Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

No need to separate Hong Kong + Chinese passengers

[1]

There have been a few edits attempting to single out the Hong Kong passenger from the rest of Chinese ones. The ref for passenger stats combines him with mainland China passengers. Also, a Hong Kong citizen is a Chinese citizen. There is absolutely zero dispute about this. There is no such thing as Hong Kong nationality. Kxx (talk | contribs) 10:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

According to both Chinese law and HK law, HK is its own immigration jurisdiction, and HK's Immigration Department makes its own announcements separately and independently. Immigration and issuing of passports are devolved matters instead of reserved matters. 203.210.6.83 (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed the case that Hong Kong people use SAR passports, but that does not mean that they are not Chinese nationals. But regardless, this kind of argument will quickly draw dangerously close to WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. Just follow what the sources do. For the time being, MAS' flight manifest can be deemed the most reliable source. The PDF document does not contain anything like "HKG". Kxx (talk | contribs) 10:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a fact that most newspapers and news magazines list HK with its own entry, for most topics. 203.210.6.195 (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And all Wikipedia lists for aviation disasters do so. 203.210.6.195 (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not matter how active recent Hong Kong separatism is, until you gain secession, when it comes China-related matters, HK will be interpreted as HKSAR, PRC in mainstream sources. Kxx (talk | contribs) 19:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not only that but reporters are sometimes wrong or sloppy so we should never use anything that is wrong or sloppy. Sloppy info is not a reliable source. The source may be a big name, but we should carefully write in wp. Separate HK. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as information on the Hong Kong passenger is concerned, there is zero media sloppiness. Kxx (talk | contribs) 19:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and political action committee. It is better to have more specific info and let the reader make their own conclusions rather than lumping HK passport holders to the Peoples Republic of China. One propaganda newspaper even tried to lump Taiwan passengers into China. HK should be separate. They even have their own passport.Stephanie Bowman (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, to one not used the the nuances here, it's a bit of a minefield: Taiwan calls itself "Republic of China", for example. But I agree that the specific travel document region names are the most neutral way of addressing this matter. Leondz (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

We should go with the references, do we have a reliable reference that says one of the Passengers listed as China is from the SAR and has a Hong Kong passport rather than a Chinese one? MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is confirmed that there is a Hong Kong passport holder aboard. The HK Immigration Dept has announced so. Kxx (talk | contribs) 19:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not about propaganda. It is about how the sources do it. Malaysia Airlines' flight manifest does not list the Hong Kong passenger's nationality as HKG or equivalent. Neither do the Chinese media. It is also about what "nationality" means as in common sense. There is no dispute that Hong Kong is part of the PRC. Its autonomous status is granted and governed by PRC laws. The NPC has the final say on all Hong Kong matters (this is why Hong Kong did not get to elect its governor through universal suffrage in 2012—the NPC said no). Hong Kong citizens are PRC citizens. Therefore, you cannot dismiss the way the Chinese media handle it as propaganda. This is unlike the case of Taiwan, which the mainland has practically no political control. Kxx (talk | contribs) 19:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The holder of a Hong Kong passport is a holder of a People's Republic of China passport. This cannot be said of holders of Taiwan passports. A HK passport is a subset of PRC passports.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

HKSAR passports and PRC passports both have "CHN" in the nationality field. You can only distinguish them by passport numbers, which the API manifest leaked in Beijing had but the MAS-released manifest did not. ROC passports are listed as "TWN". HkCaGu (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism

Not sure why we have a speculative section on terrorism that rules out terrorism in the second sentence! I appreciate it is not daylight yet in Vietnam but can we just wait rather than start adding every bit of random information. MilborneOne (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I presume we can also add a section on "Possible structural failure" or "Possible missile attack" or "Possible system failure" or "Possible crew incapacitation", please can we get rid of the speculation this is an encyclopedia not a news blog. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

also see the section above this one ;) Redalert2fan (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that terrorism is covered separately, with different details, under "Investigation" and "United States". The latter refers to the FBI specifically, the former only refers to "officials". Should these be consolidated? —sroc 💬 01:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Naturally, it is not in our place to make conclusions. However, this piece of info., along with the rest known so far, increases the likelihood of this crash as a result of terrorism.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/09/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/?hpt=hp_t1

• Two stolen passports
• Two airline tickets bought "together", under those passport identities

KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 10:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Already noted in the article. WWGB (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh cmon! Flying from Malaysia to China on stolen passports? It's more likely they were trafficking heroin. I'm not much of an expert on terrorism but from what I heard on TV, terrorists usually have "clean" documents. If this is terrorism, I'll EAT the computer I'm typing this on. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look like terrorism to me. My guess is these are 2 unlucky guys who paid big sums to be smuggled to Europe/America. Timmyshin (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Uhm... how? The flight didn't go to either. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

They had booked tickets to Europe. Timmyshin (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hot on the heels of the 2014 Kunming attack, where the world was initially sceptical about Chinese claims of terrorism even though the PRC govt was adamant this was the case. Subtext is that if the US say there's terrorism, then it is without question; But when China says so, we wait and see. I now understand the Chinese frustration. Here we have a disappeared plane and a couple of fake passports, and people are howling that there's a likely terrorist angle. The Chinese haven't said anything even though it was a half-Chinese flight. Please be more circumspect. It may turn out to be true, but so far there's insufficient proof either way. Stolen or fake ID documents are extremelycommon in China/Asia, and we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Coordinate in degrees or DMS?

