Talk:Unfiltered Breathed In/Archive 1

Archive 1

Confusion of roles -- article is non-neutral

This article is about a documentary film. The role of an encyclopedia article is to describe the film, its making, its reception, and its impact in our society. It is not to provide background to support the thesis of the film.

At present there are multiple issues with the article, mainly:

• Undue authority is given to participants with terms such as "recognized aviation expert", "renowned university professor doctor XYZ" etc
• Terms like "the film shows/proves that" or "substantiates the claim that" are used, but not referenced. The film makes claims: these can be referenced using the film itself or synopsis/descriptions of the film. Statements that these claims are true or substantiated need references. Not original research. References that actually say: "claims in that film are true/substantiated".
• Entire paragraphs, like those about Westgate, are off-topic. These belong either to aerotoxic syndrome or to an article about Westgate. They do not describe the film and do not belong to this article.

The result is that we have an article that reads like the manual to the film, providing further reading material for viewers and unilaterally supporting its main argument thesis, which is presenting "the truth about aerotoxic syndrome" and "a dirty secret concealed by the aviation industry".

Until consensus is reached about these points I am putting up a neutrality dispute banner. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No undue authority is given in the current version. You should be aware that it is common practice that you use proper academic titles for persons who hold such a title. This does not constitute "undue authority". All additional and superfluous adjectives are removed in the current version.

All claims are referenced in the current version, - any one missed?

The Westgate paragraph is not "off-topic". It is an important part of the film as this was also the first and only film crew following the investigation over its entire time until the Coroner notice was issued. It is basically a "dramaturgically red-line" through the film and therefore essential. Also this is unique to this film (see before).

It seems to me that your last line is referring to the theatrical poster for the film which clearly servers a different purpose. Compaing this article to other articles on wiki that deal with other films I do not agree that it "reads like a manual". This would certainly be the case if the screenplay would be cited here or the actual treatment of the film. But this is not the case.

--Medidog1951 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply 1

1. There is no undue authority given. "recognized aviation expert" is quoted and cited from independent sources. 2. There is no such "renowned university professor doctor xyz etc. 3. There is a list containing more then 70 independent scientific studies, conducted by scientists, universities and government institutions, dating back to the early 1950's that substantiate what you merely term a "claim"(see below). It would go way beyond wiki procedures to cite all these or to make selective choices. The issue is a complex issue as it involves areas in medicine and chemistry, pharmacology, technology, engineering and last not least politics and legislation. I think we could make the nice diplomatic statement that such experts, who have proven in peer reviewed studies independently from each other that what is "claimed", here: that contaminants may enter the aircraft cabin via the bleed air system (the later meanwhile acknowledged even by aviation authorities and engine manufacturers) and that such substances contain hazardous concentrations of decomposed ingredients is not in dispute.

As of today it is in dispute by the aviation industry that health issues of affected individuals were caused by these. This can - as it has been for example also been the case with "asbestos" only been derived from samples of deceased individuals. Here Mr Westgate has been case no 1. Also: The later cited Notice of HM Coroner in this article is one official acknowledgement of such claims as this is the first ever independent investigation into the subject matter conducted by an independent official and judicial entity.

4. The paragraph about Westgate is one of the main protagonists and story lines of the film, as this was - according to the press release of the production the one and only film crew allowed to follow this investigation from the autopsy of Mr Westgate (shown in the film as it was part of the "documentation"of the research ) until the judicial notice of HM Coroner, I am very tempted to insist to say it is a "vital part" of the film. A comparable article about a theater play by Sheakspeare would also summarize the different parts under "plot". So your critique may apply to a subject matter e.g. when it would be the case with an article about "bleed air", but not about a work such as a factual book, a novel or in this particular case a documentary film. The facts mentioned here are vital for the understanding of the reader and do describe and summarize the film and its plot.

Your remarks in your last paragraph clearly indicates that your critique leads off course. This is by far not a "manual" and especially it is not the films "main argument thesis". It is derived of the film that I have seen and taken notes from and additional material provided by the producer upon my request. Your argument may be a valid one if the subject of the article would not be a documentary but an article about a newly discovered phenomenon. Also it seems to me that the translation of the (Sub-)German title (Die Wahrheit über das Aerotoxische Syndrom) is not chosen "optimal", but this is nothing that I could change. The last remark is a line on the picture you are referring to, which clearly is the official theatrical poster and this is not part of the article in question here.

So to my opinion your critique is leading into the wrong direction, as you consider known "facts" as hypothetical or unsubstantiated claims, which apparently is not the case.

As it seems that you have a lot of time to get yourself a proper an well balanced picture of "your" allegations towards this article, here "some" of the scientific literature quoted before in this discussion:

