Talk:Boeing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Boeing plane manufacturing in China[edit]

Hi. I find it odd that there is no mention of the Boeing planes made in China in this article. http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/aboutus/international/docs/backgrounders/chinabackgrounder.pdf Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is minor overall compared the company's US production. The MD-90s were the only ones assembled in China, and that is a carry over from McDonnell Douglas. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I hardly think that the country outside the USA assembling Boeings is "minor overall". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no airplane assembly for Boeing occurring in China now. That page lists freighter conversion work and part manufacturing. That still seems like a small portion of the overall manufacturing performed by Boeing. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Tsu Wong[edit]

Consider adding something about Tsu Wong to early Boeing discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Tsu R.hrsn (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Boeing International Corporation India Private Limited[edit]

No standalone notability. Has been a stub for more than 2 years and has nothing to improve upon. Lakun.patra (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think deletion is probably better it has no real relevance to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Approve, but still needs expansion.-Mr. Man (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Approve. Where would you intend to put it within the article? Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boeing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boeing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Boeing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC on hatnote[edit]

Is the hatnote for The Boring Company needed? In other words, is it likely for users to accidentally land on this page while looking for The Boring Company? -Zanhe (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Maybe. On most keyboards, the E is right next to the R so a typo could be done between The Bo(e/r)ing Company (and maybe between Boeing and Boring). That said, access stats would be welcome, and symmetry would be needed in The Boring Company to point here (it is the case).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes provided that {{Redirect distinguish}} continues to be used, rather than a plain {{Distinguish}}. There is room for potential confusion with the full title The Boeing Company, though admittedly it is unlikely that many users will be searching for Boeing under its full name. What would be even better would be the ability to have the hatnote displayed by this page only if coming from the redirect, but AFAIK that can't be done on wiki. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Seems unnecessary since Boeing is better known as simply Boeing and not The Boeing Company. Additionally, while both The Boring Company and The Boeing Company are both arguably transportation technology companies, one works on tunnel building and the other on airplane manufacturing. There is enough difference for readers to not accidentally confuse the two. Central Midfielder (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No, God, no Kill it with fire. We don't just think up hypothetical typos or imagine all the ways somebody somewhere might be confused. Is there any evidence that anybody is having trouble distinguishing between these two companies? Why not focus on real, rather than hypothetical, problems? What next? The Boerke Company? The Book Company? The Bouqs Company? The Flooring Company? Ad infinitum. Hatnotes {{Distinguish}} and {{about}} and {{other uses}} are for when topics have the same name or have a strong resemblance, not slant rhymes or all the ways someone could fat finger typing the word. It really makes us look silly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes It is entirely possible that people searching for "The Boring Company" will accidentally type "The Boeing Company". While this is an uncommon name for Boeing, it is a redirect to Boeing, and is a 1-character typo that is the adjacent key on standard QWERTY keyboards. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Other one character typos from Boeing include Being Inc., doeing, Goeing Goeing & McQuinn PLLC, hoeing, Koenig (?), Roeing Corporation, and on and on. Do you know of an actual case of anybody making this mistake? How could topics as significant and well-known as these two companies suffer from this confusion without anybody ever mentioning it? If this problem were real, people would say so. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No. The chances of someone confusing the two seem so slim it's practically implausible. What's next, Nike and Nuke? Ford and Lord? Qatar and cuter? ZaneGlaze (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes I think someone could be listening to a story on the radio or television and turn to WP to get clarification. Upon mishearing it, they mistype it in the search and we should help the for WP:CHEAP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:CHEAP is about redirects and has nothing to do with hatnotes. Hatnotes are not cheap because they clutter up the page. If "The Boring Company" were considered confusing enough to warrant a hatnote, there would be no reason not to add Boring, Boing, Being, Booing, and other words that bear more similarity with Boeing. This page would be dominated by numerous irrelevant links on the top. -Zanhe (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No - Anyone who makes typing or aural errors should be able to sort it without our cluttering up the page with possible corrections. (Invited randomly by a bot) Jojalozzo (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Either way is fine Summoned by bot. One way or the other doesn't really matter, in the big scheme of things. There are far more bigger content problems to focus on. I personally dislike the practice of putting in redirects for misspellings. Learn to spell people! That being said, I can see a better argument for adding a hatnote at the top of The Boring Company, distinguishing it from The Boeing Company, a more well known brand, versus having a hatnote at the top of Boeing, a single word that is not likely to be typed by people looking for The Boring Company. I just don't see that anyone will type "The Boring Company" when they mean "The Boeing Company" They'd just type Boeing. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No Disambig is for where there is a real chance of confusion, not to cover the zillions of possible mis-types.North8000 (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No As others have stated we cant list every wrong spelling of a word that is particulary well known. MilborneOne (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