MAS's fourth media statement uses a perfectly ambiguous way to specify the last known position of the aircraft. Is it in degrees or DMS? Kxx (talk | contribs) 10:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Its in dms, as there's no decimal point. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @IvarT:, who made the change from DMS to deg. Kxx (talk | contribs) 11:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

A bold theory

I was thinking about this while I was blocked - always helps my thinking process. Why are we only talking about Boeing 777 and Malaysian Airlines? Remember Qantas 32? They had an uncontained engine failure. The first stage turbine disk (disc?) shredded into three pieces - one cleared the top of the fuselage, one went downward, and the third one grazed the underside of the craft. That was RR Trent 900. This B777 has RR Trent 800, which is basically the same engine. Same core, same first stage, just a different fan at the front. What if they simply weren't as lucky as the ozzies? There is simply NO other explanation. Terrorism? Come on! There are no serious underlying conflicts in the area. ANY other malfunction would give the computer time to send at least some signal. Even dropping dead from FL350 would take minutes. Is anyone anywhere supports this theory? Any geeky (but credible) newspaper or some website for boffins? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"There are no serious underlying conflicts in the area". Are you serious? Hack (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:FORUM in mind. Does not seem like a good idea to me that you discuss this while being fresh out of a block. Kxx (talk | contribs) 11:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm not allowed to participate in or start a discussion that I find relevant to improving the article just because I'm "fresh out of a block"? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that you need to pay attention to the numerous policies/guidelines banning cooking up one's own theory. Your initial edit in this section is already very close to WP:FORUM. Bringing up your own theory and attempting to find sources to support it can easily run afoul of WP:SYNTH. Kxx (talk | contribs) 11:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

At airliners.net you might be able to find someone who has the same idea, however there are over 1000 comments so far.

Part 1: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6013265

Part 2: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6013600

Part 3: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6013944

Part 4: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6014316

Part 5: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6014938/

Though I think somewhere in part 1 or 2 you will find your answer. Hope this helps Redalert2fan (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No speculation please. This not a forum HiLo48 (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No conspiracy theories needed here. WHEN solid information is known, we can report it. Until then, we stick to known facts. A/c is missing, terrorism hasn't been ruled out, 2-4 stolen passports etc. These may or may not have a bearing on the disappearance, but we just have to be patient. Mjroots (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not speculating! Stop gagging my every effort to post anything here. I'm asking if there are sources to substantiate this opinion. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

They haven't even located the crash site yet. There is zero evidence to back up any hypothesis at the moment. It'd be a bad idea for us to start speculating, and that's not what Wikipedia is for anyway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Think I'd prefer to stick with Wnt's Golden Triangle, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Gulf of Thailand wrong

According to the definitions by the International Hydrographic Organization the last known coordinates of the a/c are within the South China Sea, see IHO map and not in the Gulf of Thailand. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That Aviation Herald source is quite clear? Truth vs verifiability? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The Gulf of Thailand is part of the South China Sea. The Aviation Herald refers to the SCS lower in the article in parentheses. Hack (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The IHO map cited above indicates that the [relevant part of the] Gulf of Thailand is not part of the South China Sea. And the present refs 7,8,9 do not address the area where the searches are mainly focussed. Those references are not used for that purpose in the Search section. I suggest that these references be replaced with a selection from the Search section, and "South China Sea" be returned to "Gulf of Thailand".

Layzeeboi (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why Taiwan is not Chinese?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) [2]

See Chiang Kai-shek‎. Taiwan and China are both Chinese, but currently separate countries; ROC vs. PRC. The problem is that PRC is often shortened to "Chinese". Leondz (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Debris

BBC are reporting from a press conference where the Malaysians are stating that the debris found today has been confirmed 'not from a civil aircraft'. 183.89.4.6 (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The article may be found here. --Mark Chung (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

flightpath map

Can someone add the flightpath (actual, and planned) to the map, or as an additional map(s)? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Flightradar has it. Are they free to use? As for planned and actual I think it's no good. Planes routinely divert from their planned paths depending on winds, storms, turbulence, etc. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The planned flightpath will indicate the expected journey. The actual flightpath will indicate what deviations were made (and how to came to the point where it was lost). The deviations from the planned path provides some information in itself. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The flightpath is on YT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGS6bUldQ7s , but not sure if it can be used here. However I urge caution as the flight path (my understand) tracks ONLY when the transponder is ON and switched to mode A (amongst others). If a hijacker turns off the transponder and does a 180, this will not show up on flight trackers. 174.0.185.123 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be after it is lost. If it is no longer tracked, it is lost. It still indicates where contact was lost. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Point on visa

The two pax travelling on stolen passports had continuing itineraries to Europe after Beijing. This does not necessarily mean that they intended to fly those sectors, as the stolen passports would have been noticed on arrival at AMS. It enabled the pax to board a flight to China without having to gain an entry visa, which is not required for transits less than 72 hours. The visa approval process would also have exposed the nature of the passports. --Pete (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"Mid-air disintegration" ?

Reuters is now reporting that investigators are narrowing the investigation to "mid-air disintegration" because there seems to be no existing debris.

Is this an actual phenomena? We've heard of jetliners experiencing explosions an catastrophic hull loss enflight like with Air India Flight 182 or Pan Am Flight 103, but a total disintegration? Those flights left debris scattered over the surface. Wikipedia seems to have scant, if any, information on this type of event if it exists. No mid-air disintegration article or anything of a sort. If this is an actual phenomena, WP needs in-depth content on it.--Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems pretty qualified. Let's wait until a source is more definite.--Nowa (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's quite unlikely that any legitimate investigation is narrowing on a theory the way this article claims. If an aircraft breaks up in mid-air there will be many pieces floating on the surface. An example of a mid-air breakup was TWA Flight 800. This nydailynews article has a picture of one of the floating pieces. If an aircraft broke up over a jungle I could see that it'll be near impossible to locate until someone on foot chances across parts. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing such as the state of Penang?

• @Inohome: I would appreciate a lot if you could refrain from using such condescending tone in your edit summary again in future. If Johor, Selangor and Kedah are all considered as Malaysian states, then why to you that Penang is to be not considered a Malaysian state as well? Can you please explain, thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"MH370"

Many news sites are calling the flight by its flight number MH370 in their headlines, and "MH370" already redirects here, so I've made this a bold headword in the intro. -- The Anome (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Old reverts