wall of refs

Abou-Donia MB.: Organophosphorus Ester-Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity, 2003, Archives of Environmental Health. 58:484 497 Carletti et al: Reaction of Cresyl Saligenin Phosphate, the Organophosphorus Agent Implicated in Aerotoxic Syndrome, with Human Cholinesterases: Mechanistic Studies Employing Kinetics, Mass Spectrometry, and X-ray Structure Analysis, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2011, 24, 797–808, 2011 Furlong, C., L.M. Schopfer et al.: Development of diagnostics in the search for an explanation of aerotoxic syndrome, Annual Biochem 404(1):64-74 (2010) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2010.04.032 Hanhela P., Kibby J., et al.: Organophosphate and Amine Contamination of Cockpit Air in the Hawk, F-111 and Hercules C-130 Aircraft. DSTO Report, RR-0303. Defence Science and Technology Organization, Melbourne. 2005 Journal of Occupational Health & Safety, Australia & New Zealand, Vol 21, Number 5, August 2005 - Special edition: „New findings in aircrew exposed to airborne contaminants: Long-term health effects confirmed“ Darin u.a. folgende Einzelbeiträge: Abou-Donia, Mohamed B.: Organophosphate Ester Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity (OPICN) Burdon, Jonathan MD and Allan R Glanville MD: Lung Injury Following Hydrocarbon Inhalation in BAe 146 Aircrew Harper, Andrew MD: Illness Related to Cabin Air: A Survey of Symptoms and Treatment Among Commercial Pilots and Cabin Crew Heuser, G. MD: Clinical Evaluation of Flight Attendants After Exposure to Fumes in Cabin Air Kincl, L., J. Murawaski, S Hecker: Occupational health research consortium in aviation research project - Netten, C. van: Aircraft Air Quality Incidents, Symptoms, Exposures and Possible Solutions Somers, Moira, MD: Assessing over Thirty Flight Crew who have Presented as a Result of Being Unwell after Exposure to Fumes on the BAe 146 Jet Lockridge, H.,: REACTION OF CRESYL SALIGENIN PHOSPHATE, THE ORGANOPHOSPHORUS IMPLICATED IN THE AEROTOXIC SYNDROME, WITH HUMAN CHOLINESTERASES: MECHANISTIC STUDIES EMPLOYING KINETICS, MASS SPECTROMETRY AND X-RAY STRUCTURE ANALYSIS, März 2011, Eugénie Carletti, Lawrence M. Schopfer, Jacques-Philippe Colletier, Marie T. Froment, Florian Nachon, Martin Weik, Oksana Lockridge, and Patrick Masson http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/tx100447k Michaelis, S. (ed.): Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual, April 2007 ISBN: 978-0-9555672-0-9 Michaelis, S., PhD: Health and Flight Safety Implications from Exposure to Contaminated Air in Aircraft, Dissertation Nov. 2010, University of New South Wales, ISBN: 978-0-95-554377-7 Nola, G. De, J. Kibby1, W. Mazurek: Determination of ortho-cresyl phosphate isomers of tricresyl phosphate used in aircraft turbine engine oils by gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1200 (2008) 211 216 Royal Australian Air Force: Singh B. Aviation Safety Spotlight 0304: In-Flight Smoke and Fumes, 2004, RAAF Siegel J., Rudolph H., et al.: Effects on Experimental Animals of Long- Term Continuous Inhalation of a Triaryl Phosphate Hydraulic Fluid 1964, U.S. Navy Toxicology Unit. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 7: 543-549 Solbu, K. (National Institute of Occupational Health, Norwegen): Methodology for air sampling of organophosphates originating from turbine- and hydraulic oils, 2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2007.05.087 Incident sampler of VOCs and volatile organophosphates, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/B925053K Exposure assessment of organophosphates in technician and loader occupational air, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C0EM00273A [12.4] Organophosphates in aircraft cabin and cockpit air method development and measurements of contaminants, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C0EM00763C Solbu, Daae, Olsen, Thourud et al.: Organophosphates in aircraft cabin and cockpit air, Feb. 2011, Journal of Enviromental Monitoring, DOI: 10.1039/c0em00763c *Treon J. F. et al.: Toxicity Of Certain Lubricants, Engine Oils, And Certain Of Their Constituents, With Particular Reference To The Products Of Their Thermal Decomposition, 1954, WADC TR 54-344. Corporate Author: Kettering Laboratory, University Of Cincinnati. Aero Medical Laboratory Contract No. AF33(038)-26456. RDO No. 698-31, Wright Air Development Center, Air Research And Development Command, United States Air Force- Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. 1 November 1954. Treon, J. F., Cappel, J. W., Cleveland, F. P., Larson, E. E., Atchley, R. W. and Denham, R. T.: The Toxicity of the Products Formed by the Thermal Decomposition of Certain Organic Substances, 1955, American Industrial Hygiene Association Quarterly, 16: 3, 187 195 AMA CAT (1953) Aviation Toxicology: an Introduction to the Subject and a Handbook of Data. AeroMedical Association Committee of Aviation Toxicology, Blakiston, USA Tupper CR (1989) Chemical hazards in aeromedical aircraft. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 60:73–75 ASHRAE (1999) Air Quality Within Commercial Aircraft: ASHRAE Standard 161. American Society for Heating, Refrigeration, Airconditioning and Energy, Atlanta MattieDR, Hoeflich TJ, Jones CE, Horton ML,Whitmire RE, Godin CS, Femming CD, Andesen ME (1993) The comparative toxicity of operational air force hydraulic fluids. Toxicology and Industrial Health 9:995–1016 Hewstone RK (1994) Environmental health aspects of lubricant additives. Science of the Total Environment 156:243–254 Winder C, Balouet J-C (2002) Toxic ingredients in commercial jet fuels. Environmental Research 89:146–164 FAA (1965) Federal Air Regulations, Transport Category Airplanes, Airworthiness Standards, Section 25.831. US Federal Aviation Authority, Washington, DC Balouet J-C, Winder C (1999) Aerotoxic syndrome in air crew as a result of exposure to airborne contaminants in aircraft. Paper presented at the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Symposium on Air Quality and Comfort in Airliner Cabins New Orleans, USA, 27-28 October 2000 Winder C, Balouet J-C (2001) Symptoms of irritation and toxicity in aircrew as a result of exposure to airborne chemicals in aircraft. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety – Australian and New Zealand 17:471–483 Trimble EJ (1996) The management of aircraft passenger survival in fire. Toxicology 115:41–61 ACC (2001) High Production Volume Chemical Submission, Substituted Diphenylamines. American Chemistry Council, Arlington VA, 18 December 2001. At: http://www.epa.gov.gov/chemrtk/subdiapha/c13378.pdf Miyazaki K, Kawai S, Sasayama T, Iseki K, Arita T (1987) Absorption, metabolism and excretion of N-phenyl-1-naphthylamine in rats. Yakuzaigaku (Archives of Practical Pharmacology) 47:17–22 (English abstract) IPCS (1998) Concise International Chemical Assessment Document No 9: N-Phenyl-1-naphthylamine. International Programme on Chemical Safety, Geneva Boman A, Hagelthorn G, Jeansson I, Karlberg A-T, Rystedt I, Wahlberg JE (1980) Phenyl-alpha-naphthylamine–case report and guinea pig studies. Contact Dermatitis 6:299–300 Kalimo K, Jolanki R, Estlander T, Kanerva L (1989) Contact allergy to antioxidants in industrial greases. Contact Dermatitis 20:151–152 Carmichael AJ, Foulds IS (1990) Isolated naphthylamine allergy to phenyl- alphanapthylamine. Contact Dermatitis 22:298–299 Wang H-W, Wang D, Dzeng R-W (1984) Carcinogenicity of n-phenyl-1-naphthylamine and n-phenyl-2-naphthylamine in mice. Cancer Research 44:3098–3100 Jarvholm B, Lavenius B (1981) A cohort study on cancer among workers exposed to an antirust oil. Scandinavian J Work Environment and Health 7:179–184 US NTP (1988) Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of N-Phenyl-2-naphthylamine in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (feed studies). US National Toxicology Program, http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/lt-studies/tr333.html Aldridge WN (1954) Tricresyl phosphate and cholinesterase. Biochemical J 56:185– 189 Johnson MK (1975) Structure activity relationship for substrates and inhibitors of hen brain neurotoxic esterase. Biochemical Pharmacology 24:797–805 Earl CJ, Thompson RHS (1952) Cholinesterase levels in the nervous system in triortho- cresyl phosphate poisoning. British J Pharmacology 7:685–694 Eyer P (1955) Neuropsychopathological changes by organophosphorus compounds– a review. Human and Experimental Toxicology 14:857–864 Kilburn KH (1999) Evidence for chronic neurobehavioral impairment from chlorpyrifos and organophosphate insecticide (Dursban) used indoors. Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology 1:153–162 Minton NA, Murray VSG (1988) A review of organophosphate poisoning. Medical Toxicology 3:350–375 Johnson MK (1975) Organophosphorus esters causing delayed neurotoxic effects. Archives of Toxicology 34:259–288 Metcalf RL (1982) Historical perspective of organophosphorus ester-induced delayed neurotoxicity. Neurotoxicology 3:269–284 Baron RL (1981) Delayed neurotoxicity and other consequences of organophosphate esters. Annual Reviews of Entolomology 26:29–48 Johnson MK (1990) Organophosphates and delayed neuropathy–Is NTE alive and well? Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 102:385–399 Senanayake N, Karalliede L (1987) Neurotoxic effects of organophosphorus esters. An intermediate syndrome. New England J Medicine 316:761–763 Dille JR, Smith PW (1964) Central nervous system effects of chronic exposure to organophosphate insecticides. Aerospace Medicine 35:475–478 UK DoH (1999) Toxicology of OPs and the mechanisms involved. In: Organophosphates. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, Chap. 5. UK Department of Health, HMSO, London, pp 49–58 Jamal GA (1997) Neurological syndromes of organophosphorus compounds. Adverse Drug Reactions and Toxicology Reviews 16:133–170 Savage EP, Keefe TF, Mounce LM, Heaton JA, Burcar PJ (1988) Chronic neurological sequelae of acute organophosphorus pesticide intoxication. Archives of Environmental Health 43:38–45 Gershon S, Shaw FB (1961) Psychiatric sequelae of chronic exposure to organophosphorous insecticides. Lancet 1:1371–1374 Metcalf DR, Holmes JH (1969) EEG, psychological and neurological alterations in humans with organophosphorous exposure. Annals New York Academy Science 160:357–365 Callender TJ, Morrow L, Subramanian K (1994) Evaluation of chronic neurological sequelae after acute pesticide exposure using SPECT brain scans. J Toxicology and Environmental Health 41:275–284 Smith MI, Elvove I, Valaer PJ, Frazier WH, Mallory GE (1930) Pharmacologic and chemical studies of the cause of the so called ginger paralysis. US Public Health Reports 45:1703–1716 Henschler D, Bayer HH (1958) Toxicologic studies of triphenyl phosphate, trixenyl phosphates, and triaryl phosphates from mixtures of homogenous phenols. Archives of Experimental Pathology and Pharmacology 233:512–517 Daughtrey W, Biles R, Jortner B, Erlich M (1996) Subchronic delayed neurotoxicity evaluation of jet engine lubricants containing phosphorus additives. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 32:244–249 Montgomery MR, Wier GT, Zieve FJ, Anders MW (1977) Human intoxication following inhalation exposure to synthetic jet lubricating oil. Clinical Toxicology 11:423–426 Rayman RB, McNaughton GB (1983) Smoke/fumes in the cockpit. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 67:738–740 Tashkin DP, Coulson AH, Simmons MS, Spivey GH (1983) Respiratory symptoms of flight attendants during high altitude flight: Possible relation to cabin ozone exposure. Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 52:117–137 Sparks PS, Simon GE, Katon WJ, Altman LC, Ayars GH, Johnson RL (1990) An outbreak of illness among aerospace workers. Western J Medicine 158:28–33 NAS (2001) The Airliner Cabin Environment and the Health of Passengers and Crew. US National Academy of Science, National Academy Press, Washington, DC Singh B (2004) In flight smoke and fumes. Aviation Safety Spotlight, March 2004 Fox R (1997) Air Quality Testing Aboard Ansett Airlines BAe 146 Aircraft: Final Report. Allied Signal Aerospace, 25 November 1997 Craig P, Barth M (1999) Evaluation of the hazards of industrial exposure to tricresyl phosphate: A review and interpretation of the literature. J Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B Critical Reviews 2:281–300. Consultants, Mobil Business resources Coorporation, NJ WHO (1986) Diseases caused by asphyxiants: Carbon monoxide, Hydrogen cyanide and its toxic derivatives, and Hydrogen sulfide. Early Detection of Occupational Diseases. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp 154–164 Kayser, C., “General Features of the Problems of Aviation Toxicology,” Aviation Toxicology: An Introduction to the Subject and a Handbook of Data, Committee on Aviation Toxicology, Aero Medical Association. The Blakiston Company, NY, 1953, p. 1. SAE Aerospace Information Report _AIR_ 1539: Environmental Control System Contamination, 1997 _originally issued 1981_, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. Robins, C. S., “737 Air Conditioning Engine Bleed Air Contamination,” Boeing Company report prepared for United Airlines, 1968. Montgomery, M. R., Wier, G. T., Zieve, F. J., and Anders, M. W., “Human Intoxication Following Inhalation Exposure to Synthetic Jet Lubricating Oil,” Clin. Toxicol., Vol. 11, No. 4, 1977, pp. 423–426. NRC, The Airliner Cabin Environment and the Health of Passengers and Crew, U.S. National Research Council, ISBN 0-309-08289-7, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002, pp. 110–121. Bobb, A. J. and Still, K. R., “Known Harmful Effects of Constituents of Jet Oil Smoke,” TOXDET-03-04, Naval Health Research Center Detachment _Toxicology_, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 2003. Hanhela, P. J., Kibby, J., DeNola, G., and Mazurek, W., “Organophosphate and Amine Contamination of Cockpit Air in the Hawk F-111, and Hercules C-130 Aircraft,” DSTO-RR- 0303, 2005, Australian Government Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Harper, A., “A Survey of Health Effects in Aircrew Exposed to Airborne Contaminants,” J. Occup. Health Saf. Aust. N.Z., Vol. 21, No. 5, 2005, pp. 433–439. Coxon, L., “Neuropsychological Assessment of a Group of BAe146 Aircraft Crewmembers Exposed to Jet Engine Oil Emissions,” J. Occup. Health Saf. Aust. N.Z., Vol. 18, No. 4, 2002, pp. 313–319. Kelso, A. G., Charlesworth, J. M., and McVea, G. G., “Contamination of Environmental Control Systems in Hercules Aircraft: MRL-R-1116, AR-005-230,” Australian Government Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 1988. Crane, C. R., Sanders, D. C., Endecott, B. R., et al., “Inhalation Toxicology: III. Evaluation of Thermal Degradation of Products from Aircraft and Automobile Engine Oils, Aircraft Hydraulic Fluid, and *Mineral Oil,” Aviation Medicine Report FAAAM-83-12, Civil Aeromedical Institute, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City, OK, 1983. Rayman, R. B. and McNaughton, G. B., “Smoke/Fumes in the Cockpit,” Aviat., Space Environ. Med., Vol. 54, No. 8, 1983, pp. 738–740. van Netten, C. and Leung, V., “Hydraulic Fluids and Jet Engine Oil: Pyrolysis and Aircraft Air Quality,” Arch. Environ. Health, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2001, pp. 181–186. van Netten, C. and Leung, V., “Comparison of the Constituents of Two Jet Engine Oil Lubricating Oils and Their Volatile Pyrolytic Degradation Products,” Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg., Vol. 15, No. 3, 2000, pp. 277–283. van Netten, C., “Analysis of Two Jet Engine Lubricating Oils and a Hydraulic Fluid: Their Pyrolytic Breakdown Products and Their Implications on Aircraft Air Quality,” Air Quality and Comfort in Airliner Cabins, ASTM STP 1393, N. L. Nagda, Ed., ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000, pp. 61–75. Lautenberg, F., “Testimony of U.S. Senator F. R. Lautenberg on HR 969/S1524, the Airliner Cabin Air Quality Act of 1995,” Washington, DC, 1996. ACARM, “Chapter 12: Frequency of Events and Underreporting,” Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual, Michaelis, S., Ed., ISBN 9780955567209, London, England, 2007, pp. 211–248. Ballough, J., “Smoke in the Cockpit,” Presentation at the U.S.–Europe International Aviation Safety Conference by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Director of Flight Standards Service, Washington,DC, 2006. FAA, “Flight Standards Information Bulletin for Airworthiness _FSAW_ 06-05A: Guidance for Smoke/Fumes in the Cockpit/Cabin,” Order 8300.10, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, 2006. Craig, P. H. and Barth, M. L., “Evaluation of the Hazards of Industrial Exposure to Tricresyl Phosphate: A Review and Interpretation of the Literature,” J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part B: Crit. Rev., Vol. 2, No. 4, 1999, pp. 281–300. Weiner, M. L. and Jortner, B. S., “Organophosphate-Induced Neurotoxicity of Triarylphosphates,” Neurotoxicology, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1999, pp. 653–673. Daughtrey, W., Biles, R., Jortner, B., et al., “Subchronic Delayed Neurotoxicity Evaluation of Jet Engine Lubricants Containing Phosphorus Additives,” Fundam. Appl. Toxicol., Vol. 32, 1996, pp. 244–249. Jamal, G. A., Hansen, G., and Julu, P. O. O., “Low Level Exposures to Organophosphorus Esters May Cause Neurotoxicity,” Toxicology, Vol. 181–182, 2002, pp. 23–33. Bull, K. and Yeomans, H. “Outside Air Treatment Solutions for Aircraft,” Technical paper produced by Pall Aerospace _Issue 1_, Pall Europe Ltd., 2007. ASHRAE, “Standard 161: Air Quality Within Commercial Aircraft: BSR/ASHRAE Standard 161- 2007,” American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 2008

