Talk:Munich air disaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 6, 2008, February 6, 2009, February 6, 2010, February 6, 2013, February 6, 2016, February 6, 2018, and February 6, 2024.

Untitled[edit]

This article's URL is given in todays issue of the magazine "This is Lancashire" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imran (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 August 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit[edit]

Just removed "This has also been recorded by Hanky Park http://www.hankypark.co.uk". Obvious advertising, inapropirate on a page as sensative as this.

Perhaps someone ought to add Captain Thain's prosecution by the German authorities which rumbled on for nearly a decade after the disaster. Dbiv 14:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What areas need expansion I will do it.

I have changed the opening para under 'Cause' to reflect that Thain aborted the first two takeoff attempts due to boost surging, not the weather. Quite an important fact to get right! John

Just a bit of extra info:
The boost surging was a problem with the early Centaurus installation on the Ambassador in which under some conditions the mixture to some cylinders became over-rich leading to a momentary slight drop in power. This was made worse with increasing altitude where the air is thinner and Munich-Riem was (and presumably still is!) at 1,700 ft. Because of this, Thain had to use rather more of the runway than normal and although the runway had been cleared of snow to some extent by previous aircraft landing and taking off, only on the mid section. The surging caused Thain to run into the area of raw, deep slush towards the end of the runway which slowed the aircraft at the critical moment when it was too late to abort the take off, and making it impossible to fly-off due to the lack of airspeed. The Ambassador subsequently ran off the runway a short distance before hitting first a fence and then the house of a Mr Berger, which took off the port wing.
BTW, there was a drama-doc on the Munich Air Distaster on BBC 1 about an hour ago. I managed to sit through a few minutes of it and decided to give it a miss! Ian Dunster 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The drama last night could have been very good had it not been for some ignorance in the writing.
I do think it is a good idea to create a film depicting the TRUE events. This would require excessive help from the survivors and an entirely BRITISH cast. No ridiculous effects or Hollywood nonsense. And should be released only when EVERYTHING has been accurately portrayed according to the survivors' accounts. All cast must research thoroughly and read about the lives of their characters.
It is important for people to understand the tragedy and never forget it. Shaneo619 13:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary did seem a bit 'overdone', the banter just seemed wrong, however, I notice it did mention that someone had taken pictures of people on the fuselage of the Ambassador which seemed to nullify the claims against Captain Thain. Douglasnicol 21:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current (2012) series of Air Crash Investigation has a much better programme, a very well done one in fact, about the accident which you may find on YouTube if you go looking for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another minor edit: Although the FlightInternational magazine death notice indicated James Thain died at 53, the Wiki article on him [1], and his daughter's comment on the Mayday episode on the disaster both confirm he was 54 when he died.105.229.52.126 (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Thain

Move page to correspond with precedent?[edit]

Hello there! I am working on converting the plane crash articles to conform to the longstanding Wikipedia precedent that the named format is <airline> <flight num>. For example, I would normally just go ahead and rename this article to British European Airways Flight BE609. But, looking at the page history, I see someone has already done that and been reverted? May I ask way?

If there is a big reason to keep the Munich air disaster title, I would like to hear it -- otherwise, I intend to change this article to conform to precedent. Thanks! --Jaysweet 21:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, it should be renamed. As WP grows ever larger, standardization is essential and contributes to a professional appearance. Akradecki 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Akradecki, I believe I remember that name from the AfD for the Rochester air crash, where I promised to make a similar name change when the AfD ends ;) Sounds like we are very like-minded on this issue! The process is frustrating, as it turns out many of the non-standard articles are like that because the flight number is unavailable. But, slowly I am chipping away...
Since this one here was changed and reverted once before, I'm going to wait until tomorrow before moving it, in order to give people a chance to weigh in. I don't want to prematurely start a revert war ;) --Jaysweet 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, it appears because the redirect has a page history, I can't do the move without an admin's assistance. I just put in the request, but it looks like they have a 10-day backlog on move requests. Might be a while... heh... --Jaysweet 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

"Google test" results are worth noting: 

Results 1 - 10 of about 34,700 for "Munich air disaster".
Results 1 - 10 of about 58 for "British European Airways Flight BE609".

