Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

What was scheduled departure time?

We know the plane departed at 12:30 am local time. Was that the scheduled departure time, or was it delayed?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.31.51 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Mixing time zones?

It says 06:30 and then it goes back in time apparently to 02:40 please stick with a single time zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecodingproject (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Flight Found/Landed?

http://malaysiandigest.com/frontpage/282-main-tile/492200-mas-kl-beijing-flight-missing.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.116.82 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's unlikely, as it supposedly landed hours after it was supposed to land in Beijing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably someone's idea of a prank that's made the rounds on the twitters before reaching today's scrupulous media who've not given it a moment's thought before putting it out there. — Lfdder (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It did not land in Nanming or anywhere yet. Maodi xn (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet? It's been 12 hours. It's crashed, unfortunately. — Lfdder (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Some source says Vietnam officials denied the found of signal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojy 97 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 8 March 2014‎ (UTC)

found?

"Tuoi Tre, a leading daily in Vietnam, reports that the Vietnamese Navy has confirmed the plane crashed into the ocean. According to Navy Admiral Ngo Van Phat, Commander of the Region 5, military radar recorded that the plane crashed into the sea at a location 153 miles South of Phu Quoc island." [1] DTLHS (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The same source says that the flight had 239 passengers, not 227...WIERDGREENMAN, Thane of Cawdor THE CAKE IS A LIE (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Check again. WWGB (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Checked - it's 239 total, not 239 passengers. My bad.WIERDGREENMAN, Thane of Cawdor THE CAKE IS A LIE (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hard to tell whether Tuoi Tre should be taken as a WP:RS, so if you were to include that, I'd say "according to Tuoi Tre, a leading daily in Vietnam" rather than stating it as an outright verified fact -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See [2] for latest details on location. — JamesR (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like there were some heavy air quotes surrounding that claim: [3] 2620:8D:8000:E50:EC71:451A:B2EF:E757 (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

two hours later it disappeared?

"The plane lost contact approximately forty minutes in to the usually six-hour flight. Originally reports stated that the aircraft went missing two hours after departure- but the Malaysian defense ministry confirms this not to be true." [4]--PLNR (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This actually sounds quite reasonable, as there is no way that it too two hours to reach that spot. WWGB, you might want to check this out if you're going to be up a few more hours. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Flight track log (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS370/history/20140307/1635Z/WMKK/ZBAA/tracklog) indicates that it was only transmitting an ADS-B signal for about 19 minutes. This is a more reasonable time for it to reach the latitude and longitude cited. The two hours appears to refer to the time when Malaysian ATC reported it missing. A radio contact scheduled for 40 minutes into the flight was also missed, indicating that whatever happened happened before the 40 minute mark. But that seems to be where the 40 min figure came from.

Look at previous flights along the same route. There is also plenty of missing data. So it's just flightaware not having sufficient coverage. 209.6.94.47 (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Speculating - if flight aware doesn't show a precipitous drop at the end of it's monitor, then whatever happened shut off MH370's ADS-B transmission, so was probably catastrophic.

I'm a newb wiki editor, and don't know how to insert that flight aware reference into the main article - but if someone more capable that me wants to do so, please feel free. Nimrod54 (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

DO NOT PUT ANYTHING FLIGHTAWARE INTO THE ARTICLE! Look at the past many days. FlightAware has no ADS-B coverage except in Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong. Unlike FlightRadar24.com, FlightAware has no detectors in eastern Malaya, Vietnam or Hainan. Everyday the signal is cut off before the full climb is complete. This incident occurred well after leveling off at FL350, as seen on FlightRadar24.com. HkCaGu (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Update to passenger information

An update to there Malaysia Airlines media release page now shows China and Taiwan combined as one nationality, and there are now 5 Indian passengers. — JamesR (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't combine the two for obvious reasons, but feel free to count in the new numbers and see if they add up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Air France Flight 447

I believe Air France Flight 447 should also be included in the See Also section, as it was also a modern commercial flight that mysteriously disappeared under similar circumstances. Although the airline and aircraft model are different, the disappearance is similar enough to be notable. Kage Acheron (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Flight 447 vanished in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean for two years, and crashed due to an ice buildup and subsequent stall. Not only do we not know what caused Flight 370 to crash, but the location of the crash has pretty much already been confirmed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, neither the model nor the airline were the same. We could make arguments for lots of "similar" incidents, but they would not be significant to this case. Happy to wait for the thoughts of others. WWGB (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The incidents were rather similar initially: large commercial planes that disappeared off air traffic control. Initial news reports were also similar as the "flight that went missing". However, as the news develops, they do seem to be diverging (crash site already located). Kage Acheron (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You must be new here Kage, look at Singapore Airlines Flight 006, only accidents simalar to it. Not when the news first broke... Qantasplanes (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

When I re-added the link in the see also, I linked to a reliable source making the connection. Several other news organizations have also made a connection. Ergo it wouldn't be wrong to include an AF447 see also link. Although I don't think it's a huge deal whether it's included or not. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, so let's not! WWGB (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

CNN isn't exactly the best of news sites, but that aside, news organizations love making loose comparisons, not only because it is something to write about, but because they want to jog the reader's memory. Unless this accident more-closely resembled Air France's one, then I don't see a reason why we should link them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree CNN's reliability has gone downhill, particularly on breaking news stories.... However, by your logic, why should be link to BA38 or Asiana 214? Sure they were the same plane type, but if it turns out this one was caused by, say, a terrorist attack, the make of plane would be just as irrelevant as the phase of the flight... Anyway, not something worth arguing over... Sailsbystars (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see it included, though perhaps not immediately, as it is an incident of an airliner losing contact over water. In that respect, both events are similar, regardless of the manufacturer or operator. From the point of view of a layman reader, it will become a relevant comparison at some point in the not too distant future, if it is found to be a failure of the vehicle with a complete loss of life. EP111 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the utter lack of information right now, and also the heated debate over AF447's similarity, is it most prudent to keep "See also" blank for now? We have nothing firm to draw similarities with - not even a confirmation of hull loss. Leondz (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I would just say revert it when you see it, as people are going to constantly be adding the comparison in the coming days. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Many reliable sources are comparing Flight 370 with Flight 447, including BBC and industry experts they are interviewing. IMO a 'See also' link (at least) is warranted. 183.89.4.6 (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I dont think we need a link, I think missing is the only common factor so unless the Boeing 777 uses the same pitot tubes as the Airbus A330 and is a common factor in the disappearance then we are just repeating bad journalism. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion is that it is exceptionally unusual for a modern airliner to go missing at cruise altitude with no warning or word from the crew, as both 370 and 447 did. Are there any other examples? 183.89.4.6 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I say include it. It's most probable that the plane has crashed(in fact, there's no other real logical explanation), so that would make it the second major, commercial wide-body airliner in the last decade or so that resulted in 200+ fatalities, along with flight 447. Also, the nature of both accidents, at first glance, seems to be rather similar. 99.199.52.214 (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Include it. The issue is not whether WE think it's relevant, but rather whether reliable secondary sources think it's relevant. And they do: Among aviation industry observers, the MH370 is reminiscent of the Air France Airbus 330-203 tragedy where the plane crashed into the sea off Rio de Janeiro on June 1, 2009. Its wreckage was only found two years later.--Nowa (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

See Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Incident. 183.89.4.6 (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Any benefit to calling it out in a "see also"?--Nowa (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like WP:SEEALSO says that "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Kage Acheron (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

BBC World News are showing coverage of a press conference in Malaysia, the official Malaysian spokesman there (the head of Malaysian civilian aviation) is making comparisons with 447. 183.89.4.6 (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nationality of the crew

CCTV News posted pictures of the full passenger and crew lists, released by Beijing Capital Airport. All crew members are Malaysian nationals.

http://ww2.sinaimg.cn/large/9e5389bbtw1ee86wkcgj1j20hs0nu408.jpgvia https://twitter.com/cctvnews/status/442143955736485888 http://t.co/HmPfGy3QTw

95.143.193.132 (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the post! JamesR, you might find this useful. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Passenger list

Someone want to add a source for the India and Indonesia numbers. I have yet to see India mentioned in any of the passenger lists on the media sites - DarkNITE (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Read the attached cite in the section [5], it is very clear. WWGB (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The released passenger lists do indeed contain 5 people of Indian nationality and 7 of Indonesian, see link above.

95.143.193.132 (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Indian National identities have been released as well. I tried to add the Australians (Rodney and Mary Barrows, Catherine and Robert Lawton, Li Yuan and Gu Naijun), [6] and some Chinese earlier but was reverted. The 5 Indians onboard were: Chetna Kolekar, Swanand Kolekar, Suresh Kolekar, Chandrika Sharma and Prahlad Shirsatha. Part of the earlier confusion was that there was an Indian-born Canadian citizen aboard. That person is now being identified as one of the Canadian missing- Muktesh Mukherjee. [7]Sunnydoo (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

And it is now making it way through the social media. A travel employee in China has gone rogue and published the entire passenger manifest with names and countries. The 3 Americans onboard are listed as Philip Talmadge Wood, Nicole and Leonif Ming.[8]Sunnydoo (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

LA Times now publishing that story as well with the American names[9].Sunnydoo (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

All Passenger list------------------[10]--------in Chinese form QQ News — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User: | ]] ([[User talk: |talk]] • contribs) [11] }} [ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.253.221.180 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 March 2014‎ (UTC)

"Incident"?