History of Boeing[edit]

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. The consensus is that the history section should be split to a new article titled History of Boeing. Jax 0677, MPS1992, and Fnlayson support the split. MPS1992 mentioned that the 737 Max crash information should be retained in the history summary section in Boeing. There is no consensus on this point about 737 Max so this should be discussed further if there are disagreements.

Cunard (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Support split - History section takes up more than one quarter of the article, and should be split to a new article entitled History of Boeing. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, your history split proposal comes about two weeks after the second 737 Max crash.
I don't oppose the split of the article, but reality says that this article (Boeing) will need to include mention of significant problems faced by the company. This article must still mention the 737 Max crash incidents and problems, and trying to hide such incidents and problems will never be successful. MPS1992 (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. You've provided no substantial evidence that the user made the suggestion in order to hide the 737 Max crash information. He regularly works on a wide range of corporate articles of companies from many countries, and his suggestion is completely in line with such work. - BilCat (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @BilCat:, thank you for your feedback. 210.84.48.144 just deleted my attempt to add such information to the history, so per WP:BRD, we will need to discuss its addition with MPS1992. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The summary History of Boeing in this article should contain brief mention of the 737Max issue. It is certainly far more relevant than the factoid that Mr Boeing had been a timber salesperson. Of course, the summary History of Boeing in this article should also contain a few other brief highlights of the history of the company -- currently everything after 1934 is missing. Events like the launch/success of the 747 (and arguably perhaps 707 or 737), or any mention of the handful of extremely significant military aircraft built by Boeing, would be curious omissions. MPS1992 (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @MPS1992:, be bold! --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Well I'm waiting for the discussion to finish first. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @MPS1992:, you are absolutely correct, sorry about that... --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The History section has already been split without a clear consensus here to do so. So do we undo this split and return the history text this this article or go forward with the split and expand the existing text to be a better summary? I'm OK with either would prefer the keep the split and do a better summary here. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with keeping the split and expanding the summary here. By far the easiest solution. MPS1992 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Advertising article?[edit]

In contrast to the Airbus article, Boeing doesn't have a "Controversies" section even though Boeing lives through a huge and well documented controversy about its general culture and behavior and about its best selling product 737 that can't be delivered anymore. Total deliveries are more than 50% down compared to last year, it is not even clear if and when that crisis can be stopped. Such a crisis effecting more than 50% of your deliveries can easily kill companies. Should the mentioning of this "mega crisis" really be avoided? --Betternews (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The Boeing crisis is so huge that it caused major other crisis in other organiszations. One being the FAA reputation crisis as major agencies around the globe stopped to recognize FAA certifications as they did before --Betternews (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The History section here was split off (see section above) to History of Boeing recently. Controversy and criticism sections are often magnets for biased and unbalanced coverage, see WP:Criticism. It's best to avoid those and distribute the coverage with rest of article content. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Well-documented major controversies and crisis that can easily kill the whole company the article is about should be withhold? Even though it is so huge that has major impacts on others like the FAA too? And phrases like having been on the list of the "World's Most Admired Companies" (before the crisis) should stay? As I assume you are not the marketing manager of Boeing, why should you want Wikipedia articles to be unbalanced?--Betternews (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
That last part of my post was only a general comment about not centralizing content in a section, not about omitting that content. Please review WP:Criticism for more explanation. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:Criticism says: If "corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism" then it is ok to have it in the article, or may even "justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism". As I am a bit struggling to understand your intentions in this talk page, just to be clear: you are not for "omitting that content", and you are not for "biased and unbalanced coverage". If you google various major corporations, it is hard to find anyone that is more criticized than Boeing, when googling "Boeing" it is almost impossible to get any other coverage than criticism and crisis reporting. So I may conclude that we are in agreement as to WP:Criticism that this controversy justifies a section in the Boeing article. --Betternews (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree that the grounding decision for the 737 MAX is certainly an important step in this crisis.--Betternews (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there still resistance to adopt from sources (in this Boeing article, not in side article about the 737 max) that the company Boeing itself is said to be in its largest crisis ever, in terms of financials, culture, strategy, organization, market position, competitive position, power over regulators, lobbying power?--Betternews (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Boeing plane crash[edit]