--Serge 06:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Strong Oppose The Munich air disaster is a historic tragedy in football, and is commemorated under that name, not only on plaques in Manchester and Munich, but also on various commemorative sites [1]. A Google search for "Munich air disaster" creates 35,500 hits, a search for "British European Airways Flight BE609" gives 58. Similarly, a Newsbank search for "Munich air disaster" gives 842 hits, and zero for "British European Airways Flight BE609". And finally, a headline-only search for European news sources on Lexus-Nexus gives 37 for "Munich air disaster", and zero for "British European Airways Flight BE609". This is a standing historical term, and renaming it would be akin to renaming the Hand of God goal to "1-0, 1986 FIFA World Cup quarterfinal Argentina-England". ~ trialsanderrors 04:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Adhering to naming conventions that produce contrived titles with names that are rarely if ever (see google test results above) used to refer to the subject of the article should never take precendence over titles that are consistent with WP:NC(CN). --Serge 06:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yikes!!! 8o I don't feel that strongly about it, so I'm considering withdrawing the move request. --Jaysweet 15:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although, I have to say, I'm sort of glad I brought it up -- the first time the move was reverted, no explanation was given. Now we have a documented reason on the Talk page why this article defies the standard convention. Actually, I'm satisifed with that. Withdrawing the request now...

I have relinked "Munich air disaster" to this page in view of above discussion, The Munich air disaster is synonymous with this incident: the 1960 accident is not the Munich air disaster. I will be inserting a link to that accident on main page in a few minutes. ta--Bilbo B 10:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The science behind the crash[edit]

It is not mentioned anywhere in the article that the real cause of the crash (which was not realised at the time) is that the drag from the slush increases by the square of the speed. Thus 4x faster = 16x more drag. This is the real reason that G-ALZU failed to become airborne. With the 50th anniversary coming up, this article is likely to feature on the "on this day" section. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Lawless[edit]

Is this worth mentioning in the article? Agathoclea (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is really worth a mention, seeing as the match was actually against F.C. United of Manchester. – PeeJay 14:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to how teams travel[edit]

I've heard it said that this event made teams realize the "eggs in one basket" risk of putting a whole team on one flight, and it's therefore now normal practice (as a result of the Munich disaster) to book no more than a couple of players on each of several flights. Is this true? It's the first thing I think of in connection with this event. swyves190.45.183.236 (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that suggestion before. In fact, I find it quite unlikely. – PeeJay 09:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
most teams still travel together in one flight. There may be others who did what you said, but i do not think it is as prevalent as compared to the usual all-together flights. Lpjz290 (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible addition to the TV section[edit]

Sky Sports aired a tribute featuring past and present United players and Sir Alex

Steve Bruce, Eric Cantona, Mark Hughes, Gary Neville, Ryan Giggs and Sir Alex and another player who I can't remember off the top of my head were featured talking about the event and how it changed the club and football before talking about the 58 teams as the flowers of English football

Linked here - Flowers of Manchester

Notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.249.149 (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That just looks like a few United icons reading out "The Flowers of Manchester". As I recall, it was broadcast in the lead-up to the Manchester derby on 10 Feb 08. Not notable, IMO. – PeeJay 23:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many people died?[edit]

The top section has this language

23 of the 44 people on board the aircraft died as a result of the crash. The injured were taken to the Rechts der Isar Hospital in Munich where 16 survived.

Later on, there is a list of the dead, which gives 23 died, 21 survived. Would it be better if the top section said

20 of the 44 people on board the aircraft died as a result of the crash. The injured were taken to the Rechts der Isar Hospital in Munich where 3 more died, resulting in 21 survivors.