The infobox uses the term incident, but this hasn't been confirmed to have been an intended occurrence, as far as I know? Can anyone clarify? --Nicereddy (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, we don't know it it's an accident yet or even if it's crashed. "Incident" is non-descript, yet useful to distinguish from, say "response" which we might want to separate out as a new section. Sailsbystars (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Since when did the word "incident" imply something was intended? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Add the crash report?

Edit wars...No fun.

Should we add the crash report and airline denial? http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/03/07/3981495/malaysia-airlines-loses-contact.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/08/us-malaysiaairlines-flight-idUSBREA2701720140308 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.163.2 (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Crash status

This is somewhat confusing, whos confirmation do we want to go with here? And what is the enduring notability of the event? Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRASH suggests any airline hull loss tends towards notability... and that standard is certainly met for at least one meaning of "loss." As for confirming or not confirming, I'd be fine with the article just leaving it as "overdue" w/o the conflicting found/not found claims until there's more definitive results. Sailsbystars (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Prior incidents

The airframe 9M-MRO was involved in a prior incident on 2012-08-09.

Refer to http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147571 for the report and http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2012-08/10/c_123564158.htm for a picture.

Already in the article, see Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Aircraft. WWGB (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Has now been deleted twice by User:YSSYguy - 1st time because "ref was the ASN wikibase which as the name says is a Wiki, user-contributed with no editorial oversight, and therefore not a reliable source", 2nd time because "in the absence of contrary evidence the ground collision is not relevant". 183.89.4.6 (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance zone.

Using the playback feature on www.flightradar24.com (Which uses real time ADS-B data) I was able to view the full flight from when the plane took off until it disappeared off radar. The last coordinates were 6.97N, 103.63E It was virtually a straight and normal flight with a consistent track of 25 degrees. The last bit of data shows the same airspeed (872kmh) track changed to 40 degrees, Altitude: 0.

Though the coordinates may not be accurate, probably the best you can get right now (with a reliable source). Might be worth adding them to the article.

Edit: Someone actually posted a youtube video showing what I'm talking about. Switch it to HD quality, englarge it and you can read all the data on the left side of the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGS6bUldQ7s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.17.45.119 (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent link. Thanks. Alas we can't use it for the article unless a reliable secondary source makes reference to it. Nonetheless chilling. The signal simply stops.--Nowa (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The reference is now present in swedish media Franke 1 (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/plan-med-239-sparlost-borta/

Thanks. I also found Malaysian news report and added it.--Nowa (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Does the marker disappearance mean no radar echo or could it just be that the transponder was turned off? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Weather

Any news or reports on the weather within the plane's path? AugustinMa (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Pprune thread states no significant weather in the area that would have affected the flight. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-mh370-contact-lost-4.html AugustinMa (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Pprune is not a WP:RS for information, but it is a useful source of RSs. Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No bad weather when MH370 went missing http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-no-bad-weather-when-mh370-went-missing-1.504432 AugustinMa (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese/Taiwanese passengers

The airline's passenger list states there were 154 passengers that were either Chinese or Taiwanese. The article states that one of these was Taiwanese. Where is the source for that? Heymid (contribs) 11:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The passenger manifest confirms that one of the 154 Chinese/Taiwanese passengers was Taiwanese. Heymid (contribs) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Italian passenger

Italian press reporting that the Italian passenger was not actually on board, but had rather had his passport stolen: [12] Not sure it's ready for inclusion yet, because we can't guarantee that it's actually the same Italian that is in the list, but for future reference... Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The official manifest says that the passenger, Luigi Maraldi was aboard. Can anyone confirm he wasn't? TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If you Google translate the link in my first comment, it says that the Italian Foreign Ministry has spoken to him & confirmed that his passport was stolen. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 12:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely should be included IMO somewhere in the text... Timmyshin (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems the Austrian is also alive and well, his passport was supposedly stolen in Thailand 2 years ago. This was confirmed by the Austrian foreign ministry to APA: http://www.apa.at/News/6217359958/boeing-mit-239-passagieren-vor-vietnam-verschollen.html 112.193.57.218 (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There is some speculation in Chinese online news that terrorists might have used the stolen passports to get aboard. Nothing reliable for now, but worth keeping an eye on. Madalibi (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

02:40

The lede currently says:

Subang Air Traffic Control Centre reported at 02:40 that contact had been lost while it was over the Gulf of Thailand.

The Malaysia Airlines media statement released at 7.24am stated:

Malaysia Airlines confirms that flight MH370 has lost contact with Subang Air Traffic Control at 2.40am, today (8 March 2014).

No reference has been given of when Subang Air Traffic Control Centre reported that contact had been lost, either to Malaysia Airlines or to the media. (In the context, "reported" probably means "reported to the media".) Thus, it is incorrect to say reported at 02:40 that contact had been lost and instead should say reported that contact had been lost at 02:40.

My edit to this effect has been reverted twice ([13][14]) by HkCaGu (talk · contribs), who seems not to appreciate the discrepency.

In order to avoid engaging in edit-warring, could someone else please step in to clarify this? —sroc 💬 13:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, 183.89.4.6! —sroc 💬 13:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained in my talk page and edit summaries how the plane cannot be talking to Malaysia 2 hours after taking off. The airline, which receives the report from ATC authority, is simply misworded in this matter. For an expert reporter, please see Aviation Herald's article: http://avherald.com/h?article=4710c69b&opt=0. HkCaGu (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The aircraft already reached the last reported position (near boundary of Malaysia/Singapore and Vietnam FIRs) at 01:20. So where has it been flying between 01:21 and 02:39? It only makes sense that they've been looking for the plane for an hour, not in contact with the plane for an hour! Or simply reworded, you cannot extract a last contact/contact lost time from the MAS statement. HkCaGu (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Thecodingproject: @FonEengIneeR7: @HkCaGu: @Sroc: - Hey folks, can you agree for now to leave out the "time" in the box or to NOT refer to it as the time of the incident? It's not because it's never put in an infobox, but because we don't have enough information about what the actual incident time is. We only have the time the authorities reported as to when the contact was lost. Later, when the black box is recovered, and things are really known, we will likely better know exactly what "time" is associated with what would appear to be a catastrophic incident. Thanks. (Added the NOT above to clarify) -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Seems the best thing to do, until we know the exact nature of what exactly happened at 02:40. I have doubts in MAS's English. They said families were "being informed" but the whole manifest has been released already. HkCaGu (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, HkCaGu. I have added this to the lede with the time that contact was actually lost. —sroc 💬 13:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Cite Error

Please notice that there is a cite error for Reference #20. Mark Chung (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. —sroc 💬 14:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Passengers on manifest didn't make it on board?

The Aviation Herald article states:

Italy's Foreign Ministry said, the Italian citizen is alive and was not on board of the aircraft other than the passenger manifest suggests, the man called his parents from Thailand.

Austria's Foreign Ministry stated in the afternoon (European time) that the Austrian listed on the passenger manifest was not on board of the aircraft.

Removing them from the count would, of course, affect the total number of passengers missing, which are being widely reported. Does anyone have any other reports to verify this either way? —sroc 💬 14:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Bit early yet I would say leave the manifest as reported but add a note with a reliable reference that the nationality is questioned. MilborneOne (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The Mirror is reporting that "Luigi Maraldi, 37, from Cesena, was named as one of the travellers on board" but "Mr Maraldi reported his passport stolen on August 1 last year and was not on board the plane, according to news agency ANSA." Is the Mirror a reliable source? —sroc 💬 14:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, some Chinese online sources are starting to speculate that a "terrorist" or someone who planned to immigrate (to where?) illegally used the stolen passport to get on board and that the Malaysian authorities are checking all the airport security cameras to try to establish who got on board and who didn't. Madalibi (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but is there anything more concrete for us to report at this stage? —sroc 💬 14:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. Sounds more like rumors more than actual news. Madalibi (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

More sources regarding this The Straits Times TL T 16:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Location of oil slicks

The article, and its source, both say that the oil slicks were found 140m from Tho Chu island. Given that these slicks are tens of km long, and that oil slicks in general have ill-defined boundaries, and are in constant movement driven by waves and tides, this seems an oddly over-precise figure. Could this be a typo in the source article for an actual distance of 140 km? -- The Anome (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph has stated " ... Vietnamese authorities said they had spotted a 14-mile long oil slick 120 miles off the coast of Cape Ca Mau - the most southerly point of Vietnam's mainland." --Mark Chung (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

My gramma says, it must be aliens. I'll go put it in the article! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I remember what happened with Air France Flight 447 - there was hazy, contradictory information and it was hard to tell what was true and what wasn't. On one hand, it's true that editors need to be careful when adding things. But on the other hand, please be civil. I think most people know that in the initial moments it's hard to tell what's true and what isn't. I think an oil slick is more plausible than space aliens, to be honest. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Xinhua video/content

• "越南搜救队否认发现马航失联航班信号." (Archive) Xinhua. March 8, 2014.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disgusted

To those, who keep adding "facts" and "sources" to this travesty of an article: I'm ashamed to be one of the Wikipedia editors and call you "colleagues". WHY are you all so hungry to drag all the yellow crap whorenalists publish into an ENCYCLOPEDIA!!! What, advancing edit counter is more important than sticking to the rules and principles? You're disgusting! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it would help if you could let us know which particular "facts" or "sources" disgust you so we can look at it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice one! I always appreciate a good joke! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

He isn't joking. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - that's the reason I ad-blocked the shit out of those incessant pleadings for contributions. If Wikipedia wants money out of me, it'll need to clean up the quality of its articles by a factor of about a million. Fuckers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.145.156 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't sound to me like you're here to advance the project. Perhaps you could confirm and save us all a lot of time; otherwise, unless you have something constructive to contribute, please troll somewhere else. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Generics or specifics?

