proceed with this article? Some options are:
 * keep as-is (please include your ideas of how we might further address BLP and NPOV concerns, or give more weight to opposing views)
 * provide both views equally (please state your ideas on how to word and structure this)
 * re-focus to rename the article (please specify your preference of title) and focus on the strike as an exaggeration, while primarily considering what happened on the mission, and secondarily examining subsequent reports.

Survey

 * lorem ipsum dolor st amit. -- ~

Threaded discussion
}}
 * Lorem ipsum dolor st amit. -- ~

Relevant sources
This is not an exhaustive list of sources that might be considered while mulling over this RfC, but it is a start.

Irrelevant sources
Also link to the addition of content and revert within the RfC text as numbered links. (I had issues with formatting them in the box, and it's not worth the time to sort that out.)

Discussion on the draft RfC
I propose this be mentioned on WP:BLPN, WP:POVN, WP:ORN, WP:RSN and on talk pages of all editors who have contributed to this article or talk page, with this wording: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke4roh (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Looks good so far, and I appreciate the proper steps being taken here. I might want to edit the intro here a little. Also we should post to Wikiprojects: Psychology, Spaceflight, United States, and any others... ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 17:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Other applicable Wikiprojects: Biography, Psychology, Journalism. I am eager for your intro edits. I don't mind if you edit it in situ so we don't have a whole mess here of drafts. -- ke4roh (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a big improvement, though still a bit unfinished. This article may be in motion for a while. ke4roh, what is (where is) in situ editing? I'm not even sure where the following remarks go based on this RfC. I'll put my comments here, to be moved as needed. My earlier comments are scattered about in this talk page as well as on my talk page and Ke4roh's SL4 human factors talk page. So, some of this I have said before -- sorry.
 * We should keep "Mutiny" in the title, that a mutiny is the topic even if the article conclusively disproves it. "Skylab 4 human factors" is NOT a suitable title. Go there and then we need a "Skylab 3 human factors" and "MIR human factors" et cetera ad infinitum. It is tempting to insert "Myth" or "Controversy" into the title, but it seems unneeded. In the article I'd get rid of the repetitious use of "alleged", which quickly turns clunky and conspicuous -- once is enough, and then use other more creative language. (I'll ponder this, and you'll likely see those change by me, unless someone else does it first.)
 * A side note is that my spouse and I just watched in theaters a 50 year anniversary showing of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The divergent contrast of Kubrick's strange vision and Skylab's smaller bigger reality was no doubt in many conversations surrounding Skylab. In 1968 there were lines around the block and vast numbers of repeat viewers. Yesterday the theater was basically empty. In some ways Skylab was both a gut-check and an ahhah moment. ... OK, enough diversion. GeeBee60 (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The RFC has not been published yet - please reserve your enthusiasm for the real thing :) . We're waiting to develop the exact wording ( ɱ  has indicated he has some revisions.)  I propose that the contents of those two divboxes be edited just where they are, as if they were in the main article space, so that we can arrive at something decent without filling up the talk page with draft upon draft of what the RFC should be, or with confusing snippets of edits sprinkled through comments.  Did you want to revise the question before we pose it to the (much) broader community? -- ke4roh (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of "mutiny" (or even "strike") in the title without a weakening word. --Jtle515 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * it's been nearly two weeks. If you have edits for the intro, please bring them forward this week.  We need to get this sorted. -- ke4roh (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Will start this tonight, sorry for the wait. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done for now. Is this okay? See above. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 20:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the edits. Do you suppose we could make the RFC question more succinct?  Remember, we're asking folks to weigh in on a question with 100+ sources, perhaps if you would like to enumerate some of the sources you have in mind in your threaded discussion entry - I can do similar in my entry.  I had thought to make a table of sources, including some nickname (usually author), the date of the source, and columns indicating the features of the story included in that source - the word used for a "strike" mention if any, the date of the "strike", whether the radio was off, and whether the crew didn't return because of it.  Also, I have a mind map of the sources which traces references.  Do you think this particular presentation of information will be helpful in addressing the RFC?  If so, then the more organized, the better, but if we might keep them to our threaded discussion responses, then perhaps the answers will be found more readily there.  I suppose either way works, and I favor without the list of sources in the name of brevity, but if we should have it, I'd suggest a sortable table. -- ke4roh (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've split the paragraph into two, for your consideration. But it's not a deal-breaker- either way suggest you proceed. GeeBee60 (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks GeeBee60. Ke4oh - Are there 100+ sources? I thought there were only about 10-20, especially when you throw away OR. But yes okay, let's move the source list/table to another space. The Mind Map is very confusing to me, as it will be to most commentators. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've deleted the sentence about FRINGE. There is enough to consider without going down that road. If you need I'll elaborate.GeeBee60 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I removed the "relevant sources" section after working out something of a table (which doesn't play nice inside the div box). I don't imagine we'll get into counting the number of sources that support each position, but rather an investigation of the quality of various sources for making the claims they assert.  I think the referencing in the article and here on the talk page will be sufficient.  Can we go ahead with this, then? -- ke4roh (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

We agreed to move the source list or table out of the RfC itself, but provide a link to one that we create. No? I think we should create this source list before going forward, it'll provide much more clarity on the situation, for us and especially the RfC commentators. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 17:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ,,  (and others). I know that some of us are working on our responses in anticipation of the RfC. Others can out their own work if they want; mine, although still a rough disorganized draft, is HERE to look over. A related talk page is also set up if you want to respond to my work.
 * , At first, I didn't so much mind the list of sources, but now I've spent a few hours trying to compile one, and it's clear that it'll take several more hours to make anything that would be any useful than the various lists of references we'll have, both on the articles themselves and in, at the very least, my own response to the RfC. I propose that we proceed without it, and if you wish to call out a certain list of sources in your response, then please do. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, et al. Greetings-- RE sources, I recommend that you list those which you presently have, without detail until later if it is too time consuming now. No matter what, the list is going to be incomplete and disputed. This is a work in progress, and frustratingly stalled out right now. Some of the most useful materials maybe haven't seen the light of day in 40 years -- and those are not going be wished into existence -- some dogged journalist is going to unearth them.
 * I'd like to see letters to the editor in response to journal articles, starting with Molly Iven's piece. I suspect there are lots of letters as well as news articles and journal publications written in the weeks after SL-4 that will only be found on spools of old microfilm. And I strongly doubt that the first time mutiny was used was 1984. Quite plausibly "mutiny" entered the discussion during Coopers book tours that almost certainly came alongside the book's publication.
 * OK, impatiently waiting for RfC. GeeBee60 (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have completed a table of sources. Please review. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , are we ready to do this? -- ke4roh (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, When sorting the list by date I find a few duplications. I could try to edit the table to delete the repetitions but Ke4roh you might be faster. Certainly an extensive list, and I won't be able to fully review their contents quickly, but that is not needed before proceding. First question before us is What is acceptable title? (and related, lede). I'll for now hold comments / judgement until opportunity presents with RfC, (other than that RfC is taking a long time). Thanks, GeeBee60 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just pulled out the dupes I saw when sorting by date. I still might have missed one or two.  I took the citations from the various documents we've created in this process and removed the ones that were character-by-character identical but not those that referred to the "same thing."  Computers just aren't that smart :) -- ke4roh (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm looking over the list, will try to organize/annotate further. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 14:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally like what you've done with the list so far, thanks. I don't think we should have the RS column, though, because that might get somewhat nuanced in this context - things might be reliable to assert one thing but not another, or there could be other reasons the reliability of a particular source might be debatable. Best to leave it out. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , -- RS? --GeeBee60 (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

