User talk:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors

Resources I want to see

Skylab : America's space station - Hunt Library

ANTHONY BEARDSLEY and ROBERT SCHAEFER. "Impact of crew workload on Space Station on-orbit operations", 25th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Aerospace Sciences Meetings, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1987-505 - Hunt Library Microfilm

Agreed. These are relevant sources. I also would like to get

I added a commented out section about the Shayler Skylab book at the bottom. While I'm sure it's important and useful to include (and even bolstering the case for a non-dramatic interpretation of events), I have yet to work out how to include it, except perhaps to reference in the lead. I thought it was particularly instructive to separate out the timeline of contemporaneous sources to avoid having the timeline cluttered with disputes, and they generally don't go into the sort of date-by-date detail, but rather tell stories roughly chronologically around the comet, solar observations, EVAs, workload, and so forth. While they could be interspersed, it would complicate the objective of separating, and separately addressing, the "more dramatic accounts." Adding a section for "Books on Skylab" or "Subsequent resources" gets into a sticky situation with keeping the drama out of that section and the OR temptation to assert that the other resources generally align with the contemporary sources - or by reiterating what they say, repeat the story already presented.

I have the Beardsley article now, and will include it in the next day or two. -- ke4roh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, general

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@GeeBee60:Thank you for your engagement in this effort! Would you call this "journalism" inappropriate for Wikipedia on account of WP:OR? If so, I need to set about fixing that. My chief interlocutor on the BLP dispute is keenly interested in keeping OR and SYNTH off WP.

As for the lede, do you reckon the title needs to be included? MOS:BOLDAVOID seems to say it's okay to omit. -- ke4roh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)

@GeeBee60: Thank you. I believe this article should replace Skylab mutiny and there should be a redirect to a more appropriate neutral title. (See Talk:Skylab mutiny#Article_Title_and_pejorative_implications_of_"mutiny".) My hope is not only to convey what actually happened, but also that there were valuable lessons learned from the overscheduling. Skylab 4 was unique because they had the longest mission - too long to keep producing at breakneck pace of earlier missions. Do you suppose that needs to be spelled out even more directly? -- ke4roh (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Why?

https://xkcd.com/386/

Appears fully fleshed out to me

Hey there. I think you've got this version ready for use. The only thing I could think of that might improve it (as mentioned before) and, if there are sources, is the military-political significance of using the term "mutiny", given that two of the three crewmen were active military in a very public government operation. Pondering what would happen with an actual mutiny with a source in the military might aid in dimming the lights on the speculation of the original article. -Spencerian (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I think happened

It is my opinion, now that I've researched this thing near to death, that Cooper saw the Molly Ivins NYT article "Ed Who?" which talked of a "rebellion" on the day of the "Great camera orgy" which was January 10. He also heard about the conversations on December 30, where crew and Mission Control worked out most of their differences, and he noticed a lot of "complaining" on the B-tapes which was really them giving their frank assessments on things they'd been asked to assess. He also picked up on their calls for time off, and he decided to characterize it as rebellious, and a "strike," and roll it all into one dramatic event "at the end of the sixth week" which would be day 42=December 27, which was the day after their actual scheduled day off. It is very clear from reading Cooper that although he was mostly well-versed in the facts, he was writing as he pleased without strict adherence to them. Consider this passage: "As the talk was quite technical, Gibson felt distracted because he could almost see 'an awful lot of eyeballs' rolling into the backs of an awful lot of heads down in Mission Control. The astronauts aboard Gibson's own space station would be allowed to talk with scientists on the ground whenever they wanted, over a private hookup that would circumvent the flight controllers—something that Gibson was in favor of doing in many areas." (p. 107, Panther edition) Even Cooper didn't say they turned the radio off, though. That gem was inserted by Balbaky in the HBS paper. And so on it goes, a bad game of telephone among writers having sloppy moments, until we have ourselves a mutiny on April 1, 1984 which subsequently turns into a carefully-sourced Wikipedia article referencing all those wrong sources in 2017. -- ke4roh (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Skylab 4 human factors.The discussion is about the topic User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors. Thank you. --ke4roh (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]