We have a source that clearly identifies the aircraft as a Boeing 777-2H6ER, yet some editors revert this to the generic boeing 777-200ER. Why is this? We have the opportunity here to present accurate information but are failing to do so. Mjroots (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I explained it to you and the other Einstein on my talk page. For the participants of special Olympics, I'll repeat. Aircraft type is Boeing 777-200ER. H6 is a Boeing client code. We have an article about it. Stating aircraft TYPE with a client code is incorrect. Stop the edit war and READ before you WRITE. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Le Grand Bleu:, Wikipedia works on consensus. Removal of verified information "because you don't like it" is not a valid reason for removal IMHO. Whilst this discussion takes place, I've restored the verified information. I would suggest that you don't remove it again, under pain of a block for edit warring. Should the consensus reached here be that we do not use the customer code, then we can revert to the generic description. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a client code is irrelevant. It is being presented in the article as an identifier for the aircraft, as cited in the source. That is all. Furthermore, being abusive to other editor is unproductive and grounds for blocking (again). If you don't like playing with others, you don't have to play here. —sroc 💬 16:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sroc: - his ball has been taken away. Now, maybe the rest of us can discuss this issue in peace. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it worth reminding people we had exactly the same discussion after Asiana 214? See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214/Archive_1#Explanation_needed:_What_is_a_.22Boeing_777-28EER.22.3F The relevant information is the aircraft model of 777-200ER, the customer's preference in cabin furnishings expressed by 777-2H6ER is unlikely to be significant and confusing to anyone except industry insiders (and still confusing to most of us). 82.45.87.103 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand the consensus on Asiana 214 was that the full customer code -2H6ER was used in the "aircraft" section but the model (200ER for example) was used in the introduction and infobox and just 777 elsewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Which seems to be what we have at the minute. I can live with it, but it doesn't add any useful information over 777-200ER. If I could go ten years on 777 development without running into a customer code... 82.45.87.103 (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I find the reference to "For the participants of special Olympics" truly disgusting. DBaK (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Malaysia Plane Carrying 239 Missing as Search Widens >> Malaysia Airlines flight 'presumed crashed' >> Plane-Debris Hunt Turns Up Suspected Aircraft Window Part>> Security lapse probed over missing plane (Lihaas (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)).

Calligraphers

Per this link, I wonder if the artists organization is the Chinese Calligraphy Artists Association. I imagine the name gets multiple forms in translation to English. I believe this is a picture of the artist Gaosheng Meng (or Meng Gaosheng), believed to be on the plane. The organization may also be translated as the Chinese Calligraphers Association, which is mentioned on WP repeatedly. Could also be separate groups. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hotel where families were taken

This content was removed with the rationale "not notable":

• "Relatives traveled to Beijing Capital Airport to pick up passengers. Many were asked to travel to the Crowne Plaza Beijing Lido hotel (S: 北京丽都皇冠假日酒店) in Chaoyang District, where authorities would provide them with information.

I disagree. Hotels can become notable when they are gathering places after plane crashes. For instance: the hotel at JFK Airport after the TWA Flight 800 crash (and I think it may have hosted families from Swissair 111 and Egyptair 990 too?) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK we will have to disagree I cant see the location of where some relatives were taken ever to be notable, fairly standard practice to stop them hanging about the airport itself. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a standard practice, but the hotel gets associated with the crash. Example:

• Leland, John. "Grieving At Ground Zero." Newsweek. August 4, 1996 - A Newsweek article all about how the hotel was used by grieving families from TWA Flight 800.
• "The six-story Ramada, just off Kennedy airport, has been ground zero for the grief and incomprehension surrounding TWA Flight 800. It has been a place of prayer and condolences, of unlimited bar tabs and a presidential visit."

If/when a Wikipedian in New York photographs this hotel I'd add the photo to the Wikipedia article on TWA800.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Still disagree being mentioned still does mean it is notable enough to go into an accident article and a picture would be clearly OTT. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In the case of the JFK Ramada I strongly disagree that it's OTT when this article talks about how that hotel became the "Heartbreak Hotel" (this time in relation to Swissair 111, but this article refers to how TWA 800 families were in the same hotel) - this article even states why they use that hotel: "Officials said they decided to use the hotel again mainly because it is centrally situated. At the airport entrance, the hotel's dull white exterior is the first sight to greet weary travelers."

• Adamson, April. "229 Victims Knew Jet Was In Trouble Airport Inn Becomes Heartbreak Hotel Again." Philadelphia Inquirer. September 4, 1998.

I'll scour sources to see if Lido's association with this crash is talked about extensively.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Key word: can. Maybe hotels can become notable in some cases, but until it does, Wikipedia doesn't speculate on what can happen. —sroc 💬 17:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

But we should keep our eyes peeled for the possibility. "Hotel Near JFK Airport is Familiar With Airline Tragedy." CNN. November 17, 2011. - I'm not quite sure it's a maybe anymore with the Ramada JFK :) - Anyway, don't worry, I'm familiar with WP:CRYSTAL. As I said, I'll be on the lookout for anything talking about the Lido being associated with this crash. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Some things about the Lido hotel:

• Sudworth, John (BBC): "The relatives and friends waiting to meet passengers from flight MH370 have been taken to the Lido Hotel, a short drive from Beijing Airport's Terminal Three." - From: "Malaysia Airlines flight to Beijing vanishes." BBC. 8 March 2014.
• "MISSING MH370 : Beijing media focus high on missing plane." New Straits Times. 8 March 2014. - An MAS official held a press conference there

But so far there hasn't been a link or definitive info ("Lido was chosen because...") - So I'll ask the China WikiProject if any Chinese sources can answer the question: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#To_WPChina_editors.2C_please_help_with_any_Chinese_sources_for_Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

China Southern Airlines codeshare passengers

A footnote identifying passengers who were travelling on the China Southern Airlines codeshare has been added several times,[15][16][17] supposedly because "This information is necessary for a codeshare flight, and the article also need voice from China Southern Airlines" (according to one of the edit summaries), but of course Wikipedia is not a forum to air particular views nor a corporate mouthpiece.

Why is this information relevant? Is it necessary to distinguish these passengers from the others? They are all in the same boat, so to speak. —sroc 💬 17:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, other agencies may have sold tickets as well but hardly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

May depend on the involvement of the other airline. In Swissair Flight 111's case it was a codeshare with Delta and Delta sent employees to deal with those at JFK Airport

• "Airlines act swiftly to help relatives New U.S. law required detailed emergency plan." Boston Globe at the The Baltimore Sun. September 4, 1998.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

How is the codeshare relevant for our list of passengers, though? CSA isn't sending help for its passengers separately, are they? —sroc 💬 17:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. I can check to see if China Southern is responding at all, and if so, how. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble accessing China Southern's website. Maybe it's being overloaded? I'll check news articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being facetious, as if CSA would send its own rescue crews; my point being that they're all in the same situation, regardless of where they bought their tickets. —sroc 💬 18:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Delta did send employees to deal with the Swissair 111 families in 1998 (the Giuliani aide praised both Swissair and Delta for their responses)

• "By midnight yesterday, nearly 100 Delta agents were stationed inside Terminal 3 at JFK. The agents directed about five families who showed up during the night to the Ramada, where they received immediate counseling. " (from the Boston Globe/Baltimore Sun article)

So I wanted to check if China Southern was doing the same thing. However I see nothing mentioning this crash on the CSA English site (I checked the news section) and so far the only source to say something more than CSA codeshared was the one stating which nationalities bought the tickets through CSA. I'll see if the Chinese website says anything. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems like there might be Chinese sources which say what China Southern is up to, as "MH370 中国南方航空" brings up many articles mentioning "南航" (Nanhang is China Southern), so I'll ask the Chinese WikiProject for help: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#To_WPChina_editors.2C_please_help_with_any_Chinese_sources_for_Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 WhisperToMe (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This may be becoming more relevant. The China Southern Airlines codeshare tickets bought using the two stolen passports were apparently bought together with two further China Southern Airlines codeshare tickets which are now also being investigated as suspicious. 183.89.4.6 (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI. Chinese media have been running the story for hours, showing the two tickets are consecutively numbered. BBC World has just claimed on Twitter to have confirmed the story. Kxx (talk | contribs) 08:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

While the tickets in question may have been sold by a code share partner, the responsibility for identity check rests with the boarding airline (MAS). WWGB (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, not all of the 7 tickets that were sold as China Southern (on a Malaysia Airlines operated flight) are suspicious. I checked out the the Dutch one and the Dutch media indicate that all available evidence indicates that she boarded the flight.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