Any comments? Gorillatheape (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was actually 21 people who were killed instantly, as is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead, and two more died in hospital. Also, surely all 23 fatalities were as a result of the crash, so to say "20 of the 44 people on board the aircraft died as a result of the crash" would be incorrect on that count too. I do see where you're coming from, though, and a minor re-write would probably be prudent! The facts are that 21 were killed instantly, 21 were taken to hospital where two more died, and two (Harry Gregg and Bill Foulkes) were unscathed. – PeeJay 22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry PeeJay, but according to the article, out of the 23 fatalities, Frank Swift died on his way to hospital, Duncan Edwards survived for 15 days and Kenneth Rayment survived for three weeks. Ergo, 21 cannot have died "instantly". Moreover, is there any evidence that all 20 who died on the plane died instantly? Please explain or fix this apparent contradiction. Viewfinder (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Air Disasters, Stanley Stewart states (p74) that "Little did the survivors know that of the 44 souls on board, comprising 38 passengers and six crew, 20 had already lost their lives". He further states (p76) "...on clearing the litter young Ken Morgans was found, unconscious but alive and breathing. That brought the total number of survivors to 24, but sadly not for long. News came through that Frank Swift, the News of the World reporter severely burned in the accident had died of his injuries". Therefore 20 killed in the accident, one died shortly after reaching hospital, Edwards died 15 days after the accident and Rayment died 21 days after the accident. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right; I'd forgotten about Swifty. – PeeJay 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just clarify, Frank Swift may have been DoA at the hospital., but he was alive when rescued from the crashed aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intro text says 23 died and 21 survived, but the lists further down the page itemise 14 deaths and 13 survivors. Anyone have a (properly documented, of course) list of the other people? Ministry (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ministryofinformation: Funnily enough, there used to be a full list of casualties and survivors in the article, but according to some jobsworth at WP:AATF, we only put notable people in those lists (i.e. those with a Wikipedia article). If you look back through the article history, you should be able to find a sourced list. Otherwise, there are plenty of books on the subject, most of which are cited in the article. – PeeJay 00:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Times archive articles online[edit]

In case anyone is interested in checking for extra information, there are a couple of Times articles from 1958 currently online:

Stricken Football Club Aim to Carry On

Manchester United in Air Crash Saint|swithin 18:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll Never Walk Alone[edit]

I'm just watching "Secrets of the Pop Song" on BBC2, and they've just claimed that United fans sang You'll Never Walk Alone in tribute to the fallen Babes at one of the first games after the disaster. Can anyone find a source to corroborate this? – PeeJay 21:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll Never Walk Alone is our song! - Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk - September 11, 2004.
Good enough?
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but I've just done a bit of research myself, and apparently there's no evidence to corroborate Mrs Hardwick's claim. I can believe that a few of her friends from the operatic society had a sing-song together, but for the entire crowd to start singing a song from a 13-year-old musical seems a little far-fetched. There was a book called "Celtic United" released in 2007 that repeated Mrs Hardwick's claim, but this link suggests that she may have been exaggerating in 2004. With that in mind, is it worth mentioning this if only a handful of people sang it? – PeeJay 21:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that we shouldn't mention it.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaning the same way. I won't bother including it. – PeeJay 22:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not confusing?[edit]

Quote: A fund for dependents of victims of the crash was established in March, and chaired by the Chairman of the FA, Arthur Drewry.[70] The fund had raised £52,000 (£1.1 million as of 2015) by the time of its disbursement in October 1958

Should the text not say £1.1 million equivalent in 2015 value. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Munich air disaster. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Munich air disaster. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Munich air disaster. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Whelan last words[edit]

See Talk:Billy Whelan#"Last"_words_inconsistencies. CC PeeJay2K3. ed g2s • talk 20:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Munich Air Disaster 1958" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Munich Air Disaster 1958. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 11#Munich Air Disaster 1958 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Harris (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic Hotel[edit]