GeeBee60: RS stands for "Reliable Source". Ke4oh - I'm going to reword to specify: traditional reliable sources are sites like BBC, NYT, while traditional unreliable sources are community forums like Reddit. This column is for distinguishing that, not distinguishing the veracity of the content within any one article. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 17:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I take your point, but I think we're smart enough to figure that out, I mostly agree with you on your determinations, and I would encourage you to call out certain sources as reliable or not in your response to the RfC, with your reasoning for each. I think there's enough gray to make that column not very useful, and potentially confusing. -- ke4roh (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Newspapers are secondary sources with regard to what happened on the mission. See WP:SECONDARY. Cooper is primary with respect to Cooper's account, but there are many secondary references to that, meaning it's notable in and of itself.  Same with Balbaky.  And here is where we get into the stickiness of the table... Is it helpful (at all?) - I mean, we already have all these sources compiled as references at the bottom of the articles.  I suppose it's nice to be able to sort by date, but what else are we getting out of this table?  Have you ever seen another RfC with such a table?  I'm willing to include it, but not with debatable/confusing information throughout.  That level of detail is better left to the discussion. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A newspaper article is a primary or secondary source depending upon the article. Most of the newspaper reports that appeared during the mission are primary sources, as they simply are a re-reporting of a NASA press conference. That is clearly explained here: Characteristics of a secondary source. While these news reports can establish some timelines, names, (including reporters), etc., unless the reporter did some research beyond the press conference, (rare), the report is primary, not secondary. Because NASA tightly controlled the astronauts access to the media during their time in orbit, while putting whatever spin they wanted on what they (Ground) said, it was hard to produce a balanced two-sided report until the three guys returned from space.
 * Sometimes Ground could be very snarky, like Richard Truly's gripe, printed in the NYT on 31 Dec 73, when "Mr. Truly said the schedules had been hurt because of restrictions insisted upon by the crew. He said opportunities for science studies had been lost because the crew insisted on undisturbed periods for exercise and for presleep and post‐sleep relaxation." Press didn't challenge this, didn't (couldn't) interview the astronauts, just wrote it as truth.
 * I take your point, and partly agree, but we are attempting to create an RfC which seeks to address that question among others, and we're discussing which columns the table should have. This conversation is precisely why I didn't include the column in the first place - it is subject to some interpretation and context. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you delete the last two columns, "Traditionally reliable authority? (RS)" and	"WP:PRIMARY". The "Remarks" column can invite comments about source, writer, theme, etc. per whim of scribe. GeeBee60 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The first "mutiny"
The first mention I have found of "mutiny" is April 1, 1984, in the Austin-American Statesman article "Spaceflight: Just Another Day at the Office" by Dick Stanley. It doesn't appear to be an April Fool's joke. Interesting that this telling of the story puts it during the Christmas Day EVA. (Yes, I know the suggestion that this might be the "first mention" is WP:OR, but if it helps to find the true first, or helps to clarify things, then here it is.) -- ke4roh (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Skylab 4 human factors.The discussion is about the topic User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors. Thank you. --ke4roh (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Stand-alone or section
When its decided what direction this content will take, will it need to be stand-alone article? Or can it (and should it) be added as a section to the Skylab 4 page? - wolf  08:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (Merge proposal)
 * Merge as proposer. I would also suggest doing away with the word "mutiny" unless it's very well sourced and absolutely necessary for the article. It's a very serious accusation to make, especially since 2 of crew were military (USMC & USAF), one of whom is still alive as of this post. I think there are some BLP concerns here. - wolf  01:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Our role is to acknowledge, distill, and articulate the descriptions written by others, and NOT to say we are right they are wrong. --GeeBee60 (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also add "confirm", "ensure accuracy" and "remove WP:OR, copyvios and BLPvios". That said, I don't necessarily disagree with your premise, just with you applying it to me. I don'r see the words "we are right" and/or "they are wrong" in my post. Let's please try to avoid these needless thread derails, ok? Thanks - wolf 06:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Stand-alone because the depth of explanation required for this matter is beyond the scope of, and off topic for, Skylab 4. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How is the supposed "Skylab 4 space-mutiny" an "off-topic" subject for Skylab 4? And since the issues surrounding this supposed space-mutiny, and the accounting of the crew's actions during this incident are already documented at length on the Skylab 4 page, how is it "beyond the scope" of the Skylab 4 page?
 * I had originally asked this because this page is currently only 17kB. The Skylab 4 page itself is only 23kB, and a significant amount of that is about the issues also covered by this page, which is needless duplication. Considering the page sizes and subject matter, it might only make sense to merge this into th Skylab 4 page. imho - wolf  17:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is off-topic because this article stems from Cooper's 1976 A House in Space, which I review for reliability below. (TL/DR: it's not reliable). Balbacky relied on Cooper, and that further popularized misconceptions.  This article should stand alone for the purpose of explaining the post-mission embellishments, and the other one should be reserved for facts about the mission.  Since we're drafting an RfC and have so many other challenges to the present state of things, I'll suggest that any decision on this particular point would do well to wait until we've resolved the other matters. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Appears to be more than enough on the Skylab4 page perhaps consider deleting this article as some of it appears to be misleading and non-neutral, it was just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Skylab 4 with relevant text or delete, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge into Skylab 4. The section there on Mission highlights needs either splitting in two or given suitable subsections. While I am here, the epithet "mutiny" is insufficiently sourced to be kept, unless better sourcing for it can be cited. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge into Skylab 4. The text in Skylab 4 seems more balanced and merging would avoid the controversial issue of using "mutiny" in an article title. But I think this article has more text than we need to put in the Skylab 4 article. That should stick to the events. I'm not sure where to put things like the controversy over whether or not it's a mutiny, strike or work slowdown, or things like the effects section.Fcrary (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We have before us two distinct matters -- what happened during the 84 day mission, and what has been discussed in the years of written interpretation and hype that followed. What happened during should be condensed and be a section of SL-4. However, Skylab 4 Aftermath might merit a separate article. As for "mutiny", when military men "strike" and otherwise refuse orders, it technically is a mutiny. Way back in 1979 Bluth and Cooper squabbled over "revolt" in the magazine L-5 News, with journal editor Jennifer Atkins concluding that: "Attempts to define the troubles ... might end up as just a question of semantics". . I agree. --GeeBee60 (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Whether we think it is a mutiny or not does not matter. If no mutiny was ever formally declared by their employers then finding RS, to support an editorial opinion that it was one, is not going to be possible and it has to be removed. The comment above by on WP:BLP is relevant here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact I just moved the article from Skylab mutiny, we can stress about the rights or wrongs in slower time. And I just noticed that it had already been moved there from Skylab 4 human factors, so the move to "mutiny" was frankly a bad one. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I have requested closure of this discussion on the noticeboard here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing sources for reliability
There are quite a few sources to consider for this article, and reliability has been an important topic of consideration. In an effort to propel us toward a more crisp coverage of this topic, I lay out my assessment of several key sources. I don't expect this to be uncontroversial, so I invite you to consider my take on the sources, assume good faith, then reply under each source. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Reports during the mission
Daily newspaper reports give a detailed account of what happened each day. They are generally considered primary sources per WP:USEPRIMARY. They are useful for revealing the day-by-day timeline which is important in this context. It is also worth noting that at these press conferences, NASA told reporters both what had happened for the previous day and what was going to happen in the coming day. Secondary sources that provide information conflicting with the information provided by these primary sources need to address why the primary sources are in error.

Carr's diary, as quoted in his biography, is also a primary source from the mission.