# of hull losses

Wouldn't this be the 4th hull loss of a 777 instead of 3 as the article says? an Egyptair Boeing 777-200 SU-GBP had a cockpit fire and was dammagedbeyond repair http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20110729-0 Redalert2fan (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit : someone else added it already Redalert2fan (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this image is suitable for use

The Republic of Singapore Air Force's facebook page has a photograph of the Singaporean C-130 involved in the search taking off here. I'm not sure if putting up this photo at the Singapore section under Responses would be appropriate or even needed. No other photographs of the said C-130 were officially released. If deemed suitable, please assist in putting it up, as i can't seems to find the way to. TL T 17:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It could be used if the copyright cleared, but it is a really bland image compared to what we could use, so that is why I am lukewarm about using it at the moment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Old wingtip accident

I challenged the addition of a mention of an old accident to 9M-MRO when it had a broken wintip after a collision, but it has been re-added. We dont have any evidence that a minor accident is relevant to the aircraft going missing so should not be included, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should take the registration and the make out too? They're not relevant to the a/c having gone missing. Why don't we axe the whole 'Aircraft' section? The text does not claim it's played any part in the accident. It's background info on the a/c. — Lfdder (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If it played no part in the aircraft going missing as far as we know so why is a minor accident a few years ago relevant ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant to the a/c, obviously. The Aircraft section is about the aircraft. — Lfdder (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Flightglobal are also reporting the accident as non-notable at http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/missing-mas-777-200-had-no-major-prior-incidents-396793/ "Missing MAS 777-200 had no major prior incidents" MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Definite keep, details prior history of the aircraft Kage Acheron (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favour of keeping. In all likelihood, it will be irrelevant, but maybe an investigation might prove otherwise (a faulty repair job waiting to go wrong). There's no harm keeping this in, provided there's no suggestion that it was a factor without any further evidence. Better yet, if there's a reliable source saying that it's not relevant, add that in the article to dispell any doubt. —sroc 💬 18:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favour of keeping, per British European Airways Flight 548 and other articles. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep it, no sense in leaving it out unless somebody wants to cover it up for some reason, it may end up being part of the cause like the repair mentioned above. No reason to delete information unless it is harmful somewhow Piali (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"it may end up being part of the cause" is not a valid reason for inclusion and "readers may draw the wrong conclusion" is not valid reason for exclusion. — Lfdder (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Mozambique

Consensus is that the information fails WP:V via WP:RS. Discussion is now unproductive. Please report further disruption at WP:ANI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
.}} Some users are disagreeing (in an edit war) on the help off Mozambique for SAR, anyone knows more off this ? Redalert2fan (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC) The link Gjs has provided says absolutely nothing about Mozambique, and the numbers are utterly bogus (53 million medical personnel, when Mozambique only has a population of 24 million) Kage Acheron (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC) No, it's 53 million in Mozambique Currency (Mozambican metical). Get your facts right and stop making assumptions. --Gįs Contismalter (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Let's keep this civil guys ;) and on toppic Redalert2fan (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC) This user is a troll. Pending IP ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecodingproject (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC) My bad on currency, still, source says absolutely nothing about Mozambique Kage Acheron (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I think the guy is a troll too. He just wants an edit war. Can someone warn User:Kage Acheron? Also, what part is not reliable? Can you read Portuguese? --Gįs Contismalter (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Google tranlsation of the cited article - A Malaysia Airlines plane carrying 227 passengers and 12 crew disappeared over the South China Sea on Saturday and must have fallen, since vessels near your path countries scour a large area in search for wreckage. The Vietnamese state media, quoting a navy officer, said the Boeing 777-200ER that ran from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing fell in southern Vietnam, but the Minister of Transport Malaysia denied that any crash site has been identified. "We are doing everything within our power to locate the plane. We are doing everything we can to ensure that all possible angles have been checked," said Minister Hishamuddin Hussein told reporters near the international airport in Kuala Lumpur. "We are looking for accurate information from the military in Malaysia. They are awaiting details of the Vietnamese side," said the minister. The airline reported that persons at least 14 nationalities were among the 227 passengers, at least 152 Chinese, 38 Malays, Indonesians seven, six Australian five Indians, four French and three Americans. Two children were aboard. If the fall of the aircraft is confirmed, the episode marks the deadliest crash of the Boeing 777-200ER since the aircraft entered service 19 years ago. The plane disappeared without issuing a warning sign, similar to the Air France flight that was a route between Rio de Janeiro and Paris in June 2009 form. The plane, an Airbus A330-200 disappeared for hours without issuing a warning. The aircraft was carrying 228 people. On Saturday afternoon, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak, said there was still no sign of the plane that disappeared from radar in the South China Sea and said search operations were intensified. The flight MH370 made the last contact with air traffic controllers when it was 120 nautical miles east of the Malaysian city of Kota Bharu, in the country's coast, said the president of the airline, Jauhari Yahya said in a statement. The tracking site flightaware.com flights showed the flying northeast tickets on Malaysia, after taking off. The plane climbed to an altitude of 35,000 feet and disappeared from records a minute later, while still gaining altitude. Now, where does it say anything about Mozabique giving assistance? Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I request to stay on topic please and talk about the source, not warning and banning. I cant read Portuguese but I understand they are sending something and something with money. could you please translate the entire section off the source that is relevant if possible? might be more accurate than google translate Redalert2fan (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC) The article does not say anything about Mozambique. This user is a con. Firstly, User:Mjroots, you removed my comment on this talk page. You understand that is against the rules right? Secondly, you used Google Translate, which is not recommened as Portuguese has complex grammar rules. Read the FULL article or get a Portuguese guy to read it for you. Thirdly, my removed comment was: I think the guy is a troll too. He just wants an edit war. Can someone warn User:Kage Acheron? Also, what part is not reliable? Can you read Portuguese? --Gįs Contismalter (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Admins: Look at the edits of Mjroots and you will see he removed my comment. --Gįs Contismalter (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Mjroots is an admin, I think he did it on accident, Gįs could you translate the relevant section of your source? Redalert2fan (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC) The section that User:Gįs Contismalter cited over on User talk:Mark Chung of "O militar de Moçambique, desde um avião leve Cessna Skymaster de 5439 milhas de distância para ajudar com os esforços de busca e salvamento. Presidente Armando Guebuza também forneceu 53.000.000 metical moçambicano por destroços de limpeza e conservação esforços. A Força Aérea Moçambique tem vindo a trabalhar em estreita colaboração com os Popular do Vietnã Força Aérea, a fim de anverso e localizar sobreviventes." is not even present in the article, and has nothing to do with grammar or the language. Kage Acheron (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC) @Gįs Contismalter:, redalert2fan is correct, your comment got deleted by accident in an edit conflict. I've restored it to its rightful place. Now, I suggest that we all get back to some productive editing and stop this edit war, else I can forsee some bans being dished out. I don't read Portuguese, but Google Translate does a pretty good job on all major European languages. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Can you warn the user to stop posting his bogus Mozambique information in this amazing article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecodingproject (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Yes I can, I scanned the newspaper: Now stop this stupidity and re-instate my Mozambique claim. File:A5f2670974884b9692dcc02994316b2c.0.jpg Newspaper clipping --Gįs Contismalter (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC) According to what you have posted on my talk page, there is a paragraph concerning Mozambique in that link. "O militar de Moçambique, desde um avião leve Cessna Skymaster de 5439 milhas de distância para ajudar com os esforços de busca e salvamento. Presidente Armando Guebuza também forneceu 53.000.000 metical moçambicano por destroços de limpeza e conservação esforços. A Força Aérea Moçambique tem vindo a trabalhar em estreita colaboração com os Popular do Vietnã Força Aérea, a fim de anverso e localizar sobreviventes." A simple search with Ctrl+F fails to locate the text / paragraph in the link you provided. This doesn't even require the understanding of Portuguese. Please explain. Edit: That newspaper looks horribly similar to the Online Newspaper Clipping Generator. --Mark Chung (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC) NOTE: make sure to end your post with four "tilde" characters ~~~~ that makes it easier to read and see who posted Redalert2fan (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC) It's obvious that whoever made that pic used a fake news article generator online. Thecodingproject (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC) To the person that keeps forgetting to sign their signature: Its from Mozambique Jornal Notícias. Remember that news websites change their information frequently just like Wikipedia. But I have provided an actual real clipping from the newspaper. Now can an ADMIN please confirm that I can reinstate my section? And User:Thecodingproject, please be civil and don't make assumptions. Thank you very much. --Gįs Contismalter (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC) User: Gįs Contismalter is illegally deleting posts from the talk page pointing out his newspaper is fake Kage Acheron (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I have re-added my deleted comment: Newspaper appears to be a fake, created by The Newspaper Clipping Generator: http://www.fodey.com/generators/newspaper/snippet.asp The identical background and font are evident Kage Acheron (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC) You obviously removed my signature. Here is the Wikipedian newspaper stating that you should be banned. http://r9.fodey.com/2305/b9d9da3364494507bb05cefc6bbe63bb.0.jpg --Mark Chung (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC) LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecodingproject (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 March 2014‎ (UTC) It is curious that there is no mention of the crash or the response of the paper's website, yet we're led to believe it's a front-page news story by the clipping provided. This administrator is inclined to leave the content out until it is verified further, by either a story at the web page or a full-page image of the newspaper, including the full masthead. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC) A search of the newspaper's website fails to find any mention on the claim. @Gįs Contismalter: - carry on with this and you will be blocked! Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I believe it is quite obvious that Gis is trolling, and needs to be banned. Kage Acheron (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC) This user needs to be banned. He's a conman. Thecodingproject (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I removed the offensive content, admins take a look at the revision historyRedalert2fan (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I am beginning to think that User:Kage Acheron and Thecodingproject are the same person. Sockpuppet investigation needed. --Gįs Contismalter (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Please ban this user ASAP Thecodingproject (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Okay guys, this section has completely derailed, and has nothing to do with the question I asked. Please see the reply from C.Fred for clearing this up. @admins, may I please clean this section up and remove irrelevant stuff? Redalert2fan (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Kunming attack

If the media starts making a connection to the Kunming train station attack the week before, it would be worth mentioning here. That attack was the latest in a string of attacks by Uighur separatists. It is entirely possible, though speculative that there could be sympathetic attacks on Chinese outside China. Piali (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Found on BBC: Piali (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The second and perhaps more frightening possibility is that an act of terrorism downed the airliner. This incident comes just a week after 29 people were killed in a mass-stabbing in south-western China that authorities blamed on Uighur militants, and security has again been stepped up at transport hubs in China. It is important to stress, though, that no-one has admitted carrying out an attack.