I suggest you start reading, meanwhile you clear your flag, and we continue our discussion by summer when you got a better picture. If your worries will still persist then, I will be more then pleased to continue our exchange. kind regards. Screwjack1981 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You are editing the wrong article. None of the references that you present are about the film. They are about topics related to the topic aerotoxic syndrome. Feel free to take them over to that article. In the article about the film, you need references about the film:

• A statement "fumes from aviation lubricants, hydraulic fluids and other substances used in the aviation environment pose potential hazards for flight crew" needs, indeed, a reference about the potential hazard. You provide plenty. But that is borderline off-topic. Readers can go to aerotoxic syndrome to read about this.
• A statement "The film substantiates claims that fumes […] pose potential hazards for flight crew" needs a reference about the fact that the film substantiates these claims. There is only one source about the film in the article (the Filmgazette 8/10 review in German).

In this article, it is not Wikipedia's job to validate or invalidate what is presented in the film. Take this to aerotoxic syndrome. Our job is to present a neutral and referenced description of the film.

This task is difficult because fundamentally the film is not neutral. It does not mean it is bad, or that it is wrong. For any documentary called "TITLE TITLE -- the truth about topic XYZ: revealing a dirty secret of the XYZ industry" our job is neither to support nor to counter the claims in the documentary with references. It is to describe the film: who made it, what is their thesis, what is their background, what was the reception.

I will try to be more specific about contentious points in this article and flag them in the coming days. Meanwhile, a few comments:

• Please do not remove the NPOV-disputed banner on top of the article before consensus is reached: see Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
• Please do not use arguments of authority or push other editors away from discussion (your last sentence above).