Splashdown coverage
Splashdown coverage gave a roll-up review of what happened on Skylab 4. TV news, National Geographic , TIME Magazine , Aviation Week and Space Technology , and newspaper reports are in agreement that this was a record-setting mission of 84 days, the longest yet, with a record expected to be held for some time. The mission got off to a rough start with the crew attempting, unsuccessfully, to cover up a space motion sickness vomiting problem, included considerable overwork of the crew, errors by the crew early on, mucking up some of the science, but those problems were largely overcome later in the mission, gyroscope problems, and successful solar, earth, and cometary observations. After splashdown, all three of the crew were expected to fly again. Further detail can be found in my draft. It is against this backdrop of prompt but not "breaking news" reporting that we can assess other sources for reliability.

Mission transcripts
Transcripts come with caveats. WP writers should generally shy away from these primary sources, but they can be useful for evaluation of source reliability and ascertaining the correct exact quote as recommended in WP:PRIMARY. As a matter of understanding how errors may be introduced in transcripts, the crew raised these concerns: words are attributed to the wrong speaker sometimes, words are missing sometimes, and tone of voice, which is often important to the message, is lost entirely.

Ivins 1974
According to Ivins '74, Gibson and Carr both said overprogramming caused friction with Mission Control. Carr said they "rebelled" on "day 48 or 50," "the day of the great camera orgy." This day was actually day 56, January 10. If Ivins (or some other writer) had decided to investigate this particular day off further, conversations with mission control and others would have been in order. What we have is Mission Control saying they "earned" a day off, and a report that it was the first day off in nearly eight weeks. In this case, Ivins is a reliable source for what Carr said, but Ivins is not a reliable source to declare that rebellion happened - because she didn't investigate the date or the details of the 'rebellion,' to get the opinions of people in other positions of what happened.
 * The logic of what is and is not reliable, and the convoluted rationale to get there, floors me. Ivins was closer to being there, in terms of interviewing the astronauts after disembarking, than any other in-depth reporter. Yes using her to pin down a date is "unreliable", but it is trivial to use this failing as a discredit to her report. Through her reports from multiple sources she successfully establishes the crew's mood, and as a journalist Ivins is fully entitled to her summation.
 * Was there a full rebellion that led to a coup d'etat, military tribunal, etc.? Of course not. But was the crew irritated with members of mission control -- maybe not all but at least some -- and did they push back? Absolutely and conclusively, and Ivins is one of the keys that unlocks this door. -- GeeBee60 (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ivins was close to the events. I do not suggest that her failure to pin down a date causes it to be unreliable, but I say that more evidence is needed of a "rebellion" if one indeed happened.  This quote alone could easily enough have been Carr influenced by Ivins's exceptionally dry wit, or it could easily be interpreted a great many other ways than to suggest that they disobeyed Mission Control.  This quote is not reliable to assert a rebellion on its own, because that would be WP:EXCEPTIONAL based on what reports we had seen until this time. -- ke4roh (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Cooper. A House in Space et al. 1976
Cooper has several problems. (Commentary here generally applies to his very similar New Yorker article which was published shortly before the book came out. I own a paperback edition, though I have reviewed and scanned a few pages from the hardback.) This oft-cited source in the "strike" narrative takes the single quote from Ivins about rebellion and escalates it to a declared, matter-of-fact "strike," but it does so amid a wide array of journalistic errors. He fails to cite sources, writes as if he can read minds, muddies the timeline, further muddies with vague wording about timing, and seemingly finds a new event of spectacular human interest that news sources failed to report when it happened.

Cooper cites no sources except the "B channel" and open channel communications with Skylab. The book lacks a bibliography, footnotes, or endnotes. This makes it hard to verify his writing, and doubly hard when he writes as omnicient.

He writes the book in third-person omniscient voice. Consider, "…Looking out the round wardroom window, an astronaut felt like a scientist who had suddenly substituted a lower-powered, wide-angled lens on his microscope." Alas, he doesn't tell us which astronaut might have said that, or why he believes this. It certainly could be accurate, but perhaps it's Cooper's imagination, and we can't tell from this resource alone. Cooper can't tell what other people are thinking, and he's not an astronaut. Of the third crew in particular, Cooper "symptomatiz[ed] general irritability and peevishness."  Flight surgeon William K. Douglas found fault with Cooper's reporting for its emotional tone and rush to find (or invent) failure "while overlooking greatness." Cooper did not speak to the Skylab 4 astronauts before writing his book, but got his information from transcripts. Cooper's penchant for mind-reading, and in this case getting it wrong, ruined the accuracy of the Skylab 4 section of the book.

Cooper muddies the timeline to dramatic effect. He presents the "strike" as coming about the same time as what he calls a "declaration of independence," Carr's inquiry into exactly where they stand. Cooper begins his paragraph, "Carr, Gibson, and Pogue stopped working and did exactly what they felt like doing. Gibson spent the day on the solar console, while Carr and Pogue sat in the wardroom looking out the window. They took a lot of pictures, not of scientific targets but of things they wanted to take." This matches very closely with Ivins: "Finally, on day 48 or 50, we rebelled, we just stopped everything. We did just what we wanted to do all day long. It was the day of the great camera orgy.” (While Gibson worked the solar telescope, which happens to turn him on a lot, the other two spent most of that day at the windows with their cameras.)" That "Great camera orgy" matches exactly with the transcript for January 10. . Carr and Shayler also address the "mutiny" in the January 10 part of Carr's biography. Cooper's "strike" seems to have been January 10. The next sentence in Cooper, in the same paragraph that begins with the "strike" description, is "Carr made a sort of declaration of independence to the ground," and he proceeds to quote Carr's inquiry of December 28. Merging things that happened 12 days apart, and putting the second before the first is erroneous. The characterization of this inquiry as a "declaration of independence" is irresponsible. Both are WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, as is the muddled timeline.

The date of this alleged "strike" is unclear. "End of the sixth week" could be mission day 42 (counting seven-day weeks) or mission day 60 (counting 10-day weeks used by the crew), or perhaps some other day. December 26 (mission day 41) and January 10 (day 56) were the closest days off. The most similarly-described day to this day off is January 10.

Lacking sufficient evidence to check this event against other sources, Cooper is not reliable to proclaim there was a "strike at the end of the sixth week." This is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, bordering on WP:FRINGE. Even though the author has written other respected books and articles in space history, this source is not sufficiently robust to make an exceptional claim. Cooper puts forth an idea contradicting prior primary and secondary sources, tacitly suggesting that prior writers omitted and/or covered up a significant event at a vague time. Readers are left guessing not only when it happened, but also exactly what transpired and how Cooper might have learned of these things.

To responsibly contradict the record, Cooper should have provided evidence that an omission/cover-up is plausible, give some explanation as to how prior sources are incorrect, provide a more precise date, and provide more details about the event - such as who characterized it as a "strike" and where he got the idea. Cooper should also have gone to some pains to explain why a Marine Corps officer (Carr) and an Air Force pilot (Pogue) would have done something so drastic.

Cooper initiated the "strike" and "revolt" narrative. While the crew certainly did have days off, they certainly did not declare that they weren't doing what they'd been told to do. They worked the plan they were given, and when they were given too much work on their days off (especially Dec 17 and Jan 2 ), they pushed back (December 30 and after the Jan 2 day off) so that the next day off would be useful for recharging, resulting in a legit day off on Jan 10.

Flight surgeon Douglas observed that almost all articles covering the psychology of spaceflight lament the paucity of factual information available, and that they instead refer to "anecdotal evidence of emotional problems" with references to popular press, but not to astronaut statements in scientific literature. He drew strong parallels between Cooper's coverage of Skylab 4 and the novel Mutiny on The Bounty by Nordhoff and Hall, and notes that in both cases, popular literature has a tendency to overlook factual accounts in favor of the more dramatic, introducing errors into the popular understanding of the actual events.

Cooper never explained why his account diverged from other accounts, not even when challenged and specifically given the opportunity.

Cooper is reliable only in the context of asserting that "Cooper says there was a strike..."