I think we only should add it when there are confirmed reports that there is an connection, we all know how the media can be Redalert2fan (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Seconded, we'll know more once wreckage has been found. Dawn is at about 23:00 UTC 8 March. Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

US response

in the US response section, it states that the US "is sending". Has this been sent or is it slated to be sent? the sentence needs to be changed accordingly as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Primergrey (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the BBC, USS Pinckney is being sent to assist in the search. Mjroots (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

my point is, if it has been sent it should say so and if not, it should read "is planning to send". Primergrey (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Policy, etc. on icons and links in section titles?

Are there any policies, guidelines, etc. on whether it is good/okay/bad to include icons and links in section titles? Those have been added and removed several times in the Response section. Kxx (talk | contribs) 22:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Bad, see WP:MOSFLAG. Mjroots (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have removed the flag templates, and you have quoted WP:MOSFLAG at Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. However, I believe that the use of flag templates in that article falls under "Appropriate Use" in WP:WORDPRECEDENT.

Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

Also, notice that how the Chinese Wikipedia article used the flag templates.

Please enlighten me if I had breached any of the guidelines given. Thank you. --Mark Chung (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"Headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." "Headings should not contain images, including flag icons." Both quoted from WP:HEAD Kxx (talk | contribs) 23:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible distress call

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinatimes.com%2Frealtimenews%2F20140308003502-260401 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.220.44 (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The only problem with that is that American servicemembers haven't been stationed at U-Tapao in almost forty years. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hope of survival

Yes, it's very nice and gallant to hope that, after 30+ hours, any of the crew and passengers are still alive. However, in the absence of any sources, it seems rather inappropriate to describe them using the present tense. It's not incorrect to say "the pilot was ...", etc. This is fully supported by the sources available. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I completely agree. Simple logic tells us they are all dead. The plane is not in the sky because of the amount of fuel it has, nor is it at an airport, and its last known location was above the sea(if even, hypothetically, it still crashed on the ground, the wreckage would have been discovered). Therefore, we can deduce that it crashed in the sea. The human body cannot last in ice cold water for 30+ hours. They are all dead. No debate. I'd go all the way to recommending simply stating that this is an airliner accident which resulted in 239 casualties, since there is no other possible logical alternative, but obviously that would go against Wikipedia's policies. JDiala (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidence is required. When we don't know, we say nothing. There's no evidence, so it's inappropriate to add information to an encyclopedia entry on the topic. Leondz (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not "saying nothing"... by using the present tense, we're saying they're all still alive. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the pilot's last known state of being was living, so that's what this encyclopedia must go by. JDiala (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So we assume that all those mentioned in Wikipedia articles are still living, unless we have WP:RS evidence they have died? That's seems somewhat surprising and certainly contrary to WP:COMMONSENSE. To me, it sounds more encyclopedic to say, for any given aircraft flight (that has certainly now ended) "the pilot was... " etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the South China Sea is anything from ice cold, so you could likely survive many days out there before the elements got to you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy (one of the most stringently enforced of our policies here) to announce (or imply) that someone (under 115 years of age) is dead without some supporting evidence. If an expert says (in a reliable source) that they are most likely dead, we should of course include that information (wth a citation). But we should not alter the article to reflect an assumption unsupported by evidence. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it's theoretically possible for there to be survivors. Even for days to come. But if one compares this article with typical news coverage elsewhere, Wikipedia looks (um, how should I say this..) "somewhat out of touch with expected realities". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This reflects the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This reflects the fact that Wikipedia exists in a separate world where the normal laws of nature don't necessarily apply. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies in this regard have more to do with laws of man (e.g., libel and defamation) than nature. However, we attempt to apply them consistently, even when, as here, legal action is unlikely. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Still no news--Nowa (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

For all we know, there are survivors on a life raft. Wikipedia is not in competition with news media to declare everyone dead in order to sell copy. Also, pay attention to agreement of tense where some text says "were" (past tense) and others say "is" and "has" (present tense). —sroc 💬 01:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If terrorists took over the plane, couldn't they have landed it on some clandestine drug airstrip or abandoned airport in the Golden Triangle so they could ransom off the passengers? The plane is only missing - God willing, they'll turn up alive. Wnt (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was concerned with agreement of tense, as per my edit summaries, thanks. I wasn't really suggesting that we daub banner headlines across the page saying all hope is lost, everyone's dead just to "sell copy". If flight MH370 had landed as normal in Beijing (or even if it really has been hijacked and has landed elsewhere) would the article normally still say be saying "All crew members are Malaysian. The captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, is a 53-year-old from the city ..." Those roles exist, as with passenger lists, only for the duration of the flight? But yes, of course, after disappearing from all ATC radar displays and making no radio calls for over 30 hours, they could be all sat at some fully-functioning (but unknown) airport that has no contact with the outside world. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. there were plenty of perfectly reliable sources using the phrase "feared dead" yesterday: [18], [19], [20]. But maybe we need a quote from "an aviation expert" to suggest they are no longer alive.

"Feared dead" ≠ "presumed dead" ≠ "dead". —sroc 💬 23:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Details of groups of corporate travelers

This edit removed:

• "There are 20 Chinese painters in this list<ref>{{cite web | url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-03/06/c_126227765.htm | title=中国艺术家在吉隆坡举办“中国梦 丹青颂”书画交流会 | publisher=新华网 | date=2014-03-06 | accessdate=2014-03-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.qq.com/a/20140308/009340.htm|title=国务院国宾礼特供艺术家等画家乘坐失联航班|publisher=[[腾讯]]|accessdate=2014-03-08}}</ref>, and there are two workers who work in [[Huawei]] and one worker who works in [[ZTE]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.qq.com/a/20140308/009404.htm|title=华为确认有两名员工在失联飞机上|publisher=[[腾讯]]|accessdate=2014-03-08}}</ref><ref>[http://tech.sina.com.cn/t/2014-03-08/19239224122.shtml 中兴通讯确认一名员工搭乘马航失联航班]</ref>"

I personally think that if there are large groups of corporate travelers or large blocks (such as the group of Japanese university graduates on Turkish Airlines Flight 981), they should be named. Sources are in Chinese, so if anyone wants help I can contact the China WikiProject WhisperToMe (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Which policy or guideline supports the inclusion of such information? A group of non-notable people is still not notable, unless the group satisfies WP:GNG, for example, a sport team, band etc. WWGB (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is far too soon to put the details of passengers' lives, including employment, in the article. Remember, we do not have a deadline. I have seen a number of news sources already publishing photos and capsule sketches of passengers (mostly the non-Chinese), far too soon I think since the fate of the craft is still unknown, much less its passengers. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(That should not stop anyone from researching and compiling the info, just from publishing it in the article.) Dwpaul ^Talk 01:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I am aware there is no deadline. It is common for large groups to disappear, so I think accurate details of missing groups (such as the group of college students on Pan Am Flight 103) may appear quickly. I wonder how long it took for it to be confirmed that Syracuse University lost a group of students on the Pan Am flight, or for the group of high school French club students on TWA Flight 800? There's also the case of the Chinese summer camp students on Asiana Airlines Flight 214. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This edit was described as "not notable" in this rever. The more sources I see discussing these famous Chinese artists, the more strongly I disagree.