Subheading changed from "Wow, people are copy pasting edits from old reversions making new and IMPROVED revisions irrelevant" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have invested my time and effort in improving almost all those references (I am almost finished) when I have found out that the previous references I have improved were reverted back to its old and ugly looking format (See these reference list revisions: Improved reference list (02:18, March 10, 2014)‎ and then this Some references were reverted (02:31, March 10, 2014). What will you feel If I completely copied back the last revision where the references were in the improved format... where your new edits were disregarded? I have revisited those news articles to complete missing information that other people left out adding but with just just few clicks by some other editors (authors, and date publications) poof!... all were disregarded. I hope people just stop copy pasting old revisions over new ones because you are making the new edits/revisions of other people completely irrelevant. I'm out. I will not continue editing this article because I felt that I am not respected for my edits.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 18:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you are leaving the article, you have to remember this article has a huge number of edits almost one every minute at times so it is possible that your changes have been overwritten by accident. Perhaps wait for the article to settle down and come back and help us improve it further. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Renzoy16: - Per MilborneOne, I've accidentally removed a comment on this very talk page in an edit conflict. Once I found out I'd done this I restored the comment to its rightful place. Not to denegrate your good work, at this stage it is more important that there is a reference for a fact, even if its a bare url. Newbies may not know how to format a reference, so lets cut them a bit of slack. We were all new here once. When the aircraft is found and the article settles down, we can worry about formatting etc and doing the various tidying, copy editing etc. This is hard to do when the article is being vigourously edited. Mjroots2 (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Renzoy16: I am not the one who reverted your edits, but I just want to point out that your changes do have problems, in particular the italics. Only periodicals should be italicised; there is no need to add spaces to the refs like you did, and the linking of all publishers is also optional and not always desirable. The spaces do not render in the template output and the blanket linking often leads to an undesirable sea of blue in the references section. I'd also say that the busy editing and reverting of busy current events articles often results in chaotic losses of content in some way or another, and is not necessarily a deliberate affront to you personally or a denigration of your efforts. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Current cockpit picture

Hi, is there any evidence that the lost plane had a glass cockpit like the one in the picture? Thanks Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 18:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Photographer states that it is the actual aircraft. Is there any reason to doubt him? Mjroots2 (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 22:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The registration's on the plate behind either yoke. This is obviously the missing plane. — Lfdder (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

777 has had a glass cockpit since the word go. I've just pulled out a book on 777 development, and a picture of the 777-200 simulator cockpit used during development is next to identical - pretty much the only thing I can't confirm is identical is the colour scheme due to the lighting on the shot in the book. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Two "investigation" sections

There are currently two "investigation" sections of the article, one dealing with the investigation into the immediate incident, the search for the missing aircraft etc, the other dealing with the wider investigation including the FBI looking into the passports and so on.

Should these two sections be merged, or would it be better to rename them, perhaps as "response" and "investigations"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.44.179 (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

huge error, probably overlooked....not that important

Flight 370 is a flight to China. End of story.

The intro should say that flight 370, operated on March 8 is missing. Not all 370's crashed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 March 2014‎

You're right, this distinction is not that important. It should be obvious to any reader that we are not referring to every previous Flight 370 that resolved in the usual way, but to the one that didn't. It is common practice that a flight that resolves in a disaster inherits the name and number of the flight as its common reference, without qualification by the specific date of the flight. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Tense

Only in the most fantastical science fiction scenario could the listed pilots still be flying this unfortunate plane. We should therefore say "the pilot was...", not the ludicrous "the pilot is...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

See section #Hope_of_survival above. Whether or not flying, we should not be declaring anyone dead without any citable evidence. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not declaring anyone dead. We'd say, for example, "the pilot of US Airways Flight 1549 was Chesley Sullenberger", not "...is Chesley Sullenberger". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"The captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, is a 53-year-old man ... The first officer, Fariq Bin Ab Hamid, is a 27-year-old man ..." Were you to change these statements from "is" to "was", that would imply that they are no longer men, i.e., they are dead. If you want to fundamentally rewrite, go ahead, but the (overly) simple change you suggested is prohibited by policy. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we even agree that Flight 370 has now ended, quite regardless of whether (as everyone else has more or less assumed) anyone everyone has died? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If people aboard are now floating in rafts, does the caption still have duty to fulfill? Kxx (talk | contribs) 20:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Once you have a reliable source, feel free to say that the captian of the raft is... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

They are no longer the captain/FO of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370; so was is correct. Again: "the pilot of US Airways Flight 1549 was Chesley Sullenberger, aged 59", not "...is Chesley Sullenberger, aged 59". Your reference to policy is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What would be correct is "The pilot of MH370 was Zaharie Ahmad Shah, a 53-year-old man ...". What would be incorrect is "The captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was a 53-year-old man ..." See my reply above. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Support. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I also support the change to past tense. Unless the aircraft was abducted by an alien spaceship (surprised this hasn't been put forward already), then there is no way that it is still airborne now. Mjroots2 (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Noting that the wording of the change as made was exactly the one I argued against above, since as now worded it implies that the pilot has ceased to be, not just ceased to be the pilot. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Now changed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

# of hours since disappearance

Can we put this information in the leading paragraph and change the number every 60 minutes? Because I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering about it. Timmyshin (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Surely most readers can do the maths themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It can be tricky for a time zone so far ahead of UTC. But I think such an addition would be unprecedented. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The same thing can be accomplished with {{HoursElapsed|20140308173000}}, which will return the hours since 9 March 2014 0130 MST (8 March 2014 1730 UTC), currently returning 89139. I do not think it is necessary to do, however. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that all looks very neat. It may not be necessary, buy would it be helpful to the reader? It could easily be removed if and when the incident is resolved. It might even become a standard feature for this type of article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to include this information in the article. Kage Acheron (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You sure it's only 29 hours? Timmyshin (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. 2300 today-1730 yesterday = 5.5 + 24 hours = 29.5 hours (rounded to 29). Now (2335 UTC) it should say 30. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Article currently says missing for 53 hours. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

53 hours appears correct, it is currently 0740, 10 March, in Malaysia, making it 2 days and 5 hours, or 53 hours Kage Acheron (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

such information is useless as it is immediately obsolete. It violates WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENT and should be removed altogether. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with Ohconfucius, but feel I must point out an error above. If the event (whatever it was) was supposed to have occurred at approximately 9 March 2014 0130 MST, and it is "now" 10 March 2014 0740 MST, only slightly more than a day and six hours have elapsed, not 2 days and 5 hours. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The event took place on 8 March, not 9 March. Also, I'm not sure how it would be immediately obsolete, as the original code had a self-updating timer to keep it correct. Kage Acheron (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's "immediately obsolete" if it doesn't count in seconds, or maybe nanoseconds. But I still think it might offer the reader a useful perspective. And one rarely found in mainstream sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the progress of this discussion and obvious evidence proving me wrong, I take back my comment above at 21:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC). HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, we're almost as dumb as the average reader (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, now. ;-) Dwpaul ^Talk 00:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue with the hours above is because it was still 7 Mar 2014 in England (UTC+0/GMT/Zulu time) when this occurred. The correct usage would be {{HoursElapsed|20140307173000}} which returns 89163. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this confusion was resolved {{HoursElapsed|20140310000000}} or 89108 hours ago. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Verifying the position of the Weibo photo

Apparently the Chinese passenger on MH361, a Beijing-Kuala Lampur flight, took a photo of the on-board map, which is seen here. The time is 22:39 UTC (06:39 Beijing time) and the aircraft is shown as being in the vicinity of the crash site. The passenger stated he was on MH 361(FlightRadar24 link). MH 361 landed at 2014-03-09 00:05 UTC. ATC lost contact with MH361 on 2014-03-07 18:40 UTC, so 28 hours elapsed between loss of contact and the time the photo was taken.