Thank you, Ariadacapo (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ariadacapo.

I do not see the article on aerotoxic syndrome as objective or neutral at all. After getting into this issue a bit deeper I see that this article is mainly focussed on a well known stench critic, Dr Michael bags haw, who is a consultant to Airbus and has been the chief medical examiner at British Airways. If you start digging into the media archives you will see that it has been Mr. bags haw who has refused to acknowledge pilots under his care or even talk to them. So but I do not want to get deeper into this then required and I will not start editing this article either. There is one video which demonstrates what I just wrote : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO7KpNNimt0

I appreciate your other input and time and efforts spend - although a few things needed to be set right and corrected - i could live with this version as it is now. if we both could agree I would appreciate if you take your banner down please.

kind regards

--Screwjack1981 (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Replying to this message and your email in the same place:

You seem to want to convince myself and readers that aerotoxic syndrome is important (and by repercussion that the film will be important as well). That is not the point. While my personal opinion about the matter differs from yours I do not need to be convinced.

But the article is about the film. It is possible to write a terrible article about a terrible documentary about global warming (a very real and important topic). It is also possible to write a very good article about a terrible documentary about chemtrails (a conspiracy theory with no connection to reality).

Trying to show that van Beveren’s investigation is meaningful and connecting all the sources that he used to prove a point is not writing a good article. Instead we must look at his work from a neutral point of view, and report what is published about the film.

The main problem with this article is that there seems to exist zero secondary sources in English about the film. Even in German you provided only one secondary source and it is of very low quality (one movie review by Filmgazette). The rest of the sources make no statement at all about the film. They are "nice to have" external links for the context provided in the article.

Keep in mind that van Beveren has a fundamentally non-neutral point of view. The title is non-neutral. The subtitle is revealing a "dirty secret". The theatrical cover is an almost comical scene with fear and anxiety on-board. Van Beveren has a stake in the commercial success of the film.

This does not mean that van Beveren is wrong, nor that the film is bad. It means we must look for other people’s view about his work (secondary sources!) if we want to stay neutral. For example, secondary sources are indispensable to describe him as an "expert" or to detail how long he has been researching the topic.

Specifically now:

• The sentence "the film visually substantiates claims that" must be sourced or replaced with "the film claims that".
• The sentence "the film makes references to secret documents which […] were indicating that […] vital information […] deliberately withheld" is also completely unsourced. The statement there is original research.
• The paragraph about Coroner Stanhope Payne, his actions and concerns, is off-topic in my opinion. It is (again) trying to show something about aerotoxic syndrome, not describing the film.

I think it would be nice if we could work on that.

As for the article aerotoxic syndrome, I’m sure you have plenty of expertise to contribute to that. Please keep in mind that a key idea in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not Truth and that by trying too hard to connect the dots in between the sources by yourself you may end up doing original research (a requisite for a PhD but a problem for Wikipedia!)

Regards Ariadacapo (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply to reply

Screwjack1981: I have to agree with Ariadacapo that this discussion (directly above) is not about the film. It seems that you got confused here while working on the "aerotoxic syndrome " article". I suggest this piece of information should be moved to the respective talk page there and lets deal here with the subject of this article, which is the film.

Ariadacapo: I do not agree with your assumptions, again derived from the theatrical poster and placed into the responsibility of the director. Theatrical posters are not within the normal scope and duty of a film director, they are under the auspices of "distribution" and "advertisement" and therefore influenced by the distribution company, their designers and pr-people. So I would not assume that this is van Beveren's opinion or he endorse it, unless he admits so. As a matter of fact I was personally surprised that the film was very well balanced, also from a journalistic attitude point of view. Of course a director and in case of a documentary the respective editor will and may have a certain personal attitude, which could be considered not neutral, and in good journalistic work this is clearly highlighted so that the audience can differentiate. Actually the film complies with this "golden rule", as van Beveren makes his personal remark, clearly associated towards his own personal opinion in the last scene, just before the main titles.

I don't know how familiar you are with this guy, but here in Germany he is quite a well known and probably sometimes "feared" person. He is one of the frequent experts appearing on public broadcast such as ZDF and ARD and the international channel of Deutsche Welle whenever there is an aviation safety related subject and he did write some books which have a rather critical point of view on international and general well know and established safety issues. I was trying to find some of the work he did for public broadcast, but seems that due to the legal requirement imposed on our public broadcast (by print media) the works are no longer accessible via the Mediatheken of these stations (it is usually maximum a year). One would need to look for private youtube channels which sometime have them still stored. I recall seeing him also in some programs of National Geographic and Discovery Channel upon aviation subjects. But I have no clue where I could find those other then for a fee...

I think here is a misunderstanding to the documents that were referenced there (whistleblowers etc). These are all shown in the film and then quoted. As these are clear documents bearing the letter head from Boeing, Condor, Governments etc I do not think this is a statement nor is it original research. Under media law and rules you may not quote from something that you do not have in your hands and that you can produce in Court if it is questioned. I think things here on Wiki would be much more easy if similar obligations would be in place. For example the documents that were tabled at the Australian Senate are shown (in the film) while the Australian Senate live video recording of the Session where these were tabled by a Senator. I would rather term this classical "documentation". In the article this part is therefore referenced with the "on file record" about this session also giving the exact transcription of what was said. So this is an official government document/protocol which is therefore an appropriate, legitimate and sufficient reference to what is shown in the film. The smart thing here is that the Senator reads the document that we see while he quotes from it (well again specific to a film and its different levels how you can present information, which differs from a book, an article etc.)

Again in regards to the Coroner: I disagree as this is a vital part of the film and its storyline as well as its dramaturgical implementation. Its about the Westgate case and research. I believe some neccessary adjustments were made after another editor misused this paragraph to start a discussion which should have been set to the talk page. The paragraph as it is right now neutrally depicts what is actually even quoted here, again referenced with the original letter which is available to the public as it is public record. But careful: the term "aerotoxic syndrome" is nowhere used in this regard, neither in the film nor in the cited document. So from my POV it is verifiable, which is what counts here.One should also bear in mind that it could be considered and seen as "Contempt of Court" to make interpretations or to jump to conclusions here.