"Of the Chinese passengers, there was a group of artists and their families who had attended a calligraphy exhibition,<ref name=BraniganHodal>Branigan, Tania and Kate Hodal. "[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/08/malaysia-airlines-vigil-missing-plane Malaysia Airlines: a flood of tears at the vigil for missing flight]." ''[[The Guardian]]''. March 8, 2014. Retrieved on March 9, 2014. "More than 150 were Chinese; they included artists and their families, returning from a calligraphy exhibition in Kuala Lumpur."</ref> "Chinese Dream: Red and Green Painting",<ref name=Artdeleg>"[http://news.asiaone.com/news/relax/missing-mh370-delegation-24-artists-china-aboard-flight Missing MH370: Delegation of 24 artists from China aboard flight]." The Star/Asia News Network. Saturday March 8, 2014. Retrieved on March 9, 2014.</ref> in [[Kuala Lumpur]] and were returning home.<ref name=BraniganHodal/> The 24 artists originated from [[Beijing]], [[Jiangsu]], [[Shandong]], [[Shanghai]], [[Sichuan]], and [[Xinjiang]]. They included [[Liu Rusheng]], [[Meng Gaosheng]], and [[Wang Linsi]].<ref name=Artdeleg/>"

Here's a source describing Meng Gaosheng as a famous Chinese calligrapher. WhisperToMe (talk)

The source says "celebrated" rather than "famous". I think you pushed the envelope too far when you started adding a list of redlinks, and cities of residence which is not notable information. WWGB (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The media is also desperate to find important people on the flight. Incidents like 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash and Munich air disaster have more attention than "routine" crashes. WWGB (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The bar of notability does not go below "a group of Chinese artists". Any detail beyond that has very questionable notability. Also, singling them out in the section leaves the impression of they being significantly notable among all passengers, which is unlikely the case. Kxx (talk | contribs) 03:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The compromise edit appears rather weak to me, as not including numbers and details makes it even less notable. Kage Acheron (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely the point. By singling those three names out, The Star/Asia One is very much saying that it is those three artists who are famous above the other passengers. I gathered more info on Meng Gaosheng - he is the China Calligraphic Artists Association vice president - and a NYT article describes Zhang Jinquan as being "a well-known calligrapher"

• Fitzsimmons, Emma G. "Few Answers for Families of Missing on Airliner." The New York Times. March 9, 2014.

Recent Sina article about Meng: "蒙高生等24名书画界人士在失联飞机上." Sina. March 9, 2014. (I have to look at Google Translator)

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Then you certainly need to read this sentence quoted from that page: "早报记者向多位书法界资深人士了解蒙高生的情况，均表示并不熟悉，也不了解。" Kxx (talk | contribs) 03:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Using mdbg.net, I analyzed the sentence 熟悉 shú​xī means "to be familiar with / to know well" and it is talking about senior people in the Chinese calligraphy community. You are ZH-N and I am not, but does it mean that they simply did not know him well (as a person) and were not informed about the incident? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

They do not know Meng well. Kxx (talk | contribs) 03:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

To justify their mentioning a head count is necessary. If that were a group of two people, the media probably would not have picked up the information at all. Kxx (talk | contribs) 03:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There are individual diplomats/government officials/scholars who are picked up by the media when they die in plane crashes: Lauda Air Flight 004 and Pan Am Flight 103 had examples of that. If one famous artist was in charge of several other artists in a delegation, that would be notable enough - If the press highlighted Clemens August Andreae and his group of university students for Lauda 004, then Meng Gaosheng's delegation is important too. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The Dongfang Daily that you brought up casts doubt on their notability already. They are not even known to experienced people in the calligraphy circle. Kxx (talk | contribs) 03:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So if, say, Meng was in fact not an experienced person in calligraphy, what would he be doing as a vice president of a calligraphy association, unless he's being mistaken for someone with the same name? If Chinese sources contradict what English sources say, it's helpful to bring them up on this page and explain why. I find the explanation for removal "not notable" with no qualifiers at times to be very unhelpful (this newspaper/source I am reading says they are notable so why is this Wikipedian saying they aren't?). Bringing out sources and quoting from them and explaining is very helpful. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe bad word choice of mine is causing confusion. I could not think of a precise word for "资深". I did not mean that Meng was inexperienced. The linked page merely says that the journalist asked several people with deep involvement in calligraphy about Meng and was told they did not know him well. Kxx (talk | contribs) 04:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. So it may mean they didn't know him well as a person, so there wasn't much about his personal life they could talk about. I can check if there are articles before the disappearance about him. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The page is probably revealing bigger problems (as far as WP:N is concerned) with Meng's titles. In the middle, it says that a vice director of the National Museum of China failed to locate the registration of Meng's calligraphy association with the Ministry of Civil Affairs. Meng is also claimed to be the director of some "Art Troupe of China". But the only information the comes up in Google searches is all related to this MAS flight. Kxx (talk | contribs) 04:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made an edit reflecting the head count. Kage Acheron (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Another possible line of investigation would be whether the China Calligraphic Artists Association itself is notable, or if its president has issued an official statement. Incidentally, 资深 is short for 资格深 and means "with deep qualifications", a Chinese way of referring to people whose work is widely recognized in their field. "并不熟悉，也不了解" means that these nameless "deeply qualified" calligraphers "were not familiar with, nor did they know" the artists who were on the plane. I asked a calligrapher friend here in China about the people on the plane. He said they were all "second raters" (二流子), which I thought was pretty cruel. Anyway, the journalist's claim will not be worth much as long as we don't know who these people "with deep qualifications" are. Madalibi (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I could not determine if the CCAA was truly notable. its hard to determine their english language name, and whether there are many similarly named groups. i think we are going to have to wait until there is clear indication, perhaps from the largest recognized body of artists in china (whatever that is), that this was a notable group. we dont know if they are victims of a western journalism bias, or just less truly notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The report brought up by WTM says the association/society or whatever is registered in Hong Kong, which makes it very hard to establish notability given an event of national impact. Kxx (talk | contribs) 06:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Meng Gaosheng 蒙高生 is one of fifteen vice-presidents of the China Calligraphy Society, says this list on the Society's structure on the Society's official website. The official Chinese name of the Society is "Zhongguo shufa yishujia xiehui" 中国书法艺术家协会 (literally "China Society of Calligraphic Artists", but I'm not sure what its official English name is (if it has any). There is no message or news item on the Society's website (http://www.zgsfj.com.cn/), which has been almost completely inactive since late September 2013. Madalibi (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Aha, so it's more like a vice president of a corportation versus a vice president of a country. I'll do a site search to see if there's any English name. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Some electronic searches and posts on "Maimaitijiang Abula" 买买提江·阿布拉, a painter/calligrapher from Xinjiang, are getting filtered or blocked in China, probably to avoid scapegoating of Xinjiang people after what happened at the Kunming train station a few days ago. Madalibi (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if he is already notable or if he will become notable. Anyway, on that domain, I see two translations for two organizations:

"中国书法家协会（CHINESE CALLIGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION）" - http://www.zgsfj.com.cn/nd.jsp?id=729&_np=5_365 - http://www.webcitation.org/6NwEPjkIX

"中国美术家协会[1]（英文：CHINA ARTISTS ASSOCIATION）简称中国美协，" - http://www.zgsfj.com.cn/nd.jsp?id=730&_np=5_365 - http://www.webcitation.org/6NwETWYEG

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

These are both unrelated entities. Kxx (talk | contribs) 06:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

To be specific, 中国书法家协会 and 中国美术家协会 are well-known entities established and endorsed by the central government according to their official websites. 中国书法艺术家协会 is something totally previously unknown. Kxx (talk | contribs) 06:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the http://www.zgsfj.com.cn website (中国书法艺术家协会), of which Meng Gaosheng is one of the vice-presidents, is unrelated to http://www.ccagov.com.cn (Chinese Calligraphers Association 中国书法家协会) and http://www.caanet.org.cn (China Artists Association 中国美术家协会). They are three distinct associations. Madalibi (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The "About us" page of the Zhongguo shufa yishujia xiehui 中国书法艺术家协会 is all about the work of its president Ma Yong'an 马永安. The page is full of what we would call "weasel words" about how wonderful his contributions are to Chinese calligraphy, and praises his invention of a sixth "script" to add to the traditional five. Sounds very self-promotional and not very notable. Madalibi (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Contact at 01:30

Plane ahead of flight had contact at 01:30? A reliable source, but still needs verification before inclusion.--Nowa (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Air France Flight 447 (redux)

Please discuss in only one section

What is the significance of Air France Flight 447, other than being another example of aircraft lost over water (amongst many other aircraft disappearances) and being famous? Why is this relevant for the See also section? —sroc 💬 01:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Let's add Adam Air Flight 574 to that list. —sroc 💬 01:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC) There is already a discussion section about this issue near the top of this page. Perhaps continue there? WWGB (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I just realised this. —sroc 💬 01:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Added per reliable secondary source: Among aviation industry observers, the MH370 is reminiscent of the Air France Airbus 330-203 tragedy where the plane crashed into the sea off Rio de Janeiro on June 1, 2009. Its wreckage was only found two years later.--Nowa (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuel Reserves

I think the statement "When radar contact with the aircraft was lost, it was carrying enough fuel for an additional 7.5 hours of flying time." is in error. The cited source states that it had fuel for a total of 7.5 hours (for a ~5.5 hour flight).

The source says that "At the time of its disappearance, the plane was carrying about 7.5 hours of fuel, Sharuji said". This matches what is written in the article. Kage Acheron (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The plane obviously would've run out of fuel by now, it's heavy news, but there is no doubt now that the airliner has crashed. Gibbyboy15 (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2014 (EST)

Or landed somewhere covertly. Don't make assumptions that aren't reported by reliable sources. —sroc 💬 06:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Passports

It appears that there were two more suspected stolen passports, bringing the total to four: http://my.news.yahoo.com/two-more-europeans-passengers-suspect-identities-onboard-missing-005206266.html Kage Acheron (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I would wait until a more reliable source than Malaysian Insider picks up and verifies that story. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That article says that the two other suspected stolen tickets were also purchased via China Southern Airlines but that the nationalities of these passports has not been reported. This writer seems to be consolidating news reports while also attempting to filter out speculation. He reports "South China Airlines, code share partner of Malaysia Airlines, reported that they sold a total of 7 tickets for the accident flight, amongst them the tickets for the Italian and the Austrian as well as one Dutch, one Malaysian, two Ukrainians and one Chinese." but does not give a source for this.