The facts do not rule out the possibility that the photo is genuine. (Addition: This only means the photo was taken at approximately the area where MH 361 crashed. It does not identify the content of the photo as debris.)

Errors in the flight number and times have been corrected plus some edits were made. All times are now in UTC. Thanks to Kage Acheron (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC) for pointing out the errors in the time elapsed.

Roches (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What exactly would this fact, with or without that image (Copyright © 2014 timesfeed), add to the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Timesfeed does not hold the copyright just because they claim it. But that is beside the point because this may just be bioluminescence, i.e. algal bloom, anyway.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

... or maybe "evidence" of that alleged alien abduction. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If you look carefully, the debris could be anything but that white line beneath the debris looks like oil, could possibly be the Plane's fuel?..which means the plane should be within 3km of that oil leakage..--Stemoc (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So, is that your opinion, the opinion of a WP:RS aviation expert, or perhaps the opinion of an interested third party? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The article says the position where the photo was taken is not confirmed, but it is possible to confirm that the photo was taken in the general area of the crash. Roches (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like fishing boats at dawn to me. — Lfdder (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Passengers and crew table

The table looks great, and well done to everyone who has been working on improving it. There seems to be a glitch though, as all the numbers appear to be centres except the totals which are left-aligned. Does anyone know how to fix this? —sroc 💬 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The revised format was introduced by Renzoy16[3] but the formatting issue was not obvious until a seemingly innocuous edit by Ohconfucius[4]. —sroc 💬 00:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see, the totals are in a separate table to help with the sorting but this messes up the alignment between the tables. —sroc 💬 00:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! —sroc 💬 00:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wording of "Site: Not found yet"

Would it not be better to change the wording to something along the lines of "Site: Currently unknown" or "Yet to be found" instead? --The Count of Tuscany (TALK) 03:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Better still, just omit it (which will omit the heading). When something is missing, it's pretty obvious (and doesn't need to be stated) that we don't know its location. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is currently dedicated to the fact that it is missing and therefore this heading doesn't seem like much of a necessity. --The Count of Tuscany (TALK) 03:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive block of hidden text

There exists a large block of what looks like superseded content that has been commented out and visible only in edit mode. I found this to be disruptive so I removed it. I didn't look too closely at it nor did I make any attempt to compare it. If any one you want to salvage some thing, please be my guest. --  Ohc ^¡digame! 02:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Search and Rescue - or - Search and Recovery

This distinction should be added when the status changes. --71.135.169.104 (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that'll be a problem as the article is presenting events as a time-line. It has been a Search and Rescue to date. If a debris field is found where it's apparent there was no chance of survival then people will start adding sections about the recovery effort. Normally, confusion over "Rescue" vs. "Recovery" only happens when we know a fair amount about what has happened that can be used to estimate the chances of continued survival. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

China vs People's Republic of China

There is edit-warring over whether China or People's Republic of China is the appropriate term for that listing in the table. I have no vested interest, but would assume "China" is more appropriate, considering that this is where Wikipedia's article on the state is located. Is there any reason to make an exception here? —sroc 💬 04:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Consider, for example comparable lists at ISO 3166-1, List of IOC country codes and List of sovereign states that all identify "China" by that name. —sroc 💬 04:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

China, per WP:COMMONNAME. Mjroots2 (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

But China (i.e. "Red China") is not recognized by 22 sovereign states: [5]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.169.104 (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

However, I think all English speaking countries recognize both Red China and Taiwan, and this is English Wikipedia. So, both should be mentioned. --71.135.169.104 (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia is that the PRC is called China and the ROC is called Taiwan as per related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, MilborneOne. I suspected as much from the title of the China article. So, let's have an end to the edit-warring in the table. —sroc 💬 22:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

what!

Was this like somewhere near the Bermuda triangle? Tmclelland (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing for xx hours

Who found it necessary to have a constant timer on how long it's been missing? Thecodingproject (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

See the thread above titled "# of hours since disappearance". Discussion there proved that many people are incapable of working it out for themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey! I'm not many people! ;-) Dwpaul ^Talk 05:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I for one like the hours. The aircraft disappeared 1.5 hours after midnight local time which has lead to confusion about when and how many hours ago it was for people in the UK and USA (this is the English WP). If the search effort continues for a few more days I could see replacing the hours counter with days. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Flight 370 was?

In the lead, why Flight 370 is referred as "was", Flight 370 is still operational. As I understand one aircraft has gone missing, not the flight. I mean flight 370 is essentially a route ?--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be obvious to any reader that we are not referring to every previous Flight 370 that resolved in the usual way, but to the one that didn't. It is common practice that a flight that resolves in a disaster inherits the name and number of the flight as its common reference, without qualification by the specific date of the flight. It is also likely that this flight number will be decommissioned among MH flights to avoid association with this incident. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Because we're referring to that specific flight we just use the common name for the flight instead of giving the article a date to go with it. Thecodingproject (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes Vigyani. The airline industry has its own language, customs and jargon. and that's what ends up being used on Wikipedia. I don't endorse it. It leads to some pretty silly situations, but it's a practice that's not likely to change any time soon. HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What would be better to do here? — Lfdder (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Some reference to the date in the descriptor would make a lot of sense. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the title should appear in the text verbatim (and in bold). See the 2011 Mississippi River floods example in MOS:BOLDTITLE. — Lfdder (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This is how I'd rephrase the opening paragraph (modified 05:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)):

On 8 March 2014, Malaysia Airlines flight 370 (MH370/MAS370; henceforth Flight 370), operated by a Boeing 777-200ER, disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur International Airport to Beijing Capital International Airport. There were 227 passengers and 12 crew members on board. The cause remains unknown.