--Medidog1951 (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Spam

Excerpts from WP:SPAM [[1]]

There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced... Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website.

Those statements fit this article like a glove. All five of the external links go to the sites promoting this film. Internal links in the article go to both IMDB and Youtube trailers, all which again are a sales pitch for this film. IMDB and Youtube have long been held as NOT valid WP:RS for other articles, yet it appears they are permitted for this article. I cannot help but wonder WHY this article seems to be exempted from the rules, with which other articles and editors must comply?

Excerpts from WP:What Wikipedia is NOT [[2]]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.... Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate.

This article amounts to nothing more than a Spam page, started and maintained by COI editors which obviously have a vested interest in this subject matter. The rules clearly prohibit this kind of article in Wikipedia, so why is it still here? EditorASC (talk)

You would get a lot more attention if you used less bold font, outraged tone, and rhetorical questions. As this has been discussed above, this article is essentially based on primary sources, which is an important weakness. It also contains controversial statements which are marked as so in the text. I think its quality is very low, too. But that does not make it spam. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I am willing to learn. If the quotes I posted above from WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, do not mean what they clearly and unequivocally seem to say to us lowly editors, then how about you providing us a translation of what they REALLY mean, according to whatever special logic is apparently possessed by Wiki Admins. Please note, I am not using bold font, nor any rhetorical questions in this request for additional information from you. And, I don't see how it can be an outrageous request either, so I am humbly complying with your guidelines. EditorASC (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, I am not taking part in adversarial conversation. Your sarcasm ("whatever special logic", "humbly complying") and suggestion that I see you among "lowly editors" unable to understand "my" guidelines, that’s not civil discussion. I have zero personal interest in the "aerotoxic" debate and personally would never pay to see this documentary film. Can you at least accept that? Ariadacapo (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a cinematic "work" as it is so it is a publication, available to the public such as a book, or a CD, a newspaper etc. The film is a film and thereby a publication and as this described in this particular article. Example: while there is a tremendous discussion ongoing on the issue of the NSA collecting data and information and thereby (allegedly infringing civil rights) there is the film documentary "Citizen Four" about the whistleblower Edward Snowden. The film is listed as a film in Wikipedia and the article describes the film, its plot, the claims and the persons and their opinions depicted in this film.

So in general: This has nothing to do with the ongoing discussion on other articles, such as the article about "aerotoxic syndrome". The only connection here is that the documentary is dealing about with this issue, it has been first commissioned by a public broadcast station (so no vested interest of any side) and it is therefore the first independently produced documentary on this subject (in contrast to other films produced and distributed by a former British Airways pilot, also been heavily involved in "campaigning" on this issue and an acknowledgment. From my perspective, currently working on a PhD thesis on this and other related subject and specially on strategies by lobby groups to suppress scientific research results and findings (comparable to the issue of "smoking cigarettes" or "asbestos") I have to state that the topic is not appropriately presented in the "outdated" version of the article about "aerotoxic syndrome" as this is mainly built on "counter-arguments" by individuals under contract of the very same industry that bears the responsibility to "work it out". It is very obvious, if someone takes the time and efforts to dig into the available scientific and peer-reviewed literature about the effects, its impact and current research that this is not a "hoax". The industry is quite strong in opposing such independent studies that are critical to it while they refer to their own studies which are not published, nor peer-reviewed and sometimes even clearly biased, as they were made with a clear conflict of interest of the participating persons. This applies for example to the so called "Cranfield Study", published in 2011, which lacks a statement in regards to possible conflict of interest, which is a clear violation of the UK's government guidelines for academic conduct( given the fact that this study was commissioned by the UK Ministry of Transport). One other obstacle of course is the fact that there have been numerous law suits by affected flight crew all over the planet including the US, but these were all settled outside court so far, imposing confidentiality agreements on the parties. The interest and intentions behind this is obvious. --Screwjack1981 (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

as we have discussed elsewhere, Screwjack1981, please refrain from working on the articles until we have completed the discussion on your talk page. Others working here, please hold off continuing this until that is resolved, and please don't intervene there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Mainly the allegations made here against Screwjack1951 about his intentions and motives are not warranted and not supported by facts. I believe that article could be certainly improved and this is what I tried to accomplish yesterday with a fresh memory after I viewed the film locally for the second time in a movie theater. Meanwhile unsustained and off-topic changes were made to this article which more or less reflect an apparently ongoing dispute and debate on another article Aerotoxic_syndrome, which is not the matter here and while it deals with the same issue (an alleged disease or disorder) nevertheless has a different subject (here: the film). If deemed appropriate a certain section may be added providing background of this controversy, but already the original article clearly stated that the film deals about a controversial subject. So I deem the previous version appropriate from an editorial POV .But this article is definitely not the place to enter into a discussion about subjects that he is not featuring and it is definitely not the place to open a controversy about a fundamental discussion that is already ongoing at its appropriate place (article about "aerotoxic syndrome" - as ref. before).

Also I strongly believe it is not warranted, nor in any way appropriate that an editor - who has no other knowledge about the subject at hand, reverts the article to a state which misrepresents the articles subject and the only argument for this is "I want to prevent an "edit war" between other authors of which one - at least also apparently lacks any knowledge about the specific subject (the film) and just does so because he doesn't like one of the issues that the subject (the film) features.

I did contact Screwjack1981 and was trying to moderate here. But given the "hotness" of the issue at hand I also concur that it may be best then to have the article completely removed before this becomes a never ending story that can not be resolved in an acceptable manner as long as no other editors (maybe from the UK) who may have gotten access to the subject (the film) or may start working with other sources (e.g. English language media coverage on the subject) to properly assess what this is all about. So a deletion may be warranted but up to that state, at least the article should not be in a stage as depicted before which is a clear "misrepresentation" of the subject matter (the film) and its content.

--Medidog1951 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Working toward consensus

Dear Screwjack1981: I have started editing the article again and I would like you to acknowledge that the editors here involved over the last 72 + hours are trying to improve this piece and bring it into "shape". I therefore would kindly ask you to revert your opinion and concur with us to have this article not deleted but keep it open for improvements. This also means that we will vigorously have a watching eye and will protect the essence to not be vandalized, as this has unfortunately happened before.