I got a sense when reading some of the articles that the stolen passport matches are being done on name only and it has not been confirmed yet how well they matched other data stated on the stolen passports such as passport numbers, date of birth, etc. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Correction in case someone searches the news for more data. While the article I cited called it "South China Airlines" the correct name of the airline is "China Southern Airlines". The WP article is using the correct name. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, Xiamen media is reporting that local police has found that a passenger listed in the flight manifest has a different name than the one on file corresponding to the passport ID. The same report also claims that the passport holder is found at home in China. Kxx (talk | contribs) 04:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't it make you wonder just how many people are travelling the world with fake passports, and how effective passport checking is? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And I don't remember any coverage about fake passports with AF 447 or SR 111 or MS 990. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, fake passports is extremely common with immigrants from, uhm, Xiamen's province in China. Timmyshin (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The story about the four passports has been picked up by MSN: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/malaysia-probes-identity-four-passengers-missing-jet-n47861 Kage Acheron (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The latest reports from Chinese media claim that Malaysian civil aviation officials have denied the theory. Let's wait until more coverage is available. Kxx (talk | contribs) 05:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for the info? Thanks. Kage Acheron (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[21]. It is very brief. But given that there has been an instance of conflicting messages from Vietnam, it does not hurt to wait a bit longer until the confusion settles down. Kxx (talk | contribs) 06:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the provided link, it looks like there was a statement made about four stolen passports, while it actually is four people under investigation. But I agree it doesn't hurt to wait. Kage Acheron (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It really says that the Malaysian civil aviation department clarified that only two passengers boarded the flight with stolen passports instead of four as the minister of national defense claimed. Kxx (talk | contribs) 06:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but two stolen passports and four people under investigation aren't mutually contradictory. Kage Acheron (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What I heard from, although this was a fair while ago (well before the last post in this discussion before mine) so could be outdated or wrong, is that four people were under investigation because the tickets for all four, were purchased at the same time and place. As two of these passengers appear to have used stolen passports, it all four became people of interest to the ongoing investigations. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Video of first officer

CNN aired video Saturday that one of their reporters had taken a few weeks ago while flying in the cockpit of a Malaysia Airlines flight from Hong Kong to KL. The man notes that it was the same first officer on that flight (Fariq Ab Hamid) who was a first officer on Flight 370 and that, since he was training on 777s and would be under the supervision of a training captain, it may also have been the same captain on that flight as flight 370. The video aired Saturday can been seen here (relevant section starts around 1:00).

I find this interesting, but am not sure exactly how it could fit into this article. Worth mentioning in the external links? Is an image of one of the crew noteworthy enough that someone could upload a screenshot under fair use? (Note: such a screenshot should just be the quadrant showing the pilots, not including the reporter or CNN logo/text across the bottom. Also necessary, which of the men shown is First officer Hamid...on the right? can someone tell by the uniform?) It would be great if someone could track down the original article/video for the reporter's February 19 flight. AHeneen (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm conflicted by this, as it's CNN and I don't see how we could make use of it, especially since it would give the article a feeling of being a news article. I'm curious as to what others think, as I really don't see a use for this sort of image. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I feel like an image of the first officer wouldn't contribute enough to the article to justify taking it under fair use. Kage Acheron (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No image necessary, None of the flight crew are notable enough to sustain an article on wikipedia; whereas Jane Harrison (GC) and Chesley Sullenberger are. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Contact with another pilot?

Please discuss in only one section

http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-pilot-i-established-contact-with-plane-1.503464?cache=03%2F7.198169%3Fpage%3D0%2F7.212234%3Fkey%3Dmalaysia Timmyshin (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Looks like a duplicate of the "Contact at 01:30" section above, please merge it into that section. Kage Acheron (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry. I don't know how to merge. Timmyshin (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"Prime Minister Najib Razak has apologised for the accident"

I'm not sure this sentence in the Malaysia section is substantiated by the source. The Chinese original says 马来西亚总理就马航客机失联向中方表示歉意, which means "Malaysia's Prime Minister expresses apologies/regrets to CHina over the missing Malaysian Airlines passenger plane". I haven't found any confirmation of "apologies" in English. Expressions like "we express regrets" or "we're sorry that" will often come out as "we apologize for" in Chinese translation. By translating biaoshi qianyi 表示歉意 back into English as "apologies", I think we're over-interpreting. As WWGB, who has just deleted this sentence, rightly points out, people (especially heads of state) usually don't apologize for something they didn't cause. So either we leave that sentence deleted or we replace it with something like "the Malaysian Prime Minister has expressed his regrets to China over the missing plane." What do you think? Madalibi (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find an English language source where Najib offers an apology or even expresses regret. (To do so may well expose his government to litigation as MAS is the national carrier.) The Chinese source may be a translation issue. WWGB (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks fishy to me. Xinhua's information likely came from a MFA page, which does say Najib apologized (or whatever equivalent of 表示歉意), but a report in English linked from the government website mentions nothing apologetic. Kxx (talk | contribs) 08:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, good find. The sentence "Najib extended his deep sympathy and condolences to the families of the Chinese passengers" in the English report is the equivalent of "向中国乘客的亲属表示深切同情和慰问", the sentence that immediately follows the one about 表示歉意. That clause on 表示歉意 is omitted from the English version. I say we keep the "apologies/regret" part out, but we could include the "sympathy and condolences". Madalibi (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs to stay out per WP:BLP unless a reliable source says "apologised", as this carries connotations of fault/blame. —sroc 💬 23:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Harm to whales and dolphins due to sonar black box search

I heard this topic discussed on the radio. If the sea is deep, it will require the Navies to increase the sonar wattage and cause negative impact to endangered sea mammals in the area.

That would only be the case if the black-box was being searched for using active sonar, which for something the size of the black-box would be ludicrous (and until we know roughly the crash-site it would be ludicrous for something the size of the full aircraft as well). The black-box has a low-wattage acoustic pinger with a 30 day battery life and the recovery team will be listening for that with passive sonar. For analogy, they're listening for a whisper, rather than yelling to cause an echo. There's a discussion of the issues involved here; http://www.hydro-international.com/issues/articles/id1130-Deepwater_Black_Box_Retrieval.html (This is a perfect example of how media talking heads who don't understand the subject can get things so wrong they're actually worse than useless).82.45.87.103 (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently a spokesperson for PETA started this off. Not here to discuss politics but PETA have been known to rigorously criticise what they don't specialise in. --The Count of Tuscany (TALK) 03:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Communication between MH370 and the other aircraft

Bearing in mind this is coming from one, unnamed and unconfirmed, source would it be more appropriate to rephrase to

The captain reportedly established contact with the crew of MH370 just after 01:30, but could only hear "mumbling"

or similar?

Fsxfaulder (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think "reportedly" is one of those weasel words. Everything we include is based on reports in reliable sources. Is it verifiable or not? If it needs to be qualified, say "The captain reported establishing contact…". Obviously it's the captain's claim, not the captain's sister's cousin's roommate. —sroc 💬 00:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this has now been amended
Fsxfaulder (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Useless sentence in lede

Despite an ongoing search and rescue operation, China has urged Malaysia to intensify its efforts.

This sentence is totally useless in the lede, if not at all. It tells us nothing about the search and rescue process. Suggest it be (best) removed or moved under Response->China session. --Elpmoi (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is the name in italics?

Should it not be bold? JDiala (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. It was an evident typo since the quotation marks were unmatched. —sroc 💬 03:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Repetition in lede

The lede currently reads:

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370/MAS370) – also known as China Southern Airlines Flight 748 (CZ748) under codeshare – is a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing, China. On 8 March 2014, the aircraft operating the flight – a Boeing 777 carrying 227 passengers and 12 crew – lost contact with air traffic control approximately 40 minutes after take-off and was reported missing shortly thereafter. The cause of the disappearance remains unknown.

The aircraft departed Kuala Lumpur for the scheduled six-hour flight at 00:41 on 8 March local time (UTC+8). Air Traffic Control lost contact with the aircraft at about 01:22 while it was over the Gulf of Thailand, and reported it missing at 02:40. An ongoing joint search-and-rescue effort, focusing on the Gulf of Thailand, Straits of Malacca, and the South China Sea, is being conducted by co-operating agencies of numerous national governments.

The highlighted section is redundant as it basically covers in slightly more detail what was said in the preceding sentence and what is set out in section in the following section, "Incident". I suggest the highlighted section be deleted, and "The cause of the disappearance remains unknown" be moved to the beginning of the second sentence, as follows:

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370/MAS370) – also known as China Southern Airlines Flight 748 (CZ748) under codeshare – is a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing, China. On 8 March 2014, the aircraft operating the flight – a Boeing 777 carrying 227 passengers and 12 crew – lost contact with air traffic control approximately 40 minutes after take-off and was reported missing shortly thereafter.

