Jump to content

Talk:American Airlines Flight 191

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jonchache (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 21 December 2022 ("Man-hour": Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleAmerican Airlines Flight 191 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 9, 2011Good article nomineeListed
February 18, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

The Booth case again

The supposed precognitive dream of a man called David Booth has been a topic here and was removed from the article. There was a report about him in the Chicago Tribune in 1979 (part 1 and part 2). Is it mentionable now? Raubdinosaurier (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be relevant to the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even though he says he called people before the crash, his claims were printed after the crash, not before it. His claims that he made the phone calls to the airline and the FAA before the crash seem to be corroborated, but were so vague that no action could be taken, so overall there was nothing but coincidence to link it to this particular crash. So I agree, nothing there of scientific value, closer to National Enquirer material than encyclopedic content. - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Man-hour"

Encouraging @Jonchache, Ahunt, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, and Zaathras to discuss here and try to reach a consensus instead of continuing the edit war. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a note to anyone wishing to join the conversation, there's been quite a bit of back-and-forth on Jonchache's talk page, which I would invite editors to read. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This dispute is already under discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Jonchache (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can note: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard requires: You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement was satisfied in my talk page where the dispute was initially discussed. Jonchache (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is very specific, you need to notify each individual person involved on their own talk page, as those involved many not be watching your talk page. The page even provides a specific template for that purpose. I would recommend you do that, or you will next get accused of trying to make an end-run around the existing consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for the heads up. Jonchache (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOVN is for drawing attention to existing discussions about neutral point of view issues, and there was no formal discussion occurring, hence my prompt. Plus this is a content dispute that has essentially nothing to do with neutrality. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is your point of view. The proper noun is "man-hour" which is the widely accepted term for the given definition in the article. therefore, it is a point of view issue. Jonchache (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]