— Lfdder (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

To be completely honest that looks 10x as worse and just makes it 10x as confusing. Thecodingproject (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

HiLo may be bullied and surrender but he or she is correct...we should do it the correct way and not the jargon way or perpetuate the old fashioned wrong way.Stephanie Bowman (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecodingproject (talk • contribs)

It's good enough as it is. Like what was said by Dwpaul an accident inherits it's flight number as its name. Thecodingproject (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Browse through Category:Aviation accidents and incidents and you'll see that this nomenclature for them is standard, both here and in the media. Dwpaul ^Talk 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's an accurate statement, but it's not an ideal response to someone who has pointed out a problem with a particular approach. You are effectively saying "That's the way we've always done it" rather than actually addressing Vigyani's concerns. It's not going to be a very satisfying explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia. We are not in the business of developing or promoting new naming standards. As I explained, this is an industry and media standard practice, and it would seem mighty peculiar to decide to deviate from it for this particular event. Sorry if that's unsatisfying; them's the facts. Dwpaul ^Talk 05:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you just did it again. Can anyone think of a good reason for the current practice, apart from "That's the way we've always done it"? Human progress would have been very slow if we had always applied that principle everywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. If the way most people will think of (hence search for) this incident is using its flight number (and note that that is how nearly every media outlet refers to it), that is how we should refer to it. Dwpaul ^Talk 05:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Like he already said—it's an industry standard and wikipedia can't change that. We are simply an encyclopedia. Thecodingproject (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I surrender. You're just not comprehending my point. It's not important here. But it is important globally for the human race. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't agree with you. It isn't important for the human race. The flight number will probably be decommissioned shortly and there should be no further disambiguation regarding the name of the article. Thecodingproject (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL. You're just not comprehending my point. But as I said, it's not important. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reworded it and now think that it resolves the ambiguity. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, wasn't the question about the lead? Why are we talking about the title? — Lfdder (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was about the use of the past tense. No airline has had more than five crashes in the last 20 years (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/accidents.htm) so using the airline and flight number is almost guaranteed to generate a unique name for an incident. That's probably why it became the standard. It also makes it immediately obvious to people whether or not anyone they know was involved in a recent accident. Only the airline and flight number has that property because all the other details -- aircraft type, date, route, etc. -- are shared by multiple flights. Roches (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

But what's missing IS the date, or the word "loss", or something else to explain why that particular Flight 370, out of hundreds of other Flight 370s, has an article here. If it was in a list of airline crashes or whatever, I would have no quibble, but here it's just an article name, without any indication that it means a disaster. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not missing from the lead paragraph, so you must be referring to the title. Currently "Flight 370" redirects here, because people who are looking for that flight number probably want the article about the plane that crashed recently. Redirections are in place for some flights (try "Flight 103") and disambiguation pages exist for flight numbers with multiple crashes (try "Flight 111"). The standard format for article titles regarding scheduled commercial flight crashes is just the airline and flight number. Some accidents are described with the location, aircraft type, and the nature of the accident, but if there is a flight number, that's the name of the article. Flight 370s that don't crash don't get articles.Roches (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This really is a conservative place. That's just another "That's the way we've always done it" answer, one of about ten in this thread already. As I said above, I surrender. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried to insert the date to make it a specific flight, but twice I've been reverted. That's my quota. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"The way we've always done it" = WP:CONSENSUS Mjroots2 (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty much on the same pages as Roches, on this one, at the moment. If anyone's interested in my train-of-thought: When I originally created the page and its title, I created it on the spur of the moment without the knowledge of exactly what had happened to the aircraft. The first things which came to mind were "Flight 93" and then the list of other articles in the template for this year's air incidents. I applied the format as I saw appropriate, thereby disposing of the "MH" prefix to the flight number. I didn't know what had happened to the aircraft, nobody did, nobody does and that is still the case. I'm sure that the article can be moved to "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (insert scenario here)", at a later date, when everyone knows exactly what's happened. Though, there may not be any point, if the flight number gets decommissioned, as it would remain the only notable example of the flight. Under those circumstances, one might only want to create another redirect page. EP111 (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the 'A' from the beginning of the article

It just doesn't fit well. Thecodingproject (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done I don't know why it was there in the first place. I have removed it....bad grammar. Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't work now. You peeps are conflating the route (generic) with the flight that disappeared (specific), as pointed out by the OP of the thread immediately above. The "A" at the beginning seems to me to be the best way of resolving that. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Stop worrying about the other generic flights, this article is about one flight only. WWGB (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The probability of the universe collapsing is more likely than it happening to the same flight twice. Thecodingproject (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Thecodingproject-- Air France Flight 212 (1968) & Air France Flight 212 (1969)... There goes the universe ;-) -Godot13 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• You comment about "false pretext" is clearly in bad faith. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• But there you are, conflating again. I bet you meant "happening to the same route twice". Too easily done when it's hard-wired. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism? A high possibility

The plane turned around? if you change course, you have to notify ATC so they can give you clearance or vectors. Even if it's an emergency. And these were experienced pilots, so definitely something on that plane had to do with terrorism. 

Thoughts? Thecodingproject (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• We will find out in due course ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Priorities in any aviation incident: Aviate, Navigate, Communicate (or in everyday language: don't fall out the sky, get the aircraft to safety, tell people). Communicate is third priority, and only if it doesn't interfere with first two, and assuming there is the ability to communicate at all. There are well-established protocols for dealing with an aircraft which has lost its ability to communicate (no radio, aka NORDO, happens more regularly than people think), but first you have to work out it's out there and unable to communicate. The aircraft disappearing without any indication of cause simply tells us it disappeared without any indication of cause, nothing more. Attempting to draw any conclusion from it is speculation. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Man claims possible sighting of airliner MH370

A businessman in Ketereh claimed that he saw a bright white light, believed to be of an aircraft, descending at high speed towards the South China Sea about 1.45am on the day flight MH370 went missing. Alif Fathi Abdul Hadi, 29, told the New Straits Times what he saw after lodging a report with the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) in Tok Bali earlier today.

"I was walking towards my back door when I caught a glimpse of the white light. "It was moving towards the sea, towards Bachok area, which was unusual."

