Talk:Skylab 4

message: See merge discussion at Stand-alone or section about possibly merging :Skylab mutiny to this article. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge discussion noted by Fnlayson above has been archived, it can be found here. (fyi) - wolf 02:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge now carried out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: :See also Talk:Skylab controversy#Dubious period without comms — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we also have Carr's account in 2000 , page 48 "One of the things we did is we got careless with our radios and we forgot to configure for one of our passes, so when we went AOS [acquisition of signal] over one of the sites, people on the ground called us and we didn't answer them. So the press just thought that was wonderful." Reading around that, this could have been even the week before (Carr talks of segmenting their work into 10 days cycles, each 10th day meant to be a day off, and that by this point they had missed 2-3 days off and were given this on). Even Gibson in 2000 recalled in the same way .  (There's also one for Pogue but the incident didn't come up). The problem is that we just simply don't know what date that was, we're being drawn to something before Dec 30th (a known fixed date) and the myth's Dec 28th. --Masem (t) 20:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

text: FWIW, This reddit post at /r/badhistory provides a lot of links that tried to debunk the myth. They point to the Scribd sources  that include not only the PAO (public affairs office) transcripts but also the tech channel ones too. --Masem (t) 21:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

text: The break in communications and the surrounding events are referenced many times in the article, there is even a subsection on its consequences. Are all those citations spurious, in the sense that the source material is unrelated to any break in communications? If so, then what did trigger those surrounding events and consequences? I think that needs clarifying before we can follow up too much on the OR one one individual investigator and start hacking the section about for this reason. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  About that communications break 

message: regarding this edit you made to "The strike or mutiny myth" section, how is "urban legend" not considered "[ulary]"...? Thanks - wolf 21:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the use of straightforward vocabulary is preferable to using idiomatic language, especially in an encyclopedia article. I find the urban to be inappropriate in most cases where the term "urban legend" is used. The term comes across to me as a cliché, coming from either laziness or from limited knowledge of vocabulary. WP:CLICHE might apply. Eric talk 14:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that "speculation" doesn't capture what "urban legend" implies, a theory (likely mistaken) that propagates via word of mouth, which is exactly what the Skylab "mutiny" was.  It's a very well defined term. --Masem (t) 14:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to agree with  here (which is largely why I brought this up). I hope those who wrote this article won't find 's response here to be condescending or insulting. - wolf 01:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's hope that no one who comes here to collaborate on an encyclopedia is looking for ways to feel offended by critiques of their vocabulary choices. Eric talk 03:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't say "looking for ways to feel offended", though when one is called lazy and stupid, they wouldn't have far to look for offense. But as I didn't write this, it doesn't apply to me, so I'm not offended. Just as I hope you're not offended if your edit is reverted. - wolf 04:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  City myth, metropolitan fable?