Weick 1977
Weick is unreliable for space history. He calls the mission "Apollo 3" and cites Cooper '76, repeating the "strike" story without any further explanation.

Bluth 1979
Bluth is reliable to refute a "strike," but not reliable to assert that "something happened" (different from the contemporaneous record). Irrespective of the editorial oversight provided by L5 News, If this had happened in the time of bloggers, Bluth would be considered one of those experts in the field per the exception: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."(WP:RS) Not only is Bluth reliable in her own right, but in the context given in the article, saying "Bluth refutes...", it is reliable. It is also reliable for establishing some of her credentials which can be easily enough verified on Google Scholar.
 * The editor of L-5 News gives Cooper a chance to explain his position and to accept or refute Bluth. Cooper is unappologetic for his description of the strife, and that he has termed the events a "revolt". People may not like his literary liberties, starting with his "revolt", but by his reply, it is clear that the thesis in his book is an interpretation, not an oversight. In turn Bluth strongly defends her position, and then the L-5 editor has the last word, where she proclaims a draw. One cannot ignore the contemporary dialog that the L5 News article includes. GeeBee60 (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cooper's reply completely misses Bluth's point (namely that there was no "rebellion"), instead defending that he did mention M487 the Habitability Experiment.  Cooper does not address why he is ascribing this terminology to the events.  He does not explain why he muddied the timeline, and he claims he can intuit "astronauts' feelings" from their responses to M487, though I remain skeptical of his mind-reading abilities.  He also does not explain why nobody reported this strike before he did, and he really should do that if he wants to make this WP:EXCEPTIONAL case.  The editor (Jennifer L. Atkins) resorts to a dictionary definition of "rebellion" to settle the question, but does not undertake a thorough analysis of Cooper's writing, but merely equivocates suggesting it's a matter of interpretation.  The editor's remark at the end is not reliable to assert something happened or that it might be a question of semantics, because the editor was being "fair" presenting "both sides" rather than actually trying to assess the points.  The editor may well have been motivated by a desire to not alienate either author.  The fact that the original Bluth piece was written is significant on its own.  Cooper's response does not address Bluth's central claim that there was no rebellion. -- ke4roh (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Balbaky. "A Strike in Space," Harvard Business School, 1980-81
Balbaky (I have the 1981 edition of the paper) is not reliable to assert there was a strike or that the radio was off, nor to establish a timeline for the strike - Balbaky relies almost entirely on Cooper and fails reliability for the same reasons. She was not attempting to make a historical record. She muddied the timeline further when she quoted part of Carr's request for their status from December 28, followed by his words from the January 2 press conference where press asked some challenging questions about their humanity, and used those as the lead-in to a strike with the radio off for the whole day. This source's addition that the crew turned off the radio and refused communication is another WP:EXCEPTIONAL tacit assertion that the contemporary record was wrong, and it comes without the necessary explanation of how or why the contemporary record omitted such a dramatic turn of events. There were no periods in the transcript of CAPCOM calling and getting no answer on January 10, December 28, or… I invite you to look at the other days, but the press didn't remark about the crew being unreachable at the time. Balbaky provides a timeline of events at the end, which gives the "Declaration of Independence" coming on December 27, contradicting without explanation, the transcript date for that inquiry of December 28. Balbacky then implies that the strike happened the next day, but neither states that, nor gives any further explanation for those dates in the timeline. With the addition of these further embellishments, and considering the subsequent propagation of this idea in various fields, it squarely qualifies as WP:FRINGE.

Stanley 1984
The first mention I have found of "mutiny" to describe Cooper's event is April 1, 1984, in the Austin-American Statesman article "Spaceflight: Just Another Day at the Office" by Dick Stanley. It doesn't appear to be an April Fool's joke. This version of the story puts the event during the established Christmas Day EVA. Again, without some explanation of the discrepancy, the later source is not reliable to contradict the earlier sources.

Connors et al 1985
Connors is generally reliable because it refers to several sources to understand significant matters and does not needlessly repeat errors. It recounts the "strike" of Cooper '76, "According to Cooper…", and explains that Cooper's characterization is not universal, followed by a summary of Bluth '79's refutation. Although it cites Weick '77, it does not repeat the "Apollo 3" error, but makes that citation in the context of supporting the claim that the crew was over-programmed, which is not disputed. It does not delve so deeply into an analysis of Cooper's specific errors as I have above.

Oberg & Oberg 1986
The Obergs don't say much, touching on the subject on pages 11 and 23. On the latter page, they say, "The famous 'Skylab-4 Strike' in 1973 has been overblown, but the actual event was in fact symptomatic of Earth-space tensions and festering ill will." Without any further information, this is not reliable to assert that something happened (which would contravene the contemporaneous reports), but it is reliable to assert that the "strike" has been overblown. On page 11, the book makes the peculiar claim, "The men, frazzled by a stream of exhausting orders from Mission Control, and decided to take a day off to get their heads together and give Earth a chance to calm down." This differs from contemporary accounts without explanation, so is not reliable. It doesn't explain why they might have thought Mission Control wasn't "calm" or why they pin the entire decision on the astronauts. There are no footnotes in this book, but a bibliography references Cooper '76 and Bluth '79 among many, many others.

Schoonhoven 1986
Even peer-reviewed journals include some occasional nonsense. Schoonhoven somehow managed to sneak this bonkers sentence into the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science: "On Friday, December 27, 1973[sic—Dec 27 was Thursday], the Apollo 3 [sic] astronauts conducted the first day-long, sit-down strike in space, closing down communication with mission control [sic] for 24 hours and refusing to work until management in mission control [sic] had set priorities for its work demands." This sort of sloppy writing (and/or sloppy referencing) permeates sources that tend to pick up this story. By this point in the bad game of telephone, it is clear that the story has jumped the shark. The "Apollo 3" error appears to have been originated by Weick '77. That sentence is referenced to Weick and Cooper '76. The source is suitable only as a reference for saying "Schoonhoven says…", and perhaps for things specifically about behavioral science, but absolutely not as a space history reference.

Douglas 1991
Douglas draws a comparison between Nordoff and Hall's Mutiny on the Bounty and Cooper's A House In Space. He explains that Cooper's is a dramatized account written to sell books and magazines. It doesn't make any wild claims or say anything deviating from contemporary reports, so appears reliable.

Thomas. Organizational Behaviour Casebook, 1996
The Organizational Behaviour Casebook (1996) is not reliable for asserting a strike. It cites Schoonhoven and Cooper,, plus other references that don't mention or make only passing mention of some strike. This one places the "strike" or "mutiny" after the EVA following the December 25 EVA, and ending on December 30. Neither is the intention of the work historical accuracy, nor does it address why the contemporaneous reports were incorrect.

Carr Oral History 2000 & other astronaut accounts of the radio being off
Astronaut accounts of the radio being off are not sufficient. In 2000, Carr "admitted" that the radio was off for a pass/orbit, but that could be that they actually missed making contact over a ground station and astronauts recall it, but it wasn't notable (since no media covered it until Balbaky's unsubstantiated assertion), or it could be a false memory brought on by rationalizing post-1980 reports. There is no record of the press observing the crew being difficult to contact at any time during the mission, and they do not provide enough information to support contradicting the contemporary reports. The same rationale applies to Carr's account in his biography and Gibson's account in Homesteading. Pogue didn't address it that I've found.

Freeman 2000
Freeman fairly closely paraphrases Cooper (and references Cooper in the bibliography). Freeman offers no further information about why prior record is incorrect. It is not reliable for asserting a strike for the same reasons as Cooper.

