User:GeeBee60/sandbox mutiny/RfC

=Skylab mutiny?=

Crtoon comments
https://xkcd.com/386/

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*yN2Xhv-M5PPerWzDVNt3sw.jpeg http://chainsawsuit.com/comic/2014/09/16/on-research/

=Prior comments=

User talk: GeeBee60
Thanks ke4roh but ... . With my recent edits to Skylab mutiny as well as William Pogue I wanted to reduce the dramatics of the phrase "Skylab Mutiny", while not go the naive route of "nothing happened". But I'm not up to the task of graphing the daily work output, and I'd be concerned for your work, that it avoids teetering off the Original Research precipice*.

I don't want to delete Skylab mutiny, but rather give the name its place as a bit of journalistic cleverness. Rebellion happened, NASA coped, resented being challenged, and made sure that there would never be a chance to repeat the event.

(*RANT: No Original Research is one of those absurd WP goals that is constantly and unavoidably violated, some Star Trekian Prime Directive that begs our testing.) GeeBee60 (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

...

My caution to you, ke4roh (talk), is that what you propose, either as a new subsection or as a new article, is ambitious, is not a simple rewrite about the "mutiny", and opens an enormous "can of worms". Why is what you investigate about the workload on Skylab 4 unique to that mission? Do we graph the workload for every mission, and how subjective are the accomplishments from one mission to the next? I think it is ok to acknowledge the ambiguity, a version of Rashamon, or six blind monks, or fog of war, of what happened. Perhaps you can wrap this up more succinctly than I imagine. It seems to me that what you are wading into is more like a Masters Thesis -- and there are alligators in the swamp.

My grumble with WP are over the many layers of interpretation of what IS original research. A huge number of articles are created because of a lot of very hard work and research by the writers. WP needs Original Research IMHO, just not fringe conclusions. I really don't want to go too far off topic, and as you say, this is not like the Moon Hoax.GeeBee60 (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

...

Hello User talk:Ke4roh. I've looked at your article -- I'd just done so yesterday morning and then got your message, am (re)reviewing your work. You have written a well-crafted piece of journalism, an in-depth study that credibly refutes the more extreme views on the "mutiny" of Skylab 4.

Beyond this, while I have a few edits to offer, I'd first say that with this article, with over 100 references and at least a dozen pages of text (well over 4,000 words), you sell yourself short by publishing in Wikipedia instead of finding a reputable journal for publication. This is not a little rewrite of another article -- very little of its origins remain. Instead this is a new original article, that needs a bit of polishing -- you'd change the title and intro, and maybe a few sentences included verbatim from the earlier "mutiny" text.

Look, I don't have serious credentials in giving publication advice, I might be full of hoohey. Yes I'm something of a space exploration nerd, but my training and work is far removed from that -- fruit, plants, bees, etc., and even there I'm not a published journalist nor a science researcher. I just think that you've put a lot of work in on something new and do you really want it to be ground up by the WP process? Something to consider. BUT, I am working on a rewrite separately, and you can revert what you don't want. GeeBee60 (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

...

I inserted a revised / lengthened intro; a couple of citations might be wanted. No changes except in the lede. More extended comments about this are to you (user:Ke4roh) on my talk page. Hope this is useful. Good luck. GeeBee60 (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

...

to Ke4oh: Wikipedia is a big project, you've published a number of good articles, you've given this one a lot of thought, and you should proceed as you feel led. There are both academic and non-academic journals (Smithsonian's Air and Space e.g.), but I sense that you are ready to launch now into the great Wiki and let go. Writing articles is exhausting and there is a certain joy to just putting something into the ether and watch what develops. Visit your talk page User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors for a few edits and questions as I go through the article more in depth. Best luck, GeeBee60 (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

---

I fixed some mistakes I made with the lede (oops) and made a few more little changes. AND I made one bigger one -- I posted a message box on the section about Space Medicine, which is badly incomplete. Otherwise, good job. GeeBee60 (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors
This is a well considered, well researched piece of journalism. The opening passage, I'd mention that Skylab 4 = Manned mission 3, standard practice because of the naming confusion. "Legacy etc." I'll leave you to sort out, obviously that section is a work in progess. Elsewhere are some minor typos that I expect you will catch before publishing. The title I have mixed feelings over. Good work, thanks. GeeBee60 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC) ---

I inserted a revised / lengthened intro; a couple of citations might be wanted. No chsnges except in the lede. More extended comments about this are to you (user:Ke4roh) on my talk page. Hope this is useful. Good luck. GeeBee60 (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I fixed some mistakes I made with the lede (oops) and made a few more little changes. AND I made one bigger one -- I posted a message box on the section about Space Medicine, which is badly incomplete. Otherwise, good job. GeeBee60 (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

...

@Ke4roh: Regarding your question about including the title in the lead sentence, (or not), I’m looking at your original opening sentence that I chewed up. “Skylab 4 human factors describe the high workload conditions aboard the Skylab 4 mission which resulted in "a well publicized incident."[2] “

Obviously I rewrote it significantly. Here is my question — WHY should there be an article titled ‘’’Skylab 4 human factors’’’ and not a Skylab 2 or Skylab 3 human factors (or ISS or MIR or … you get my point)? This is a well researched exploration of whether or not there was a Skylab Mutiny. WHY isn’t this just an enormous expansion of that. "Skylab mutiny" maybe should go away, but I doubt it and I’d just embrace it. Unfortunately the cartoon about internet errors (under Why?, below) is spot on.

It really is your decision. If you don’t go for it you won’t know. A whole lot of Wikipedia is journalism and about testing the waters. I have ZERO authority over this article being posted into Wikipedia as a new article. Me, I’d merge it into the Mutiny article.

One more note: I like your list of possible factors and even would add: Away from family during holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years) At the same time, if this list is original research, some WikiGrinch could challenge it.

Good luck, no matter which direction you go. GeeBee60 (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2018 {{UTC)

...

@Ke4roh: Some thoughts --

= TITLE: Skylab mutiny Keep this title. Doesn't matter that there was no mutiny. It was given this name 40 years ago and the name stuck. You could try to change it to Skylab mutiny hoax. Fur will fly and the title will revert. At some point, after someone publishes an article titled that or similar, you will be able to add "Hoax" or "Myth". But that article does not seem to exist. So instead, pick apart piece by piece the topic and let people draw their own conclusions.

Look, I rewrote the lead sentence on the Skylab mutiny where I describe it as a work slowdown, and no-one has changed it since I did that a few weeks ago. But I won't delude myself -- it is untouched because this is not a topic of broadly current interest. Nor is my change the same as changing the title. Even if the article proves that there was no mutiny, people will continue to seek out info on "The Skylab Mutiny". Fighting to change the title is not the hill I want to die on.

= SPELLING DETAILS OUT: Probably not, but ... . You want to write an article where people want more not less. And you you don't want to outrun yourself, stating things that don't hold up to scrutiny. Try it. Is this point a helpful transition. Does this contribute a new and important point. Or are you just piling on, trying to win an argument that you are right and so-and-so is a stupid jerk.

I think what you probably need to do is to step back, walk away for a while. I do too. You have to discern if step back before or after you submit it. GeeBee60 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC) ...

Section: Article Title and pejorative implications of "mutiny"
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)

...

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#Revised "mutiny" per above discussions. Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 21:09, 28 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)

Section: 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#Article Title and pejorative implications of "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)