Read more: MISSING MH370: Man claims possible sighting of airliner - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-man-claims-possible-sighting-of-airliner-1.505683?cache=03/7.223813/7.276921?key%3DMalaysia/7.293573/7.308059/7.541994#ixzz2vY4tZiba HotWick (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

UFO? WWGB (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

does he also mention waking up the next morning with a feeling that his anus has been probed? ..--Stemoc (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Redlinks

Please can we stop removing valid redlinks from the article, per WP:REDLINK? Mjroots2 (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone double check that map to see if it's correct?

All reports are now saying that the plane was in Vietnam's air space. The location on the map looks too far out to be Vietnam's. It looks more like Malaysian air space. I just want it to be double checked, just in case. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 19:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source with the coordinates and I'll update it. The map was made based on the coordinates released by the airline.... Sailsbystars (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The last known location is waypoint IGARI, which is at 6° 56' 12N 103° 35' 6E. (Clicking that will take you to GeoHack, then you can go to SkyVector for an aeronautical chart.) IGARI is just south of the border between Singapore and Ho Chih Minh City air traffic control. That is also the transition into Vietnamese-controlled airspace. Some sources say the plane reached waypoint BITOD, 7° 15' 24N 104° 7' 6E. Roches (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussing reverts

When reverting controversial edits please tell the editor to discuss why they want it reverted on this page.

Also can we can agree not to have a timer next to 'Missing'? Thecodingproject (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• agree That does seem rather unnecessary and even perhaps rather poor taste. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. — Lfdder (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What's controversial at this point? There are still several parts of the article that say the same thing, and there is important information to be added. One thing I think we should clear up: sightings of wreckage, debris, oil, etc. that turned out to not be true. Roches (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

+1 Thecodingproject (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with archiving

Can someone how knows about archive bots look at this page? The auto archive bot is not working. I have tried to fix it but only seem to screw up the page. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's a busy page because a lot is happening in a short space of time. Archive bots work best on regular pages because they will archive threads where there have been no comments for say three days; pages such as these are better archived manually. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I've archived the first 45 topics manually. Hopefully the page will load better for now. —sroc 💬 03:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Assets Deployed for Search and Rescue

Can anyone verify if the information provided in this image is correct?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Chung (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 March 2014‎ (UTC)

The original URL for that image is http://www.nst.com.my/galleries/image/assets-deployed-for-sar-1.504781 and this article from the same article has similar data plus the note "The vessels listed did not include those deployed on the Vietnamese side."

At present the article is using www.nst.com.my for four citations plus http://www.nst.com.my/mh370 in External Links. It seems the editors involved in this article believe that www.nst.com.my is a WP:RS and so I'd say go for it if you want to summarize the search effort using either the graphic and/or the article I found. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This article can be a cite for the two aircraft from Australia. The graphic claims both are RAAF AP-3C Orion but the article only says the first aircraft was an RAAF AP-3C Orion and is silent on what type of SAR craft the second one is. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wish to point out that the Bombardier aircraft employed in the SAR operation by Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA)is the Bombardier 415. MMEA does not have Bombardier Global Express in their fleet of aircraft.Kyrill11771 (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Origin/destination of passport thieves

It should state why KUL and PEK airports don't check authenticity of passports. Also, it should state whether the destination airports (Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Frankfurt) check the authenticity of passports for arriving passengers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.169.104 (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Generally one cannot use a stolen European passport to buy a ticket to PEK because one needs to have a visa in the passport and the process of getting a visa would reveal that the passport is stolen. However, in this case the tickets of concern were for through travel to Europe (just transiting PEK).--Brian Dell (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan and People's Republic of China

Several editors (including Dou5dou5dou5[6] and 117.43.176.102|[7]) have attempted to merge the passenger from Taiwan (officially, Republic of China) into the count with People's Republic of China (also known simply as China). This is not appropriate, as they are two distinct states. The nationality of the passenger is stated in both sources provided:

• The statement from Malaysia Airlines says:

China / Taiwan – 152, 1 infant / 1

• The flight manifest identifies the passenger as:

18   CHUANG/HSIULINGMS            TWN    45

Please do not merge these entries. —sroc 💬 03:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If you feel some of these editors were nationalistic (to group PROC and ROC) together, then you could submit a formal complaint. I think some backwards thinking mainland Chinese folks still think Taiwan is a province of China. I forget the name of the URL to submit the complaint, but it sounds something like WP incident board. --71.135.169.104 (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added a hidden comment in the table. If anyone persists in merging them despite these warnings, then… —sroc 💬 04:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It is true that, according to agreements the United States and other countries have made, the PRC and ROC are considered to be one nation. That said, for practical purposes it is irrelevant --- here, when we want to know if someone actually was the person on the passport, or what consulate an accused terrorist could appeal to, or what agency would handle repatriation of remains, the answers will all be different for PRC versus ROC.

Therefore, I'd suggest looking for a replacement for "nationality" in the table title. This also helps in light that "nationality" means something else again in some Asian countries, e.g. Ukraine where (shudder) even 80 years after 1933 there are still people of official "Jewish nationality". I'm thinking passport authority, passport nationality... I'm not sure. We need someone with technical bureaucrat skills to suggest something good. Wnt (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Our primary source (the flight manifest) uses, unfortunately, the heading "Nationality" (as do consequently many secondary sources), so if we think up some other term our source potentially is invalidated and we engage in synthesis. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Taiwan Relations Act says the US government is to treat Taiwan separately from China, and Taiwan is to be treated the same as "foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities".F (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

China Southern bolding in lead

CZ748 is an alternative designation for all MH370 flights, but it's not been used to refer to this particular flight probably anywhere. It's quite obviously not a 'significant alternative title'. MOS:BOLDTITLE — Lfdder (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Also see here for why 'Malaysia Airlines flight 370' shouldn't be in bold in the new lead. — Lfdder (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And why is Malaysia Airlines flight 370 (i.e., the title of the article and the most common name for the topic) not in bold despite MOS:BOLDTITLE? —sroc 💬 22:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

See my comment just above. — Lfdder (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to refer to Flight 370 was? before you reply. —sroc 💬 23:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What's your point? — Lfdder (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This is off-topic for this heading. See below for my point. —sroc 💬 23:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Lfdder your point is self-referential. MOS:BOLD states "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence." In my view, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is the widely accepted name for the subject. sabine antelope 23:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It goes on to say a bit more than that. — Lfdder (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong

There is continued edit-warring over whether to itemise the passenger from Hong Kong in the table or merge with China. What is our position on this? —sroc 💬 09:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

We have two choices, either the passenger is flagged as Hong Kong Chinese (I believe this is the official designation, but may be wrong) or we add a note to the Chinese entry noting that one passenger was from Hong Kong. Mjroots2 (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This may be a question about what country Hong Kong is in. I've read this article, and the answer seems to be complicated. It says the Hong Kong SAR is part of China. To be on the safer side, I think we should add a note to Hong Kong saying that those passengers are Chinese too. Heymid (contribs) 10:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Other articles put Hong Kong as a separate category, such as the 9/11 victims page. People who live there have Hong Kong passports, but their nationality is Chinese. I don't think a note is necessary because the idea that Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China is not related to the topic of this article. Roches (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If she is travelling using a HK passport, then list her under HK. The "nationality" table here should be read as "which authority issued the passport". F (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong passports state the nationality as Chinese (CHN) and that is how the manifest lists them. If she lived in Hong Kong she had a Hong Kong passport, but I think we should read "nationality" as "nationality as stated on the passport" Roches (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I lived in HK, and the most useful thing to do is to consider HK a nationality and list it separately. This has nothing to do with politics as, yes, HK is considered part of "China" but it has everything to do with passports and the status of individuals on the flight. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's complicated, but I agree the simplest thing to do is to break HK out, and treat the people as a separate category of Chinese. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what I was really hoping for was some guideline on whether or not Hong Kong (officially a Special Administrative Region of China) is usually listed as a separate country/nation/state on Wikipedia for these purposes. No need to make up a special rule for this one particular case that goes against usual Wikipedia protocol. —sroc 💬 15:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good example of our norms that we should follow here: China_Airlines_Flight_611#Nationalities_of_the_passengers -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nationality	Passengers	Crew	Total
China	9	0	9
Hong Kong	5	0	5
Singapore	1	0	1
Switzerland	1	0	1
Taiwan	190	19	209
Total	206	19	225

Yes, HK is treated separately in many international fora. It has its own 'national' sports team, for example. Its people have their own passport which isn't a PRC passport. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should keep Hong Kong listed as a separate nationality. However, a note could be added explaining that Hong Kong passport holders are considered Chinese citizens according to the eligibility requirements. Heymid (contribs) 16:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

We shouldnt make things up but go by the what the reliable sources say about the passengers. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Better yet would be to find better nomenclature for that column other than "Nationality," which is a charged word that starts these debates. Citizenship or citizen status? -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The reference which is the manifest lists nationality we should stick to that and not make stuff up thats not in the reference. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly one way or the other at this point. But we've already strayed from "Nationality" by 1) using Taiwan and the ROC flag, vs saying Chinese Taipei and 2) having HK as a separate breakout. Therefore, we are already departing from the strictness of the plane manifest. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan is the name Wikipedia uses to describe the ROC, and the name most commonly recognised in English-speaking countries. Chinese Taipei is a synonym used in certain contexts, but it is not the name Wikipedia ordinarily uses. We have not "strayed from 'Nationality'" by using "Taiwan" and the ROC flag in the table, as the above example affirms. —sroc 💬 22:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sroc: You misunderstand -- I don't disagree with you. I'm saying that Wikipedia departs from the "Nationality" column in that airline passenger manifest for good reason. Whereas the airlines (and the UN, and the Olympics, and most international bodies, et al) have to adopt standards that yield to political pressures, Wikipedia can take a more neutral and realistic stance on naming. That's a good thing. And it's good that our table can reflect that. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: Oh, yes, good. Agreed. —sroc 💬 13:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Video of man with stolen passport - Mario Balotelli ref

It's going to take some sensitive editing to put this in context, but... [8]:

• "Malaysia Airlines Passenger With Stolen Passport Caught on Video"
• When asked about the two men who used the stolen passports, Rahman replied, "We confirmed now they are not Asian looking males."
• "Do you know a footballer by the name of Bartoli? Do you know what he looks like?"
• Reporters corrected him asking, "Mario Balotelli?" (Italian pro soccer player who's black)
• "Yes," Rahman replied.

-- Fuzheado | Talk 15:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Embarrassing for Rahman. Good comment on reliability of this source with regard to the appearance of these characters -- not WP:N! Leondz (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability does not apply to article content; it only applies to whether a separate article should be created on a particular topic. Reliable sources applies to article content, and we have those. —sroc 💬 15:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. We should remember WP:N is about article-ness, not whether people should/shouldn't be mentioned by name in an article. "...notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article" -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised to see the following sentence written this way. He is "Ghanaian" while the color of his skin is black. Seems awkward the way it's written.

• "Reporters corrected him asking, "Mario Balotelli?" (Italian pro soccer player who's black)

-- JohnAKeith (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reorganization

I put most of the information about the stolen passports into its own section under Investigation.

There are too many references in the article now. There is no need for a statement to be supported by four different news articles from different days.Roches (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There can't be too many references in an article. If a sentence contains information from more than one source, then more than one reference is needed. Mjroots2 (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, but how many refs to the same statement do we need? WP:OVERREF — Lfdder (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There is also this article from the New York Times that would be of benefit for the section. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it under Search instead of Investigation as it deals more with that than with the passport issue. About references, the purpose is to make content verifiable and to guide further reading. Linking to several articles that may be outdated and that all say essentially the same thing isn't productive. Citing a recent article from a reputable news source is good; so are official statements and press releases. Roches (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, press releases are to be avoided, especially if a secondary reliable source is available. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Lost contact vs Disappeared off radar.