Shayler 2001
David Shayler's 2001 book on Skylab gives a satisfactory example of a book on Skylab. The timeline is intact, facts are presented, and the interpretation of emotions is left to the reader. References could have been more explicit, but stated facts are verifiable, and the book is in agreement with prior sources. It goes into some detail about the habitability experiment, particularly quoting some more amiable comments in an effort to balance against over-reporting of mostly-negative comments. An interview for this book led to a friendship between Shayler and Carr which led to Carr's biography. In the introduction to that biography Carr wrote, "Dave is a thorough researcher…"  Shayler is generally reliable.

Collins 2003
Collins is not reliable that high-ranking NASA officials declared a "rebellion". It is the only source backing Space Safety Magazine (2013) Space Safety gives this eyebrow-raising sentence: "This insistence [on a day off] was later labelled as rebellion by high-ranking individuals within NASA." Collins says, "This insistence [on a full day off] was later labeled as a rebellion by high-ranking individuals within NASA (Bluth 1981)." And there are two Bluth 1981 resources in the bibliography, a book "Update on Space" which makes no mention of Skylab, and an article in Science 81 "Soviet Space Stress," which doesn't much discuss Skylab but includes a sidebar by Carr which says "We insisted on a full day free, and that insistence was later labeled a rebellion." But Carr does not say that "high-ranking individuals within NASA" did the labeling. It would have helped if Carr had mentioned Cooper at that point, but it seems he was being polite. It would also have helped if Collins had faithfully recorded the content of his source.

Hitt. Homesteading Space, 2008
Homesteading Space is generally reliable, with one caveat. Again, astronauts' recollections of the radio being off, some quoted here, are not, without some other form of confirmation, either in the transcript or an explanation of how it was missed, enough to assert that the radio was off (or that it was notable that the radio was off). Nobody else reported that happening at the vague time they suggest it did happen.

Shayler. Around the World in 84 Days. 2008
Shayler's authorized biography of Carr is part primary source and part secondary. The diary entries and lengthy interview passages are arguably primary. Passages by Shayler are, of course secondary. This source is generally reliable, though Carr talks about the radio being off, saying "Ed was doing a TV thing and he mistakenly misconfigured the communications systems. We went over one of our ground stations with our radios off. The press picked up on that immediately and called that mutiny, saying that we were a real crabby group." This is not reliable because it contradicts earlier record. Either the radio was off over a ground station on January 10 or it wasn't, but nobody (AP, UPI, Reuters) reported about it on January 11, so it wasn't notable at the time. This passage is not reliable to say that the press picked up on the radio being off immediately or that there was prompt reporting of a mutiny. One might infer from this that the astronauts have since been dogged by the tale. A number of authors have made that assertion.

Vakoch 2009
Vakoch quotes Cooper and cites NASA flight surgeon William K. Douglas. Vakoch is reliable to assert that Cooper's description of the crew is "hostile, irritable, and downright grumpy", and reliable to assert that Douglas and others deny there was a strike.

Evans 2011
Evans retells Carr's account of the radio being off (again, unreliable without further substantiation), and Carr, in it, supposes the press went bonkers with the radio having been off. One might wonder then how Carr would know what was in the press reports of the day. Did his wife save all the papers? If the Houston Chronicle had someone on staff covering it all the time, I haven't seen their articles yet, but I have checked AP, Reuters, and UPI stories for the mission and found no mention of such a thing. The crew received highly edited excerpts of the news, and often times found out about things like the Watergate hearings from family calls instead of from the NASA news briefs. There is reason to believe that NASA would not have been forthcoming with any negative coverage of the mission. The crew also was necessarily aware of questions from the press during the January 2 press conference with the astronauts, and those were upsetting to the crew in that some questions implied the crew were error-prone slackers. (See Carr's bio. His wife went to bat for them with Slayton, resulting in January 5 praise from Slayton and a real day off January 10.) In short, Cooper would have known little about actual negative press coverage during the flight. It seems "the press" of whom Carr speaks is actually Cooper '76 and subsequent references to that story. The summary conclusion Evans draws at the end comports with prior sources and is reliable: "[The strike] was an unfair accusation which lead to a stigma that would hang over Carr's crew for decades."

Chopra. "On Strike in Outer Space", OPEN Magazine. 2013
Chopra 2013 is not reliable. This one dramatizes the barf incident: "…[T]here was nowhere to hide from Mission Control." After several more dramatic sentences, this zinger comes up, "The astronauts soon realised that they were, for all practical purposes, prisoners under surveillance; they had no privacy, and there was nowhere they could ‘hide’ from the peeping eyes and ears of NASA’s Mission Control." Except they knew exactly where the switch for the recorder was, understood they forgot to switch it off, and acknowledged their error of cover-up. Chopra dramatizes more of the mission, misattributing Gibson's "no way to do business" as a reference to monitoring when it was about overscheduling. He continues in this dramatic mind-reading vein and repeats Cooper's error of chronology by putting the day off before the conversation with Mission Control about how far behind they are. Chopra goes a step farther to proclaim, "It has since been suggested that the so-called ‘revolt’ or ‘strike’ wasn’t really one at all. But these revisionist accounts do not discount the contentious and irritable relationship between Houston and Skylab 4, nor do they refute the notion that even highly trained military types and scientists fully convinced of the value of their work are likely to push back when placed in an artificially controlled, too-tightly-regulated environment." This bit of historical negationism is especially odd because the astronauts were overprogrammed, did push back, Cooper symptomatized, and they never took a day off without Mission Control's prior agreement. So it's not entirely peculiar that this author calls those who would disavow a strike "revisionist," particularly when a "strike" wasn't mentioned at all in the first two years after the mission. Chopra cites no sources and gives no explanation for differences from the contemporary record.

Evans 2013
Evans comports with the contemporary record and includes mention of Balbaky's piece which popularized the strike along with Cooper's, then begins the conclusion with, "…Crippen knew that the events of 28 December by no means reflected any kind of rebellion on Carr’s part," correctly asserting that there was no strike or rebellion at all. (Of course this article is by the same author as the book from 2 years prior.) This is not reliable to assert that something unusual beyond Carr's inquiry happened on December 28, a date which gained prominence only in recent years.

Pogue's NYT obituary 2014
Pogue's NYT obituary is not reliable to assert a strike because within the body of the obituary, it explains that the term "strike" was used jokingly by the crew after the mission. Also, Cooper was interviewed for the article and may have lent undue influence to the notion. There is no detail whatsoever about the "strike" - no dates, no information about what transpired, and the article does not explain why the contemporary record may have missed this event.

Kay 2014
Kay (2014) is not reliable to support the tale, either. cites Freeman 2000, Chopra 2013, and the NYT obit. It asserts a strike December 28, radio off, and they didn't return because of it. Alas, no explanation of why this story is more plausible than the record in the documents of the day.

Hiltzik and Loomis 2015
The LA Times business article by Hiltzik is not reliable to explain what happened. There are several problems here. There was no secret eavesdropping by Mission Control - Pogue had the voice recorder switch and did not switch off the recorder when they were finished. Hiltzik cites Loomis (from earlier that same day). Loomis cites no sources and makes these exceptional claims: Astronauts were infuriated by being overheard by mission control. "Carr and his crew demanded a day off. NASA refused. So Carr simply shut off the radio and took the day off they wanted.… NASA went ballistic." "The next day, December 29, NASA agreed to quit micromanaging the astronauts…" Neither source explains how the radio could have been off for a whole day during a televised conversation with an astronomer , and that somehow the media managed to miss this fact in their reports about December 28, suggesting that the radio was also off during Carr's inquiry about how far behind they were , and during so much other back-and-forth on a regular workday. It also does not address why this bizarre behavior was not reported two days later when the crew and ground had conversations about how they could work better together. . It also does not address the fact that Chief Astronaut Slayton would have heaped praise on the astronauts a week and a half later, saying said, “As far as we're concerned down here, you're doing an outstanding job all the way. Just keep up the good work stay loose and enjoy it.” He added, “I think if you keep going the way you've been going, why, it'll be one of the best missions we've ever seen.”. Loomis's blog post is not reliable, and LATimes should not have relied on it.