William JE. Please do not unilaterally undo changes I've made. The tour party stayed at the Metropol Hotel as has been evidenced and confirmed by MUFC. My organisation will be making further edits on the memorial section. Contact me at mmmfoundation18@gmail.com if you've any issues. Thanks. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a Conflict of interest and without a reference this is WP:OR. Read up on these before editing again or I will summon an administrator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A conflict of interest? How so? Correction to wrong information. I have confirmed the issue re the Metropol and Majestic with numerous sources. See www.mmmf.co.uk. Summon who you want mate. What are you talking about re roofs? Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't bother to read what I link to. Fine, I will summon an administrator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pat Burns MMMF: re this edit - the source used says nothing about them staying as guests of the Yugoslavian FA, nor does it mention the piano. Reverting that edit was quite proper and correct. As has already been pointed out to you, you have an apparent conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI. As an administrator, I have the ability to block you from editing the article, or Wikpedia itself. I'd rather not go down that road, but will do so if necessary. I take it that the MMMF has a website. If so, there may be material there which could be used to improve the article. Due to your apparent COI, you should not edit the article, but are free to bring up points for discussion on this talk page. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots. Funny how none of my subsequent comments on this subject, here in talk, are being published. Censorship in play here? Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the edit history of this page, no one has removed any of your comments. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They've not been published though have they? Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can confirm is that your comments have not been removed by others. If an edit filter had blocked your posting, you would be aware of it. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @331dot: When MMMF refers to not been published, he is referring to his edits here[2] and here[3], which I reverted[4] because they weren't referenced. Furthermore, admin Mjroots also explained[5] to MMMF why those edits were reverted. This editor has also been informed on two occasions that they have a COI....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I thought that when they said "comments" they meant posts on this talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not referring to the reversed edits. I'm referring to comments I've made in Talk, invited to do so to generate debate which have NOT been published. I'll not try again. But don't make assumptions you know nothing about. I do not have a COI. I have absolutely nothing to gain. I run a charity fgs. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piano at Majestic https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/news/0266-1180a8a4814d-775d03badbd7-1000--cherishing-the-memory-of-manchester-united-s-busby-babes/ Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where Babes stayed, Metropol not Majestic https://mmmf.co.uk/where-did-the-babes-stay-in-belgrade/ Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the issue with your talk page posting is, it is not recorded in any logs, suggesting the issue is on your end. Do you recall the message you got when you attempted to post them? Did you do something different than the successful posts you are making here? You do not have to have "something to gain" to have a COI. Please read WP:COI(or this plain language explanation). 331dot (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did exactly what I've done here thank you 331dot. At least you have a sympathetic way towards someone who is merely trying to improve the data held without gain. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your stated connection to the MMMF, I'm loath to include any references from there (you have a clear conflict of interest, as noted by the other more experience editors above). However, I see no reason not to include the information about the hotel where they stayed and the piano that Mark Jones played there. – PeeJay 19:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay I note your loathing, pray tell me how does someone with exceptional knowledge and sources manage to make any updates? You're telling me a registered UK charity isn't reputable? Really? Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if, on your say so Mr PeeJay, the source of a reputable registered UK charity is not acceptable then this whole subject is denied published source evidence on The 60th anniversary in Munich Memorial bench Memorial showcase Annual memorial ceremony Majestic and metropol hotels in Belgrade tributes Rechts der Isar Memorial tribute. So, you're denying readers access to a vast amount of verifiable source data that adds pure value here? That's what you're saying. Incredible. Bravo. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, sarcasm is not a tactic that will serve you very well here. Second, we will assess the sources and make a determination as a community about what should be added. It is not for you to add content from a website run by an organisation you obviously have a connection to. – PeeJay 21:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PeeJay: How reliable is that bit about the piano? The person who is making that claim is Pat Burns. It is a quote from him....