The cause of the disappearance remains unknown. An ongoing joint search-and-rescue effort, focusing on the Gulf of Thailand, Straits of Malacca, and the South China Sea, is being conducted by co-operating agencies of numerous national governments.

—sroc 💬 03:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I might add that it's thanks to various editors working to make a succinct introductory paragraph that means it's well covered and can be abbreviated as suggested. Thanks, everyone! —sroc 💬 03:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Attention: "Nationalities of people aboard Flight 370" table

Please take a look at the "Nationalities of people aboard Flight 370" table. Notice that when you try to sort the rows via number of passengers, it seems like only the 1st digit is recognized. (In other words, the sequence goes from 1,1,1,152,2...) No such error is seen on the total column, though. --Mark Chung (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed by adding data-sort-value="1" | before the cell to force the data to sort as "1" regardless of footnote. —sroc 💬 07:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Passengers using false identities

I think there's enough information now to say it's not terrorism. This means you can officially laugh at me if it's wrong. The relevant details I think should be in the lede now. I just have age and nationality, not the name. Eventually the whole section about the passengers with false documents should be changed to reflect the final result.

I didn't see the BBC saying it, but I suppose the person that was identified had the Austrian passport, and the one with the Italian passport was going to Copenhagen. That is, if his mother was waiting for him in Frankfurt, he believed he was going there. Roches (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No original research. Reliable sources. —sroc 💬 09:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The only reason this article exists is because a plane has disappeared. Passengers whose actions had nothing to do with the loss of the plane should not be singled out at all, let alone be mentioned in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't understand. This announcement means we have gone from knowing nothing at all about the why and how of this event to knowing that it probably wasn't terrorism. That's a very important development and it will remain the best answer to "Why?" and "How?" until the reason for the event is known. And you can't say it without saying that two passengers who might have had something to do with the loss of the plane didn't.
• The "By whom?" tag (whoever did that): It is obviously "Malaysian police," and "Malaysian police" is not being defined because there is no actual reason why I need to give the person's name and rank in the opening paragraph when that information is contained in the link. That tag is for situations when the subject is not implicit.
• sroc: That's why it's not in the article. Roches (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"We" have gone nowhere. Stop speculating!! Wait for reliable sources to provide us with material about the plane's disappearance, which is all that this article must be about. Drop all information about people who had nothing to do with the loss. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

On a similar topic, why wouldn't we need the names of the men in the article? My edit that added their names was reverted. Not to mention the fact that that edit also identified the second man as Iranian (reverted version still states only one is Iranian). Bringing this up here to avoid an edit conflict. AHeneen (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The material in the article was not speculation. It was from a BBC article that quite definitively said the two people were not likely to be connected to terrorist organizations. I did not name the chief of police because that would have broken the rule about naming people. Reuters also published a lengthy article stating that terrorism was probably not the cause of the incident. It is not speculation to say, with references to news organizations, that terrorism is probably not the reason for the crash. No agency will "rule out" terrorism until they have wreckage, but the fact that they've said anything means they are quite confident, and it is acceptable to say that they are confident in the article.Roches (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism by the two on stolen passports has been ruled out; however, the CIA are saying that terrorism has not yet been ruled out as a possible cause. Still a case of waiting until the wreckage is found, after which we'll rapidly get an idea of what happened. Mjroots2 (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

But, the two passengers without passports are NOT believed to have had anything to do with the loss of the plane, just like the 237 people on board, so the article should NOT single them out. They are irrelevant to the loss of the aircraft, the ONLY reason this article exists. They should not even be mentioned in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that they are irrelevant? As this facet of the disappearance has attracted significant attention from reliable, independent sources, I find it hard to agree with unsupported arguments for its non-notability. Leondz (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We have evidence that these passengers are irrelevant. That's what the whole section now says. So why is it there? HiLo48 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing airliner 'changed course'

Missing Malaysian airliner appears to have changed course and turned west before disappearing - Malaysian air force

Thecodingproject (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --ElHef (Meep?) 23:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@ElHef: Unless I'm mistaken, Thecodingproject was created on 8 March 2014 at 17:53, which is less than the four days usually required to become an autoconfirmed user. —sroc 💬 03:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

FAA warning of B-777 fuselage cracks in Sept 2013

This may be interesting: Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes, in: Federal Register 26 September 2013: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracking in the fuselage skin underneath the satellite communication (SATCOM) antenna adapter. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the visible fuselage skin and doubler if installed, for cracking, corrosion, and any indication of contact of a certain fastener to a bonding jumper, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking and corrosion in the fuselage skin, which could lead to rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane. (highlighted by me) 77.7.31.32 (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

[Final Rule on the same topic], 5 March 2014.77.7.31.32 (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's impossible to know its relevance without seeing the applicable serial number ranges quoted in the Boeing Service Bulletin. YSSYguy (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Specifically note the "if installed". As YSSYguy says, until we know if the Malaysian aircraft has that Satcom antenna adapter installed, it may not be at all relevant. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not up to us to determine if it's relevant. We should only be reflecting what other reliable sources say is relevant.--Nowa (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

India joins search operations

Please add this new info about Indian Navy joins search for missing Malaysian plane in the Malacca Straits in the sub-section Response. - 117.203.231.149 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots2 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots2: Thanks. - 117.203.231.149 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Please also cross reference usage of GSAT 7 Satellite primarily used by Indian Navy (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/GSAT-7). Reference - same report as above. Many thanks, Premnath, India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.235.233 (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Nowa (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

777-200's have an onboard server and is likely hackable

This model of 777 has an onboard server, and is likely hackable. www.federalregister.gov... ronic-system notice in federal register, of oct 2013.

so it looks like someone onboard with the correct interface could observe and maybe modify electronic control systems. So passangers with computer / interface background become a lot more interesting. Thecodingproject (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop speculating. HiLo48 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Speculation is allowed here.

There was a lot of media attention given to the release of planes computers being hackable last year

I guess it's a possibility that happened on MAS flight. Thecodingproject (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, this isn't a forum. We should only be discussing article content based on reliable secondary sources.--Nowa (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Thecodingproject, speculation is NOT allowed here. Please click on my link. HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

--extremely unlikely. The level of access to flight control computers required to make programming changes is at best achieved in the electronic equipment bay, if there, with a cable physically connected to the box. I doubt if program changes could be made while in use.Ozma2020 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong passenger

To add this to the table as an additional source: [www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20140310/news_20140310_56_990778.htm]. This one is from RTHK, the public service broadcaster of the territory. The existing source cited, the SCMP, isn't free content without restriction. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this add anything that isn't already covered?--Nowa (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Added -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

References

The original creator of this article set the references to two columns. This should be respected and not changed to 30em, which makes it a single column. There is no good reason for this change, and even less reason to change it without discussion. Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

30em means each column is 30em, so it can be 1, 2, 3, ... columns depending on how wide your browser window/screen is. 30em is a sane value -- not too wide, but not too narrow either. 2 columns always means those of us on small laptops get refs that span 5 or 6 lines. — Lfdder (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

My monitor is 1276x1048 (I think). 30em chucks everything into a single column. Mjroots (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

First Officer's Name

Someone keeps changing the first officer's name to Fariq bin Abdul Hamid, when the flight manifest clearly lists it as Fariq bin Ab Hamid. Is there a reliable source that the Ab stands for Abdul? Ab appears to be a legitimate name by itself, and does not have to be an abbreviation for anything. Kage Acheron (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ab is a patronymic prefix in Arabic, literally meaning "father". It is not a short form of Abdul. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought, would you please be able to change it to the correct form? I can't edit it since I haven't had my account around for 4 days yet. Kage Acheron (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Brandmeister^talk 21:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• \There are plenty. Just google it. NST, Torygraph, Grauniad. Even Reuters. "Bin" already indicates patronymic name, his father was named "Abdul Hamid Mad Daud", so that would indicate that his name was actually Fariq, bin (son of) Abdul Hamid. Perhaps someone will assert "Mad" means mother's name. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As a Malay from Malaysia, I hope this would clear things up. "Ab" is an abbreviation for "Abdul". It is very common for Malays to abbreviate their names this way. "Abdul" in this case is a part of his father's name. His full name in official gov. record, MyKad, would be then be "Fariq bin Abdul Hamid". His father's official name would be "Abdul Hamid bin Mad Daud". "Mad" here is a just part of his grandfather's name.175.139.240.66 (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Passengers and crew table: Iran

The footnote for Iran in the "Passengers and crew" table states:

Two Iranian nationals boarded Flight 370 using stolen passports of citizens from Italy and Austria. They were seeking asylum in Germany.

This is far too much information for this context. The full story is set out in the copy. The footnote only needs to state, if anything, that they were travelling on stolen passports. Otherwise, we might as well have footnotes on every row itemising each passenger's reason for travel and onward destination. Irrelevant information for a table that merely lists the nationality of each passenger and crew member.

I think this can be reduced to:

Two Iranian nationals boarded using stolen passports.

C'est fini! —sroc 💬 22:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I actually made an edit about 14 hours ago to change the previous even clumsier note to say exactly that; which has obviously since been changed to what we have now. I'll make the change and see if it sticks. YSSYguy (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Passenger Notes

"They were seeking asylum in Germany" should be changed to "they were trying to seek asylum in Germany". Thecodingproject (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there at all. The BBC report merely says that one of them was "probably" intending to "settle" in Germany. YSSYguy (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)