I recently added a few sentences regarding the reasons behind the Boeing plane crash with citations and have been removed without prior information. More information regarding the crashes should be provided Foxxjames66 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Apart from not being referenced it is not really relevant to this article. We have other articles that cover these accidents and subsequent events please have a look at Boeing 737 MAX and Boeing 737 MAX grounding, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Removed self-sourced items[edit]

Self-sourced items are WP:PROMOTIONAL and cannot be used in articles on Wikipedia. Facts must come from secondary, independent sources, per WP:IS. See discussion at Talk:Knights of Columbus and later Talk:Mises Institute for more information. Elizium23 (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:Identifying and using independent sources states it is only an "explanatory supplement". (WP:Identifying and using self-published works is another relevant one btw.) Refer to the main polices pages such as WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability (section WP:SELFPUB) instead. Self published sources can be used for non-controversial info and non-WP:BLP uses. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
That is not the policy that has been established by editors at Talk:Knights of Columbus. They contend that WP:SPS material lends an inherently WP:PROMOTIONAL tone to articles, and that organizations that publish their own information (such as membership numbers and financials) always inflate those numbers (they lie) to promote themselves and their self-published data can't be trusted, only information in secondary, independent sources (WP:IS.) @Avatar317: @Slatersteven: @Slywriter: @Gnu57: Elizium23 (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
On this issue, Boeing can't lie about its employees or financials without facing severe penalties. And no one has ever disputed the numbers they publish unlike the KofC.
This seems to be a WP:POINTy edit to achieve a different consensus with a different set of editors from an unrelated topic. As it is, you have an RfC on the KofC page and another on a project page. Let's keep the debate in one place and skip the WP:forumshopping Slywriter (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says you can't have one standard for Boeing and another standard for the Knights of Columbus article. Either self-published sources can be used in a certain way or they can't. I don't seek a "different consensus", I seek a uniform one. Elizium23 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Boeing, as a public company, go through Financial audit. It can't lie about it, or it's a felony. For raw financials (eg revenue), there is no interpretation,WP:Primary sources are acceptable in this way. There are some mishaps, but WP:Secondary sources can't know more. To make a parallel in aviation, aircraft specifications from the manufacturer can be reliable as they have a type certification. Editors here or for other large companies are aware of avoiding primary sources for controversial topics (eg "the best product in the world"). I'm not sure taking a fraternity club or a 21-people think tank as examples are meaningful.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you trying to get arguments for your own fraternity club?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this is a POINTy edit. Elizium23 seems to do this often. At John Mulaney, they were trying to make some sort of point about gay people getting noted for coming out of the closet but straight people not getting the same treatment(?) in a similarly veiled/"straw man" way.Cerebral726 (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
SPS can be used as long as the information is not seen as unduly self serving, and (as has been pointed out) subject to auditing. Personally I would never use a company for information about itself, but some commonsense must apply. Boeing (for example) have no need to really lie about how many people they employ whereas "MyNewCompanySeekingInvestment" might. Its contextual.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to discus users actions, that is at wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

And Elizium23 already brought his complaints about my edits to ANI in Nov 2019: you can see that discussion here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Avatar317_removing_WP:ABOUTSELF_material ---Avatar317(talk) 22:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Avatar317, that is not WP:ANI. Elizium23 (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Boeing runs out of cash / needs bailout to avoid bankruptcy[edit]

Even optimistic reports see no way anymore that Boeing has a path to survive on its own after burning an additional 13bn credit line since January. How should the path from a successful company to this situation be reflected in the article? --Betternews (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

By using references.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing&oldid=950122419"