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, only just saw this. Considering the info was reported by UEFA, even via a quote from Pat Burns, I don't have a problem with repeating it here. – PeeJay 15:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reported? It's a quote from someone. I've worked as a reporter. Claims, unless they are suspicious sounding, are rarely investigated. Even suspicious sounding ones slide by. Ian Bannen claimed in an interview to won an academy award and been offered the lead roles on Hawaii Five-O and The Love Boat. The first is untrue the other two fishy but it was all reported. Burns wasn't in Yugoslavia in 1958 and the persons who were are dead. Bottom line- The piano is trivia and not necessarily true. Remember this is an air crash article, what somebody did before the accident unless it is related to the accident is unimportant....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've only sat and played it. But dont let facts get in the way. You are the most unwelcoming set of gentlemen I've come across in a while. The fact I run an organisation that does things, fact, seems to be something you cannot abide. UEFA MUFC FC Bayen etc all recognise it but te edit community of Wikipedia seem to question its validity and reputation. You don't want to recognise a registered UK charity adding value to your data. Fine. Good day gentlemen. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to build on the legacy and history of the event and leave you to concern yourselves with dotting i's and crossing t's of what you deem permissable to pass for genuine proven testimony. My honest endeavours to bring your account up to date, starting with correcting the hotel that was used and the contentious fact that the Majestic still has the piano played by Mark Jones, has clearly failed. What a shame given there is so much more to add. Your assertion that the charity I run isn't regarded as trustworthy for being used to further this account is, quite frankly, both laughable and disgraceful. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE and @Mjroots Don't worry about banning me. I resign my edit status. I clearly do things which preserve and enhance this issue. It's clear you don't want any improvement to this feature using me of the MMMF as a trusted source. I absolutely contest that I have a COI given my SOLE INTENTION is to improve your data. The fact that I am the person to do this because of the things I've done and published is clearly something you take priority over currency value of data. I'll leave others to do their best to meet your criteria. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Burns MMMF I might suggest that you read about expert editors. You do indeed have a conflict of interest. This does not mean that you will personally gain something by contributing(that would be paid editing). But as Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view it is relevant if you are attempting to contribute information from yourself. For example we don't want the Boris Johnson article to be written by Boris Johnson. We want it to summarize what others say about him. PM Johnson is free if he was so inclined to visit Talk:Boris Johnson and offer his suggestions for changes. In most cases they would only be accepted if he offered an independent reliable source to support them, not his own words. This isn't because we don't trust what people say about themselves, is because it is not neutral. It's not that your organization is not trustworthy, but it isn't neutral on this subject matter. If you have information from independent reliable sources, it is those sources that should be cited, not your organization. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot. Many thanks for this. Thankfully I am not Johnson. I'm going to leave it to another who will update on the issues I've raised, and intended to raise, using independent citations of the evidence and statements proferred. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay: - you are partly wrong in your comments. It would be better if we could persuade Pat Burns MMMF to present what he wants added to the article on this talk page, and evaluate what is presented. Mjroots (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity I will not be providing any updates to this account. Fact - There has been a 60th Memorial service. How do I know? I organised and delivered it. Fact. There is now an annual memorial service in Munich. How do I know? I organise, lead and deliver it. Fact. A memorial bench was gifted to the City of Munich in thanks. How do I know? I organised it. Fact. There is now a memorial showcase at Manchesterplatz. How do I know? I helped petition it in Munich. I spoke at the Foundation stone laying ceremony with city of Munich and FC Bayern dignitaries. Fact. A memorial wall was established at the Rechts der Isar hospital. How do I know? I organised it. Fact. A plaque was presented to the Majestic Hotel in Belgrade. How do I know? I organised it. Fact. The party stayed at the Metropol Hotel. How do I know? I established it through UK newspapers articles, backed by the curator of the Manchester United museum. Now, you have no idea what I was going to say but you have judged that because I'm speaking as Chairman of UK registered charity who has done all this I am conflicted. That means someone else could use all my published source evidence and that'd be acceptable. Bizarre. Facts are facts. I run a registered respected charity. It's been commented here that I'm conflicted. I'm not seeking to proffer any data that lauds either Me personally or the charity. Simply facts which are incontrovertible and add value to this litany. I have been saddened by what has been said here quite honestly. I've been judged quite wrongly. I've sought to test how to update information and had both me and my sources questioned and assumptions made. I'll let someone else now provide you with correct and up to date information. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. Surely you understand that we can't just let people add their own original research to Wikipedia, otherwise we'd end up with all sorts of unverifiable claims filling up the place. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is WP:VERIFIABILITY. If the info you're providing has been reported on elsewhere, of course it can be added, but you can't just publish something to the website of an organisation you run and expect us to blindly accept it. – PeeJay 12:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay. I've said what I think and I don't particularly care for your attitude. Blindly accept publicly available information on a registered Charity website? The point is if someone else referred to the events I've mentioned and used the mmmf website as their source, you'd accept it. I'm talking about verifiable facts, not opinions or research. Now, I won't bother replying again so save your breath OK. Now, don't bother yourself again pal. I'll not be contributing to this. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What attitude are you talking about? I'm doing my best to help you out here, but your contributions have to be in line with Wikipedia policy. Can you point us to any sources that you are not involved with publishing? – PeeJay 12:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right so, if its me editing and updating you want me to source ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL website that can independently verify everything I've written and had published on mmmf and wish to use to improve this feature? But, if someone else offers this self same information to improve this feature and uses the mmmf as a source, thats fine. And all this without you or any of your editing community knowing exactly what it is I am suggesting is included? From my point of view I will let someone else provide factual details which you can verify through the source of mmmf. I can't be any clearer. I haven't failed to declare who I am, where from, what I do, what I've done. I accept that means Jack to you. You honestly think MUFC FC Bayern or the Charity Commission et al would allow me to print utter garbage and lies? The list of Memorial updates I quoted above are ALL DONE BY ME. Its not opinion or research, its fact. Do you understand that? Yes, they've appeared on UEFA, MUFC, FC BAYERN and other websites. Whoever proffers the information will no doubt be guided by this interminable conversation. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Burns MMMF The issue is not whether you or your organization are trustworthy. If it is a recognized, independent authority on this topic, there shouldn't be any difficulty in finding other sources that cite your organization. We don't want Donald Trump or Joe Biden citing themselves in the articles about them. This is no different. Please read about neutral point of view and how COI is not just personally profiting or benefiting from an association. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot. I understand all thank, thanks. But I'm not citing me or the charity. I'm talking about events that have happened. I've mentioned other sources that can independently corroborate and whoever provides the updates, if most certainly will not be me, can use them PLUS my own source data. I think that's best. Thanks again for your help. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe Pat Burns isn't here for promotional reasons, see his User page here[6] and then WP:UP#PROMO. This conversation is a time sink. Maybe its time he is brought to ANI so he be banned from editing this article or WP entirely....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE. So you're calling me a liar? I thought the user page was for people to understand who you are, that's what it says. How dare you, you cheeky...... I'm not anonymous like you. I've said I'm not updating on here so do one pal. And whatever it is you are doing on the roof I suggest you stay there. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity I will not be providing any updates to this account. Did you read and understand @WilliamJE? I've asked @Mjroots privately to assist in withdrawing me from here, if I knew how I would. You carry on dotting i's and crossing t's , I'll carry on adding value in the real world. Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're dead set on ceasing your involvement here, you could just stop responding. No one is forcing you to carry on the conversation, and you've said multiple times you're leaving. Again, I've tried my best to be charitable within the scope of Wikipedia's policies, so if you have an issue with those policies, either follow through on leaving or challenge the policies in the appropriate place (which is not this page, btw). – PeeJay 18:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Еволюція мозку серця душі[edit]

Єднання усього людства землі для вічного о життя у теперішньому часі Тарас Миронюк (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crew[edit]

The pilot and co-pilot are the only crew listed, either in the discussion of the crew or in the lists of fatalities and survivors. It seems odd that there would not have been any flight attendants.Bill (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Munich_air_disaster&oldid=1212536124"