Talk:Munich air disaster

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: * 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 . 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title: The science behind the crash

message: * John Lawless a footballer has been sacked by his club for mocking the Munich air disaster during a game against Manchester United .(Manchester Evening News) 
Is this worth mentioning in the article? Agathoclea (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  John Lawless 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've never heard that suggestion before. In fact, I find it quite unlikely. – PeeJay 09:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Changes to how teams travel 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible addition to the TV section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You're quite right; I'd forgotten about Swifty. – PeeJay 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  How many people died? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Times archive articles online

message: Quote: <I>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</I> 
Should the text not say <I>£1.1 million equivalent in 2015 value.</I>  Peter K Burian (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this not confusing? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828030335/http://www.munich58.co.uk/victims/rodgers/index.asp to http://www.munich58.co.uk/victims/rodgers/index.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219135535/http://www.discoverychannel.ca/episodeList.aspx?sid=12966 to http://www.discoverychannel.ca/episodeList.aspx?sid=12966
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.mikekemble.com/manutd/munich3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110230627/http://www.dudley.gov.uk/welcome/news-in-dudley/2008-news-archive/october-2008/duncan-edwards-way-given-go-ahead to http://www.dudley.gov.uk/welcome/news-in-dudley/2008-news-archive/october-2008/duncan-edwards-way-given-go-ahead
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: See Talk:Billy Whelan#"Last"_words_inconsistencies. CC . ed g2s • talk 20:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billy Whelan last words 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Munich Air Disaster 1958" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: According to the edit history of this page, no one has removed any of your comments. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They've not been published though have they? Pat Burns MMMF (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: - you are partly wrong in your comments. It would be better if we could persuade  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Majestic Hotel 

message: Єднання усього людства землі для вічного о життя у теперішньому часі Тарас Миронюк (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Еволюція мозку серця душі  

message: 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)
thread_title: Crew

message: I am a Munich resident and once watched aircraft taking off and landing at the old Munich airport. Around the old Munich airport at Riem there often were flight enthusiasts who had special radios able to receive conversations between tower and pilots. I once talked to one of them. He claimed to have been at the airport during the disaster with the Munich air traffic controllers trying to dissuade Thain from attempting a third take off. Thain would not listen. 
The gentleman commented that in 1958 Germany had only become a sovereign state three years earlier, and German officials did not enjoy much authority with British and American pilots. He described how he had observed the two aborted take offs. Ontologix (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Munich Tower dissuading from a third attempt