Jump to content

Talk:Boeing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boeing whistleblower found dead?

[edit]

Would this be noteworthy to mention in the article somewhere? https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2024/03/12/boeing-whistleblower-dead-john-barnett/ https://time.com/6900123/boeing-whistleblower-john-barnett-found-dead-deposition-safety/ (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 12:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it should be in here, yes Equirax (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second Boeing whistleblower dies-Df (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion below about how to best include this information. It has yet to reach a conclusion. - ZLEA T\C 21:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZLEA Hello! Hello! Hello! Hughes Mahdavian (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hughes Mahdavian Yes? - ZLEA T\C 03:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the "Intrigue/Conspiracies Section" further down this page and post there instead if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intrigue/Conspiracies Section

[edit]

Would it be useful to have a section devoted to the current conspiracies and intrigue surrounding Boeing? We could highlight both the conspiracies around these Boeing accidents being intentional and the whistleblower being found dead. https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-accidents-far-right-dei-conspiracy/?bxid=61ffffadba71511c13275c6c&cndid=68515061&esrc=MARTECH_ORDERFORM&source=Email_0_EDT_WIR_NEWSLETTER_0_DAILY_ZZ&utm_brand=wired&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_content=WIR_Daily_031624&utm_mailing=WIR_Daily_031624&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl&utm_term=WIR_Daily_Active https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2024/03/12/boeing-whistleblower-dead-john-barnett/ Graceruhl (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of a "Controversies" section has been discussed in the past (see Talk:Boeing/Archive 2#Advertising article?). Personally, I have no opinion on the inclusion of such a section. However, I'm not sure the conspiracy theories in question, especially the one alleging the crashes were intentional, are notable enough for inclusion even in a general "Controversies" section per WP:UNDUE. - ZLEA T\C 20:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your WP:BOLD addition of the section for now. Given the highly sensitive nature of this incident, we should establish a consensus on how to best cover it. - ZLEA T\C 05:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been significant industry media reporting on Boeing's recent catalogue of failures and the consequent shaking of market confidence (e.g. I saw one industry member reported as saying that the pop-out plug door was "the last straw"). So I think that a section or subsection summarising these lapses and their cumulative effect would be justified. But I am not sure where or how best to place it, and we would need to be careful to keep conspiracy theories and other speculations or side issues out of it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This information would need to be added delicately to not add undue weight to it. WP:GEVAL says "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, Pseudohistory/speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that a second whistleblower was found dead today, I think information on the actual events should be included. @KittyHawkFlyer makes a good point, but I don't think the conspiracy theories here are in opposition to established literature, just in opposition to the company line. If we can find a quality source for the claims, I think they can be included as long as it's made clear they're contested claims. TJS808 (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of the time of this reply, I have not found any coverage from reliable secondary sources about conspiracy theories about this second whistleblower's death. Given that most sources are reporting that he died of an MRSA infection, I doubt that there will be any serious allegations that Boeing was responsible for his death. Only time will tell, though. - ZLEA T\C 06:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theories do not belong in an Encyclopedia. Stick to the facts. 50.47.192.107 (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of conspiracy theories can be covered if there are reliable secondary sources. We obviously cannot present said conspiracy theories as fact, and should be careful to not give them undue weight. - ZLEA T\C 03:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think these conspiracy theories are blatant libel. They should be left out entirely. I think this article should be WP:OFFICE protected and any edits claiming murder should be deleted from the edit history ENTIRELY. ANDROS1337TALK 12:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can probably request the appropriate level of protection and WP:REVDEL if such disruption becomes a regular problem, but office actions would probably be a bit much. - ZLEA T\C 15:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History section needs work

[edit]

The history section needs work. For example, the Origins section seems like a nice overview. The Sea Launch section feels unnecessary. The Corporate headquarters moves is too long. Plus, the MAX issues needs to be mentioned here, either in addition to or instead of in a separate section. I can jump in and work on it... but I wanted to start a conversation here too. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing Computer Services

[edit]

During the 1980s, there was a Boeing company called Boeing Computer Services (BCS). I'm not sure when it ceased to exist, nor whether it was absorbed back in to the parent company or sold off. I worked in its AI center from 1984 to 1987, so it at least existed during that time. It also developed Boeing Calc, which has an article Boeing_Calc. That article mentions the company and has a link to its article, but that link redirects here. Dunno if BCS was deemed not important enough to warrant a separate Wikipedia article, but if not it seems like it should at least be mentioned here. Mcswell (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are enough reliable secondary sources covering BCS, then feel free to start an article on the company. Just know that as a former employee, you may have a WP:COI and might want to start the article as a draft. - 22:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Add A Fact: "Boeing to cut 17,000 jobs"

[edit]

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

Boeing’s new chief executive on Friday announced plans to reduce its work force by 10 percent, or about 17,000 jobs, as he seeks to restructure the company in an effort to slash costs and improve production of planes, which has been plagued by numerous delays.

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/11/business/boeing-job-cuts.html

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

TJMSmith (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already added it. It's in the lead section? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it's now been removed, although I'm not sure there has ever previously been a change of such magnitude. Perhaps it will be added back if and when it actually happens. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize Boeing under "space junk"

[edit]

There are more bits of Boeing debris than working devices in space,after one of it's satellites exploded into 500 pieces [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.26.141 (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which one was it? The satellites it has produced are listed at Boeing Defense, Space & Security. But I am guessing most have been "retired" (also space junk?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boeing the company is not space junk, nor is it primarily a space junk disposal company, so to categorize this article under Category:Space debris would be inappropriate. That said, the satellite in question has an article, which is already categorized under Category:Spacecraft that broke apart in space. - ZLEA T\C 19:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the IP was being slightly ironic? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC) (... at least he didn't describe it as a "floating island of garbage"?)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing&oldid=1254390662"