Eschner and Wired 2017
Eschner, in Smithsonian Magazine and Wired Magazine (2017) are not reliable to support a "strike" - Smithsonian cites only a Motherboard blog as support for the strike (Wired has no citations), all three repeat Cooper's mixed-up timeline, Balbaky's addition of the radio being off, and adds the assumption that they didn't return to space because of it. There is no justification for deviating from contemporary reports. This appears to be exactly the sort of retelling of inaccurate stories warned about in WP:AGE_MATTERS.

Giamio. "Did 3 NASA Astronauts Really Hold a Space Strike?" Atlas Obscura, 2017
Gaiamio in Atlas Obscura is a mixed bag. It states, contrary to prior record, "For a full orbit during [a few days before New Year’s Eve]—a little over 93 minutes—none of the astronauts manned any of the radios that connected them to Mission Control." It does not offer any substantiation for this deviation, nor any particular date for the occasion, nor any justification for the prior record having omitted this event. It cites Homesteading to support the notion that the radio was off for an orbit, but Homesteading only quotes astronauts to support that notion, the allegation apparently stemming from Balbacky's embellishment of Cooper's invention of a "strike." This source also cites Cooper for astronaut emotions regarding the vomit incident, and astronauts' statements about this have been recorded, but Cooper's mind-reading does not comport with their statements. Also, the timeline of this article is messed up because it supposes that this radio silence occurred during a goof-off day (January 10 was the first according to prior record), before Carr's December 28 inquiry. Atlas Obscura provides a tertiary source at best, with little or no critical editorial oversight.

Strike stories in general
Sources that reference Cooper or Balbaky directly, indirectly, or even tacitly to support the idea of a "strike" (a strike by any other name would smell as sweet) without further supporting evidence of why they believe the prior record to be incorrect are unreliable to assert that the events they claim happened for the same reasons as Cooper. Nobody gives verifiable specifics in their fantastic tales or a rationale for why the more mundane story is wrong. Mere repetition doesn't increase accuracy or reliability.

New RfC proposal
Given prior controversy in edit history and this talk page, and the assessment of sources at Talk:Skylab controversy which generated minimal discussion over a month, I propose a more precise RfC than the one previously drafted which also can be a more direct question we put to the community and thereby seek a more concise answer (which tends to work better with the RfC process anyhow), and the answer to this question can guide us as to how to title and compose the ensuing article (which may be similar or different from what we have now).

I propose the following text for this RfC:

I propose that this RfC be distributed to all contributors to this article and talk page, WP:FRINGEN, WP:BLPN, WP:POVN, and WP:RSN, with this wording:

Of course, link directly to the RFC section from the invitation to contribute. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No. There is insufficient RS for those descriptions, as was amply explained by and myself in the preceding straw poll on §Stand-alone or section. "Mutiny", "strike" and "rebellion" are all perjorative terms in the context of a serving military officer and WP:BLP applies in full force. But the event is not fringe, it is well enough documented to be included, however the aforementioned poll showed a clear consensus to merge it back into the main Skylab article. You are Somebody (not you) is flogging a dead horse here, which is possibly why so few of us engaged. Please They need to take care not to WP:DISRUPT things any further. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[Updated 17:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)]
 * We are agreed on at least some of these fundamental facts, but the question I'm asking with the RfC draft is not whether something happened or not, but rather how we should ask the community to assess the validity of the assertion that there was a strike so that we can put to rest how Wikipedia should treat this thing. I'm certainly not intending to disrupt, though I see how you might arrive at that notion.  I am, however, trying to achieve well-documented community consensus on how to proceed with this information (whether it be here or in the Skylab 4 article or otherwise).  The last time I tried making substantial changes to this article based on a careful reading of credible sources and careful assessment of sources' reliability, my edits were promptly reverted and I was instructed to engage the community to arrive at a consensus before making bold changes, and an RfC was specifically requested.  Perhaps I'm being not WP:BOLD enough after some editing disagreement, but I am genuinely trying to make Wikipedia better and waste less time writing carefully-sourced things that will be deleted within the week. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You and GeeBee have made this discussion/debate so needlessly complex by inviting in 100+ primary sources that it's overwhelmed me and I think I'm done here. I'll just comment that this RfC is really way worse than the other proposed wording; it's now worded to make the hoax the norm and asking to prove you wrong. The last one just asked which version anyone believed, which is most fair, however in reality, most best sources back up the strike, and it should be asking if people believe it's a hoax, a rather fringe theory here. This is really incredibly biased and needs to be changed. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is not the burden of evidence on the one who proposes an WP:EXCEPTIONAL interpretation of events? Surely it is out of character for military officers to disobey instructions and shut off the radio when their lives depend on assistance from the ground.  -- ke4roh (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's exceptional for you to use primary sources and Redditors as a fringe argument against the New York Times, BBC, Smithsonian, et cetera. You need to provide the burden of evidence to alter an article that has used reliable sources to present this strike for years if not a decade. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 16:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Three highly experienced editors have now questioned the reliability of the sources and the wisdom of violating WP:BLP. , I owe you a sincere apology, I stupidly mistook you for one of the mutiny fanboys. This long rigmarole of AfCs would be appropriate in an ordinary content dispute but the WP:BLP policy overrides that by emphasising in bold that potentially damaging and contentious material should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. We absolutely have to do this and not restore the material unless and until the discussions lead to a positive outcome. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What Steelpillow says. (I usually agree with him anyway). Plus I still stand by all my comments on this matter posted above. - wolf  17:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Now, how best to proceed?  Again, I'm not wishing to be disruptive, but productive.  We have that revision I linked earlier and a living draft at User:Ke4roh/Skylab_4_human_factors if we want to clean up the BLP concerns right away (which I agree is appropriate, though I'm having trouble getting my changes to survive for any length of time), but based on your conversation earlier, I'm not sure that effort is framed correctly. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My best suggestion on how to proceed would be to merge the current article into Skylab 4, for which there is a clear consensus in an earlier thread. That is best done progressively, starting with the core story. As content is copied across its citations should go with it. That will provide an opportunity to evaluate the content and the sources, as it is moved. I would not expect all the details to be moved, and that will help reduce the number of sources too. We would likely end up with twice as many experienced eyes and half as much material and sources, which can only improve matters further. I will help with that as best I can, but I am very busy elsewhere at the moment. We can worry about the rest later, although, as you pointed out, the burden on those who would restore contentious material is on them and you should not need to drive the discussion yourself (e.g. see the continuing conversation below). However, your continuing engagement would obviously be more than welcome. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of RS as mentioned, we don't have to make verdict here what transpired only report what the sources say. The sources saying something happened such as this and the Smithsonian . That is really ludicrous top question the Smithsonian as RS. If there is alternative viewpoints, lets mention them also. Never in decade have seen this kind of questioning what are normally considered RS. Fotaun (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is heavy OR and unprecedented to question extremely reliable sources with some old primary source documents and the musings of Redditors. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the Smithsonian article that says, "Although the episode has been commonly called a 'mutiny,' it wasn’t in the technical sense". I have to agree with that. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold on a minute. That Smithsonian freelance writer article says several things that are not supported by newspaper articles from 1973-4 or by the post-splashdown coverage in any sources, whether they got their information firsthand or secondhand from NASA).  It says, The crew "had announced an unscheduled day off, turned off their communication radio to mission control, and 'reportedly spent the day relaxing, taking in the stunning views of the Earth from orbit,'"  But it doesn't matter who writes it - if they expect us to believe that such an event occurred, they have to explain why prior sources reported events incorrectly.  Nobody talking about this event ever does.  But, settling this question is exactly the point of the RfC I propose. -- ke4roh (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We can't get it right, only get it close. The first half of the mission especially the men were exhausted, and the three men in Skylab maintained different recollections of events. Two of three journals were deliberately left on board upon departure. During the mission, ground control could and sometimes did monopolize the press with their version of events while shading or omitted the astronauts' stories until the mission ended. Some evidence was forgotten within days of the event, some was destroyed in 1979, some has been lost with age and death, and some might be sealed away in private diaries and official records crypts until the last man dies. That does not mean that there are no new sources. Children of the astronauts may have vivid recollections of converasations. Letters to the editor are usually ignored, and yet some respond clearly and authoritatively with an alternative take on events described in some report or another.
 * As for debating sources and truths, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the research of the 2016 Reddit article is highly well-considered and valuable and its ommission foolish, that it is more credible than the blather that disparages it for not following old school publishing rules. The references it uses ranks better than a typical Wikipedia article. And, we can vouch for the Reddit author better than we can for ourselves who hide behind our WP names, prideful of our volunteer spirit and supposed neutrality. GeeBee60 (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Whoa User talk:Ɱ. I did not ask that there be 100 plus citations, although I have referred to several of them. I own one book on Skylab, the guidebook published before launch, (which also dates me), but since this started have read much more. Early on I counseled User:Ke4roh that if he wanted to do all this research, why wasn't he making it something for legitimate publication. I still believe that. Here I've stayed mute for weeks waiting for this verbal Skylab meteor shower to subside. Months ago I wrote the current lede that has stood substantionally unchallenged, and have wavered over publishing a revision that I started in September, in draft here: User:GeeBee60/sandbox mutiny. The constant stalling over the earlier RfC leads me to regret that I have not published it to simply alter the conversation.
 * If we are interested in creating a legitmately valuable contribution, we also will avoid such derogatory insults as "flogging a dead horse" and "mutiny fanboys" in disparaging editors with different viewpoints.
 * I'd hope that we would embrace the Mutiny as story. There is very strong evidence that a rift developed between the crew and ground control, and strong evidence that things came to a head with a truce that can be described as a turning point. There is incontrovertible evidence that rebellion, mutiny, strike, and work slowdown have all been used after the mission ended to describe the dispute and resolution. I would prefer that we adopt a word already published as the title for a stand alone article, such as Skylab mutiny story. It is not our job to discern THE TRUTH. All we can do is summarize the published record, and because of the varied reports the record remains somewhat ambiguous. I am concerned that some of the presentation reads like a vendetta against Cooper, which is inappropriate on WP and subject to immediate challenge. But adopting the most controversial title head-on and then explaining all the subtleties reduces the likelihood that someone else does not start a new page down the road with half the facts, after others of us have moved on. GeeBee60 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This comment and your two drafts are the most respectable and least partisan part of this whole mess of a dispute, thank you. Your sandbox text looks to me to be true based on all sources, including the primary sources, which is where I am conflicted, because Wikipedia does not accept editors' research based on primary sources or at all. An independent, authoritative, comprehensive publication is sincerely lacking. Anyway, I will be more respectful of this process, as I think Steelpillow should be in interjecting here, and Ke4oh should accept this as less of an attack on Cooper and others and more of a twisted, complex, messy story with truths, fictions, and gray areas. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is important that we do not lose sight of the distinction between content arguments and policy arguments. I have been making a strong point about policy, but I also fully respect WP:NPOV on content. I like GeeBee60's point about the importance of the story. When I endorsed the Smithsonian comment, I was endorsing both halves of it. But first things first, I think we need to cut this article down to a section or so at Skylab 4. That should focus these discussions a lot better. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Ɱ. The draft obviously is incomplete, and my current editing projects are topics nearer to my actual expertiese. I'll take the draft up again in a few days ... unless someone else wants to adopt and complete it.
 * If there is no separate skylab mutiny story, think about an aftermath / post-flights / lessons learned type of of article, that could cover multiple aspects, from long duration flight schedule stratagems to why we don't have showers on the ISS ... and conflict management for isolated crews. GeeBee60 (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Please note the closure decision of the merge proposal at Stand-alone or section above. This may affect the relevance of some of the comments here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish I could complete my revision more quickly. While as presently written this article might merit merging, this is a long story that mostly transpires AFTER Skylab 4 concludes. Skylab aftermath and Skylab mutiny story are both plausible titles, with the former a potentially broader topic. Until I can finish, you can read and comment there User:GeeBee60/sandbox mutiny (commenting here (Skylab controversy) with the other comments is harder to track). When you read my final version you might (also) conclude that a separate article is called for. Thanks, GeeBee60 (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you go ahead with preparing your related topic and, when you are happy with it, submit it for draft review as a new article? It can then be taken on its own merits as a topic to which Skylab 4 itself is only incidental. If you need any help with the draft acceptance procedure, I am not expert in it but I have used it a few times, so feel free to drop me a line. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If I knew then what I know now. Thanks, I think. GeeBee60 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement concerning official transcript
On April 30, Yatpay added the following sentence:

"Additionally, the official technical air to ground transcript for the mission shows 68 pages of bidirectional communication with the crew on the day the strike was to have taken place. "

With a reference to that ground transcript. Ɱ reverted that, on the grounds it was already mentioned and original research. I put it back in because (1) I can't find this mentioned elsewhere in the article, and (2) this is a referenced statement of fact. I don't think referenced statements of fact, without any conclusions drawn, can be original research. Rather than turn this into an edit war, I've suggested moving this to the article's talk page. Fcrary (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we clean this up some more?
I remain bothered by the fact that BLP says to not include unsubstantiated rumors about people, and I have meticulously discredited each and every reference that has thus far been brought forward about any sort of strike/mutiny/incident, and provided credible references that support the notion that it never happened. Furthermore, the feature-length documentary Searching For Skylab, which came out earlier this year, offers a very direct refutation: Gibson says, "[The press] got very creative. They had stories created that had nothing to do with reality." Gibson. A reporter asked for comment about the crew being less enthusiastic than the others. Bill Schneider replied, "Yeah, they're your reports, not ours. This crew is very enthusiastic.  We have no problem with them." Again, he repeats the radio handoff error concept. "There never was any strike." Emily Carney says, "If you look at the mission transcripts, that never happened." Gibson says, "There was no mutiny. Our objective was to get the job done." Carney continues, "They actually had a very polite heart-to-heart with the ground, and they discussed working out a better schedule, and they did."