I would highly welcome anybody here who has access to this movie (which will soon be shown in the UK as I learned) to make appropriate adjustments, as he deems appropriate and necessary. I also would like to urge anybody else, who did not have access to this film yet and who merely bases his views on second hand information about the subject, to practice extrem caution when making any changes.

So, Screwjack1981, Jytgdog and others please refrain from unnecessary changes or simple "revert backs to previous versions" which are not warranted by what you can personally contribute onto the specific subject (which is the FILM as it is and not what you think it could or should be). Discussion and disputes about the certainly controversial subject of "aerotoxic syndrome" should be carried out in connection with this very specific article about the subject at Aerotoxic_syndrome. I would appreciate if you, Screwjack1981 and the others could agree. Thank you. --Medidog1951 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not work towards consensus. You restored the article back to the WP:COATRACK it was when it began. You also deleted numerous {{citation needed}} templates without discussion. Please do not attempt to push back other editors from participating (your urge to use "extreme caution" is ambiguous at best). Finally, please take the time to read about WP:SOURCES. Wikipedia is essentially based on second-hand information, which we call secondary sources. This article has just one (the German Filmgazette review) which is an obvious weakness. I am raising up these issues in an article banner now. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Adriandacapo. If you would have been following he entire discussion you would be aware that those citation requirements have been obsolete as for example the original citation of IMDB is an acknowledged citation commonly used here on wiki for movies. So removing such citations and then claiming that a citation is needed doesn't make it any better and is merely counterproductive. Also citation requests pointing to "questionable sources" have been substituted by more appropriate ones. The film as a work and basically a product does not need further citations. Interpretation of certain aspects of the film would require though. Now - as I said somewhere earlier - the main obstacle here with this article seems to be the fact that this film has not been released on DVD or Video on Demand or aired by TV so that other editors - who did not have the opportunity yet to see it will face the difficulty to appropriately make any changes. They are merely "guessing" which I do not consider as justified and appropriate in regards to any artwork. Different story if it would be a picture or as said before if it would be available via the net. Please take the time and review a few other films here on wiki, which is an entire "genre" of article for itself. Again, this is not an encyclopedic article about definition, a person, a piece of literature. It is an article about a very specifically already defined subject which is the film as it is presented - currently - in movie theaters in Germany, which does not leave a lot of room for interpretations. Again haven g seen it now twice I agree that the original article by Screwjack1981 was not optimal and would require improvement. But this is limited to what he film depicts and how it deals about it, the factual information presented there and this has to be described here certainly in a neutral way. So what is it that you require as "citations"? Would you like to reference the film minute when a topic is raised or mentioned? I don't think so.

I have carefully reviewed the article more than twice and I added more stringent and appropriate citations where I deemed it necessary. Such citations have been there in previous versions and then somehow got lost in editing. Of course these can be improved and I'm woking on that. But sorry this is not available by the click of a mouse as we are not dealing here with a film directed by Steven Spielberg and based on a novel written by Norman Mailer. It is a documentary which by definition "documents" current affairs and actual proceedings as they were happening (e.g. the Westgate research story, the Condor accident etc.). Thank you for your input but just leave this article for the moment as it is as I'm still working on it over he next day. When can then pick it up from there but I really hate when you have to restore things while you are working on improvements that got reverted by impatient mouse clicks.

Also I would like to give the first author of this piece the opportunity to get back here on the table and jointly work on an improvement than rather being destructive. The issue is an important one, otherwise there would not be such controversy. But again, these are different issues - one is an article about a film, the other is an article about a medical condition.

--Medidog1951 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I shall just be more direct then. Do not push away other editors. "just leave this article for the moment" and "I really hate when you have to restore things" are not appropriate comments. You cannot dispense yourself of obtaining consensus. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ariadacapo. I don't know who stepped on your big toe this morning. I just asked to refrain from making unwarranted changes as Mr/Mrs Jytdog deemed it necessary a few hours ago, in order to apply a self inflicted "precautionary principle" to avoid a new "edit-war". While I'm still waiting to get Screwjack1981 here back into the loop, I'm trying to work off your valuable points of critique, but this is not possible, when the article gets changed constantly while you are working on it - As it has been the case the day before. - Can we agree on this? So I just kindly ask you and the others to please refrain from that or setting the article back to a stage where is is merely a plain disaster and not reflecting at all (!) what this film is dealing with and about. So seems that you are all some years younger and much quicker than I am, but I do not like to do things in a hurry, as this is the best recipe to screw it up. Take the time and check the changes made and please - if we can tick some of the formerly issues off, lets continue with what is remaining. Thank you, your efforts and patience are most welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medidog1951 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Medidog et all: I agree and I will withdraw from the article. I will not get and do not wish to become involved in this. I was wanting to contribute here to something I thought is to the benefit of all but soon found myself under all sorts of allegations and defamation. I hope you all have better luck. Cheers. --Screwjack1981 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Coatrack

The following content is not about movie itself, but rather furthers the arguments that the movie makes. This is a classic instance of what we call '"coatrack" in Wikipedia. I have cut it from the article and pasted it here for discussion.

