Talk:American Airlines Flight 191

"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)

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)

This dispute is already under discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Jonchache (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

The requirement was satisfied in my talk page where the dispute was initially discussed. Jonchache (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it is very specific, you need to notify each individual person involved on their own talk page, as those involved may 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)

Ok, thank you for the heads up. Jonchache (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

That's not what NPOV means. If it were, everything would be a NPOV issue. There's no side that is being taken by using "man-hour" instead of "person-hour" or vice-versa because they both mean the same thing. It is fundamentally a style issue as evidenced by our MOS:GNL guideline. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Man-hour" is extremely natural English, whereas "person-hour" is generally clunky. I will point out that it's policy that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, we should ignore it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That seems pretty subjective. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:IAR seems subjective? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

No, natural vs clunky seems subjective. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

so is "person-hour" Jonchache (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Person-hour" is not a common term. A local handful of users cannot just arbitrarily choose to insert minor politically correct terms into Wikipedia articles. Zaathras (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a decision subject to the consensus of editors, so, yes, they can. And there's nothing arbitrary about following the relevant Wikipedia guideline. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Came here via NPOV noticeboard. I support the consensus of "person-hour" as a precise, clear and gender-neutral term that is easily understandable to any reader. I don't see it as clunkier than "man-hour", which (subjectively) sounds archaic and weird to me (in my industry such a term would almost never be used any more). Even if it was clunkier, it is hardly harmful enough to Wikipedia to justify ignoring rules per IAR. I just don't see why this is an issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Jonchache, I would advise you to read WP:BLUDGEON, as I've already expressed concern that you're being needlessly argumentative. With that said, there is no consensus to include "person-hours", which was only added in October after "man-hours" stood for several years. Even if it was a long-standing inclusion, "local consensus" cannot be invoked to prevent a change if there's never been an actual discussion on the issue. That's described as disruptive editing in WP:STONEWALLING, and I would advise Ahunt and Drmies to review the relevant policies and guidelines about consensus. It seems clear at this point that there is no consensus to include "man-hours" or "person-hours". Personally, I would prefer just about anything over "person-hours", which is not a commonly used term and does not improve the prose. It's worth noting that other options have been proposed at NPOV/N ("labor-hours" and "work-hours"), but these have been ignored. I suggest we just add one of these and be done with all of this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with "work-hours" or "working hours". Honestly, saying that a procedure "saves 200 working hours" feels way better to me than man-hours or person-hours. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That works. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd go with that, saves an argument. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

If its labor-hours I would be happy with that. I probably wouldn't have even edited it to begin with. In fact yes, I wouldn't have. Jonchache (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I've edited the page to reflect this, since it's looking like we've got a consensus (but if I've overstepped please feel free to undo and continue the discussion). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m not a fan of “working hours” because it is potentially misunderstood as a measure of duration rather than a measure of work (e.g. we might say there are 16 working hours until Christmas Day). Also, the source uses “man-hours”. If we view that as archaic by modern standards of gender neutrality, we could always quote it rather than say it in wikivoice.

As an aside, I recognise the issue of male-as-default, but rather than “person-hours” I would advocate human hours (abbreviated to ‘man-hours!), as an alternative. This has some built-in futureproofing, distinguishing human hours from machine hours, which I expect to be a distinction of growing importance. However, that’s just my opinion on the direction that language-change advocacy should move in, not something to apply to this article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Person-hour would confuse readers. I understand trying to follow WP:GNL but changing anything with man to person is not applicable in every situation. Additionally, the term man-hour is applicable to everyone not just males. Grahaml35 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Flight 191.

—173.161.8.133 (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 173.161.8.133 (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

References

I don't think that source supports the change of coordinates - the link has an arrow and "approximately", and I note that the arrow is pointing towards where the coordinates currently locate to. The article doesn't have specific coordinates that I noticed, either. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I've tweaked the coordinates a bit so that they correspond more precisely to the location to which the arrow points in the photo, but I agree that no major change is called for (at least on the basis of the article cited above). Deor (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Engineer's suicide

@Nephx:, @Ahunt: Wanted to bring this up here in light of the recent edits. MOS:EUPHEMISM absolutely recommends neutral and precise terms, thus favoring "committed suicide" over "took his own life", but MOS:SUICIDE points out that while "committed suicide" is not banned, ...[t]here are many other appropriate, common, and encyclopedic ways to describe a suicide. Is there a neutral compromise we can reach? I'm partial to "died by suicide" or "killed himself", personally. Thoughts? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with "died by suicide" or "killed himself" as those are plain and clear. - Ahunt (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

With no further responses from anyone, I'm going to go ahead and change it to "died by suicide". NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

How on earth to parse this sentence?

"The Western crash, however, was due to low visibility and an attempt to land on a closed runway, through, reportedly, confusion of its crew." 47.14.77.193 (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

"However, instead of any structural issues with the DC-10, the contributing factors to the Western crash were low visibility, and attempting to land on a closed runway, due to reported crew confusion."

Skimming the linked article, visibility was zero, and the crew was expected to perform a sidestep maneuver (aim at runway A, then scoot sideways to land on parallel runway B). The crew didn't realize they had to do this, but realized something was wrong; they tried to go-around but one of their landing gear hit a fully loaded dump truck parked on the closed runway. Their plane, a DC-10 like the flight 191 aircraft, was already under scrutiny from several other incidents, but in this specific case the factors contributing to the crash were all external. It just didn't help the plane's safety reputation.

I agree this sentence is kind of messy; hopefully this helps make sense of it for you! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Judith Wax

If one searches for Judith Wax, one is redirected to this page. Judith Wax was a writer who was among the passengers who died on this flight. But this page has nothing about Judith Wax, so I don't see the point of the redirect. Maybe the redirect should be deleted. Krakatoa (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)