Any changes I make I expect will be reverted or contested promptly unless there is a very clear consensus here, so I invite others to make changes and/or put forward means for resolving this problem. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I recently located the audio recording of the Al Shepard reprimand that occured November 18 GMT. This has also been added into "Searching for Skylab" as it highlights 1. Yes, there was a reprimand for keeping quiet on Bill Pogue's sickness, and 2, despite being on the open channel and coming from the man in charge, the tone of Shepard's voice is not as grim as written accounts would have you believe. Additionally, after Jerry Carr states, "I agree with you Al, it was a dumb decision", Shepard actually laughs when he replies, "Well, if this is the worst one you make, we're going to have a great mission.”. This tape was not edited, nor was it difficult to obtain, I just had to know precisely where to look and to access the correct tape by cross-referencing Mission Commentary numbers in the transcripts, with the tape numbered ones held at the archives. Dstevenb (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, that could complement the added/removed/restored text I mentioned previously, concerning the actual transcripts. If Emily Carney said it didn't happen and pointed to the mission transcripts, then no one could reasonably call it original research. It's what a valid source said, and a reference to the primary reference that source mentioned. Fcrary (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * After participating a lot in this discussion I have stepped back, mostly for personal (health) reasons but also because I'm having a hard time seeing where we find consensus. To NOT have an article that acknowledges the belief in a mutiny is ludicrous. There are editors who perform somersaults discrediting some sources while accepting others. I spent a lot of time on a possible revision to the article but I cannot bring it to fruition and would deeply appreciate it if someone else would take it on. GeeBee60 (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should have an article that discusses the idea, much as we have an article about chemtrails. But I can't fathom why a person with a desire to be properly informed about what happened on Skylab would, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, believe a sloppy accounting by Cooper or an LA Times financial blog or a business school exercise, over mission transcripts, press reports of the day, and Bill Schneider and Deke Slayton pronouncing their enthusiastic support for the crew after December 28.  I have laid out references and explained each one in exhausting detail - and never did anyone give any indication that there was some coverup, that NASA fabricated transcripts, that Mission Control which was supposedly the good guys in the good guy/bad guy narrative actually covered up for the astronauts, or any other indication that the original record was somehow flawed.  We don't hear a peep of this nonsense until Cooper comes along with his dramatic account two years later, and we have a prompt refutation by an expert who should know!  When I embarked on this exercise, I did not know what I would find.  I had heard of the "mutiny" and was curious to find out more about it.  What I found out was that it was a bad game of telephone played out in the press over years, stemming from dramatizing a crew that was overworked to their limits.  You can see the same thing - I have laid bare my research trail.  It has been my plan to write a peer-reviewed article with lo these many sources and my conclusions as yet another direct refutation and explanation of what happened, but the BLP policy is pretty clear that we're not supposed to publish unsubstantiated dirt on living people, which is how all the allegations in this article are presented.  We should not need another  source to prove that nothing happened when we're lacking in even one that takes the trouble to explain why the original record was incorrect. -- ke4roh (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Without mentioning any names, some people just have an obsession with a particular idea about a particular subject. And way too much free time. I have a major problem with someone like that concerning the articles on the aurora and double layers, going back for years. It's an unfortunate weakness in the way Wikipedia works.

But you may have offered a solution to the so-called Skylab "mutiny." Write that paper you are thinking of and publish it in a peer reviewed journal. You, personally, couldn't add a discussion of that paper to the Wikipedia article (no self-referencing.) But I could, and would. And it would be a valid, non-primary source. No original research on my part. No primary references. Nothing which would violate any policy, real or imagined. Fcrary (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of evidence that something happened, starting with Capcom Richard Truly's airing of dirty laundry in one of the press briefing, a significant breach of etiquette. Within weeks of the return to earth of the final mission, Molly Ivins recorded interviews clearly displaying that there were communication problems. Yeah mutiny is an overly dramatic characterization of what went on. But for whole whole lot of reasons the final mission was not the same as any other mission to date. ALL you need to do is see that two career military men returned sporting copious beards to know there was something different. GeeBee60 (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes it's clear something happened. Yes it's clear that traditionally-reliable sources counter David Hitt and his book and a movie  on it. Yes it's clear some/all of the traditionally-reliable sources exaggerate. Then there are all of the c. 1973 sources you found, which I still find irrelevant as OR, many are first-party, and the date of this strike isn't even concretely nailed down. I agree that an independent, peer-reviewed, scientific approach (preferably a research paper) is desperately needed here, as well as interviews of the reporters who agreed a strike happened, to ask, what is their evidence?  ɱ  (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If "something" happened, then what and when was it? We have transcripts, press conferences, daily news reports, video from December 28, and more. We have writings, all after Cooper, that make some mention of his tale (with or without reference to Cooper), and never explaining that the official record was wrong, fabricated, whitewashed, or otherwise in error. Yes, this mission was different from the others—it was longer.  They asked the crew to do too much, and the crew had to push back three times before Mission Control would relent.  Those things happened, they are well documented and not in dispute, and their dates are concrete.
 * As for not shaving, Carr's autobiography says: "Neither Jerry nor Bill were impressed with the shaving equipment and gave up shaving early in the mission, though Ed carried on with it. 'We tried shaving the first couple of days of the flight, but it was such an unsatisfactory experience that we just gave up. That's why we grew the beards.'  Jerry found the wind-up razor did not work that well and when he tried the safety razor, it became clogged up after only a few strokes.  That meant it needed cleaning, and with no running water, it required wiping the blade constantly, which also dulled the cutting edge."
 * We can't interview Cooper—he's dead. Molly Ivins is dead, too.  Balbacky is alive (as far as I know), but her work is thoroughly referenced to Cooper alone.  We (I, working on my paper, I suppose) could ask where she got the idea the radio was off - because that idea is not in Cooper.  We could interview Dick Stanley, who appears to have coined "mutiny" to describe Cooper's account, without citing sources, but asking someone about an article they wrote 35 years ago is likely to come up empty (not saying it's not worth a try, but I mean, what do you expect?).  We have a very thorough paper trail for all of this, and I have laid it out.
 * If you can present more information that does more than allude to Cooper's explanation—information which explains why or how the contemporary reports missed this big event, or which ties to something verifiable in primary sources, I'm all ears. But I have read a lot of transcripts, a lot of newspaper and magazine articles, and I have heard a few press conferences, and it's clear to me that the press dramatized in the moment and still didn't manage to invent a strike for two years after the fact.-- ke4roh (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Public ridicule
This article is scheduled to be ridiculed at Spacefest X this August by Emily Carney who is recognized by the National Space Society as one of the top 10 most influential people in space. I have tried to fix it. If we can adhere to our BLP rules and reliable source rules, then we can fix this up without having to go through the whole peer review process (which will take several months at best). She said to me, "I have zero faith in Wikipedia," based largely on this article and our difficulties in correcting its errors. I'm sure her talk will reflect the same unless we can make some improvements, particularly changing the treatment of the "mutiny" story to a fictional account. We need not go into great detail about how it got mis-spun, since we presently lack secondary sources for the details, but we certainly can tease fact from fiction by careful assessment of reliability. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This so-called ridicule does not bother me at all. Some aspects of Wikipedia work fine, But not everything that Jimmy Wales conceived is golden.I've used the story of six blind monks and the elephant To describe the process of writing this article. There're so many arcane insane rules being applied and misapplied regarding reference material and original research. Both this article and Wikipedia needs fresh eyes. GeeBee60 (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft
I am making a draft to fix the problems with this article.

—Your&#39;s sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Just out of morbid curiosity, which problems? This article has a long list of them... Fcrary (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Most of them, but I need to go through the Rules and Mannuals.
 * —Your&#39;s sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Given your challenges with spelling and punctuation may I recommend you refrain from these revisions. --GeeBee60 (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not very nice, GeeBee60. We can all contribute. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just tuning in here. For one, I take issue with the title.  If we are to have an article about a controversy, then we should have references to the controversy.  We have a few - Ad Astra from 1979 denies that any such thing took place, as does Homesteading Space. But those are primary source references about the controversy itself.  There are, so far as I'm aware, no secondary sources about the so-called controversy. except perhaps this drivel.  There is the former title, "Skylab Mutiny," with which I take issue unless it is presented as a game of telephone or an urban legend.  However, another editor objects to this approach, holding firm in an unfounded belief in a major cover-up by the agency and press shortly after the event, which only came to light two years later, and since we are lacking direct references to the game of telephone, we're at an impasse.  In short, we don't have quite enough to write either piece, but I am writing an article for peer review to cover how the story unfolded.-- ke4roh (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Merging
I am currently merging this article with Skylab 4, with rewriting some sentences.

—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 17:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Do not merge, (Thank you for not doing) this mess does no go in the main page !Telecine Guy (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)