collapsing extended content cut from article

Aerotoxic syndrome Main article: aerotoxic syndrome The film is focused on eyewitness accounts from flight crew and passengers who claimed to became injured after so called "fume events" occurred on aircraft. It also explains the controversy about aerotoxic syndrome, a term used to describe short- and long-term ill-health effects attributed to breathing airliner cabin air, alleged to have been contaminated to toxic levels, with pyrolyzed engine oils or other aviation lubricants and chemicals. An ongoing and highly controversial discussion exists among medical and scientific experts about the terminology, reported and medically diagnosed symptoms among flight crew and passengers, and their possible cause. Key events related to health issues and flight safety portrayed in the film are an incident involving a Germanwings Airbus A319 in December 2010 while approaching Cologne and an accident on board a Condor Boeing 757 in March 2013 in Las Palmas. The film describes both these events and their implications in the aeronautical industry. Background of director Tim van Beveren, who has been researching the topic of contaminated cabin air since 2008, authored and edited many television programs and print articles about the issue, and was one of the six experts testifying in a non-public hearing in the German Parliament in October 2011. He is described in German-language media as a critical aviation expert. Participants The film features Australian toxicologist Chris Winder and the French forensic expert Jean Christophe Balouet who first described "aerotoxic syndrome" in a scientific paper presented at the ASTM Symposium in 1999 and three years later published in an epidemiological study. Also featured in the film are Canadian toxicologist Christiaan van Netten, German toxicologist Dietrich Henschler, British professor Jeremy Ramsden, US neuroscientist Mohamed B. Abou-Donia, Dutch forensic pathologist Frank van de Goot, Michel Mulder (aeromedical examiner and pilot), British attorney Frank Cannon (lawyer to late Richard Westgate), Australian Senator Rev. John Woodley, British editor David Learmount, pilot Jörg Handwerg (spokesperson and board member of the German Airline Pilot Association Vereinigung Cockpit), British aeronautical engineer Graeme Davidson as well as affected passengers and crew members. The original English language version is narrated by Deutsche Welle news anchor Brian Thomas. Film technical analysis According to the film, fully synthetic lubricants that were first used for military jet engines in the late 1940s and which contained toxic additives, were causing health problems among pilots in the early 1950s, and were identified by the US Military and Civil Aerospace Medical Association as a threat for flight safety,. The film visually substantiates claims that fumes from aviation lubricants, hydraulic fluids and other substances used in the aviation environment pose potential hazards for flight crew and passengers of commercial airliners because of the bleed-air technology used to generate breathing air and pressurisation for the cabin as noted in scientific literature, and how, according to insiders such as the British aeronautical engineer Graeme Davidson, the problem has recently become exacerbated by the introduction of extended maintenance intervals for modern jet engines. In line with articles previously published by van Beveren in "die Welt", the film also questions the role played by the German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation and German air carriers in the reporting of fume event related accidents and incidents. Forensic research Richard Mark Westgate Van Beveren and his team were the only film crew allowed by the scientific research team, chaired by British professor Dr Jeremy Ramsden (aka: The Westgate Foundation) to follow the forensic research on the remains of British Airways pilot Richard Mark Westgate. Westgate had become convinced he was suffering from diseases related to breathing contaminated cabin air. The film features Westgates stay in the Netherlands were he obtained medical treatment until he died on 12.12.2012 and interviews the medics and scientists involved in the investigation and research, who voiced their concerns that Westgate's illness was caused by long-term, low-level intoxication with small quantities of organo-phosphates (such as are used exclusively in aircraft lubricants). The film follows and features the findings of the two year long investigation and which led HM Senior Coroner Stanhope Payne, who is in charge of the Westgate Investigation and Inquest, to notify Westgate’s former employer as well as the British Civil Aviation Authority about his concerns and calls for a remedy under paragraph 7, Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 in conjunction with regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) regulations 2013. In his notice dated February 16th, 2015 he states that Mr Westgate had been on medical leave since September 2011 and he was suffering cognitive dysfunction, ataxia and other deficits. Post mortem examinations gave causes of death of either Pentobarbital toxicity or lymphocytic myocarditis, individually or in combination. "Testing of samples taken both prior to and after death disclosed symptoms consistent with exposure to organo-phosphate compounds in aircraft cabin air." According to HM Senior Coroner there were five points of concern: That organo-phosphate compounds are present in aircraft cabin air. That occupants of aircraft cabins are exposed to organ-phosphate compounds with consequential damage to their health. That impairment to the health of those controlling aircraft may lead to the death of occupants. There is no real time monitoring to detect such compounds in cabin air. That no account is taken of genetic variation in human species, such as would render individuals tolerant or intolerant of exposure. Political background The film purposes to show, using documents obtained by whistleblowers that aircraft manufacturers, airlines and their lobby organizations have been deceiving politicians and the public about the danger and extent of air cabin intoxication for more that a decade. The film also points out by depicting internal documents that a questionable closeness between German airline Condor and the German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation exists. John Woodley By presenting video footage excerpts obtained from the Australian Senate under FOIA the film also critically examines the proceedings of an Australian Senate Inquiry into "Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality in the BAe 146 Aircraft" (1999-2000). It shows previously confidential documents disclosed in 2007 at the Australian Senate which, according to Australian senator Kerry O'Brien, indicate that that vital information about known problems and defects were deliberately withheld from the 2000 Senate Inquiry. Its chairman, former Senator Rev. John Woodley, is interviewed and provides in-detail testimony about the proceedings and the respective conclusions of his Committee, as they were stated in their final report. Proposed solutions The film suggests that fully electric environmental control systems such as those used in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, or the one developed by Liebherr Aerospace , which are both working without bleed air technology, as possible solutions to the problems and associated hazards it portrays. The film also indicates that filter systems are already approved by the authorities and in use, and that an early warning sensor prototype has been successfully tested. Update In an update to the original film version, first shown on 20.01.2016 at Berlin, the film now also features the medical team of the Institute for Occupational Medicine of the Georg-August-University at Göttingen, Germany. According to an interview in the film the institute for the last three years is seeing and treating patients, mainly flight crew members, after they encountered fume events. In a statement the head of the medical department, Dr Astrid Heutelbeck, confirms that they found substances in the urine and blood samples of their patients that "do not belong there at all", especially as such substances are only used in aviation products and of which some have been banned by legislators for use in any consumer products. This, among organo-phosphates, also includes newly formed toxic compositions of heated de-icing fluids that were previously considered harmless. References

I also trimmed a bunch of unsourced content. Everybody please be aware of WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Thanks. Happy to discuss Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Good job. Indeed none of the content pasted here is supported by an independent source that mentions the film. It needed to go. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, since you mention WP:RS, then I have to ask why the citation to IMBD.Com still remains?

"For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB)" [[3]] EditorASC (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not the greatest of sources but it is commonly used. I see NBD here as it is not used to support any controversial content. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The topic of this article may not reach WP:NOTABILITY. I am not going there and am content to leave a stub for now and see what kind of reliable sources develop about the movie. If there remain so few sources in a few months I would be likely to support a deletion but there has been enough drama around this already. For now it is OK in my view. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)