'Lost contact' and 'disappeared off radar' are not necessarily the same thing. It is also not quite clear what 'disappeared off radar' means. Does it mean that the plane went out of contact range or did someone see a radar marker suddenly disappear? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The last contact on the map is based on the "last ATC contact" coordinates given in the original press release. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

But that same last contact seems also to be described as 'disappeared off radar'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

ATC does not use primary radar (the kind that reflects radio waves off a target) except in emergencies. They use secondary radar, where the airplane has a transponder that communicates with the ATC. Loss of contact with ATC will cause the aircraft to disappear from secondary radar. This will occur if the transponder fails or is switched off, so ATC also has primary radar that can be used to track an aircraft in an emergency situation. So far, I don't think any data from primary radar has been disclosed. Roches (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It is still not clear what the terms mean though. SSR uses different frequencies and receivers from the voice comms. Disapearance of the aircraft from the ATC is not the same as the last voice contact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Forget that, the article is clear now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Bold title for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Boldly snow closing this as resolved. If future developments necessitate a name change then that can be addressed when the issue arrises. Please continue to work on helping readers understand this complex current event. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Sorry to re-hash this, but this is separate from the above discussions on China Southern bolding in lead (whether to bold the codeshare alternate title) and Flight 370 was? (whether the title refers to the overall flight route or the specific flight in wording the lede).

The opening para currently reads:

Malaysia Airlines flight 370 (MH370/MAS370), also marketed as China Southern Airlines flight 748 (CZ748) under a codeshare agreement, is a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Malaysia, to Beijing Capital International Airport, China. On 8 March 2014, the aircraft operating the flight, a Boeing 777-200ER, registration 9M-MRO, disappeared en route with 227 passengers and 12 crew members on board. The cause remains unknown and is under investigation: as of 07:00 MST on March 11, there was no verified evidence of the flight's fate. Neither what happened ultimately, nor where, are currently known.

The name of the flight usually appears in bold, per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. For example, refer to these other accidents this year:

• Flight RFL111
• Nepal Airlines Flight 183
• 2014 748 Air Services HS 748 crash
• Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702 hijacking

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 should appear in bold in the lead. Why is this one being treated as an exceptional case? —sroc 💬 23:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What does COMMONNAME have to do with it? The title does not always need to appear verbatim and in bold in the lead, esp. if it's gonna be 'Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was ... a Malaysia Airlines flight' (see the Mississippi floods example in BOLDTITLE). As for those 4 articles....all of them's lead doesn't follow the MOS. — Lfdder (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The title does appear in the lede, and it should be in bold. This is not the "Mississippi floods" example. —sroc 💬 23:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I concure with sroc fully. As per MOS: If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence. In this case, the widely accepted name for the subject is Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. If you disagree with this premise, please provide reasoning. Sidenote (not part of my reasoning): the lack of a bold title is quite conspicuous; glaringly at odds with other pages documenting similar issues. sabine antelope 23:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. '... is a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Malaysia, to Beijing Capital International Airport, China' does not describe Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. — Lfdder (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It describes it perfectly, actually. There's one leaving tomorrow. —sroc 💬 23:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You haven't refuted the premise, Lfdder. Moreover, what ancilliary information describes Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is irrelevant. The subject of the page is Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. If aforementioned sentence were substituted with "....is a packet of peanuts" it would not make any difference as far my point is concerned. sabine antelope 23:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So this article's about every MH370 flight? — Lfdder (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If you like, but there's nothing notable about the flight that would be deserving of an article without the missing plane. The specific flight that has gone missing takes the name of the flight as its de facto title, as is common for Wikipedia articles, because the incident will forever be known as "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370". That's what people are calling it now and it's likely what people will call it for years to come. Airlines typically retire flight numbers that have had a major incident (although Malaysia Airlines do not seem to have done so yet), so it will not cause confusion with any future flights. —sroc 💬 23:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

'Malaysia Airlines flight 370' can mean a) the incident flight or b) the timetabled flight. In the opening sentence, it's meant in the 2nd sense. The article is about the 1st. That's why it should not be in bold or capitalised. — Lfdder (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid. Whichever it is about, "Malaysia Airlines flight 370" is a clear, obvious, accurate title (not some made-up description like "2011 Mississippi floods") and should be in bold. You can quibble about how the lede is worded, but that's irrelevant to this issue. —sroc 💬 00:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You're taking the piss. — Lfdder (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not. Note, too, MA's website refers to it as Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. —sroc 💬 00:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, if any of those other articles don't follow MOS, you can fix them—I've just made a few minor clean-up edits—but don't just re-write the precedents to get your way. —sroc 💬 23:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The expression "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370" has been used in hundreds of media articles. (You can quibble whether the "f" should be caps). It is the default common name, and hence should be in bold. WWGB (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Should 'Malaysia Airlines flight 370' in the first sentence of the article -- as it stands -- assumed to be the article's title (and in bold)? — Lfdder (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes as per MOS policy, logic, and arguments in section above. (Note the word Flight ought to be capitalised, too). The article's subject is Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 which went missing. The article would not otherwise exist. The opening sentence is not representative of the entire article (nor does it have to be), nor is is the title about the opening sentence exclusively. If you want to pick nits, perhaps a slight rewording of the lead sentence is in order, but nothing more. sabine antelope 00:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Conflating occurring again. The article's subject is the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 which went missing (no comma). -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks sabine antelope 01:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, as Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, with a capital F. When the word 'flight' is followed by a number it becomes a proper noun, the name of a vehicle, and so it is capitalized. The use of metonymy in describing accidents involving scheduled commercial flights dates at least to 1931 (TWA Flight 599). Any dissenters, would you mind saying what variety of English you speak and whether you are a native speaker? I don't mean offense; I'm actually curious as to why people would disagree with something I see as so clearly defined. (Native US English speaker→)Roches (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Only proper nouns are capitalised. There have been many flights MH370. Probably as many as one a day for five or more years. It is therefore generic and not capitalised. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  Disagree. "Flight 370" is the proper name of a service of Malaysia Airlines, which would never refer to it as "370" without preceding it with the word "flight". See any other article about a specific airline flight or disaster here on Wikipedia. Why is this one different? Dwpaul ^Talk 01:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  Comment on comment: The article's subject is singular. The article is not about the generic flight. Technically, "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370" is an event, and "Malaysia Airlines" can not be disentangled from "Flight 370." As such, all words in the article subject should be capitalised. If flight is strictly not to be capitalised, the word should be omitted entirely. I understand that simultaneously working within the constraints of WP policies and linguistics can be challenging, but that should not preclude striking a logical compromise. sabine antelope 01:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  What do stylistic rules have to do with linguistics? — Lfdder (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  Exactly. sabine antelope 04:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  Lord give me strength. — Lfdder (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• The airplane that crashed was MH371 when it was going in the opposite direction. If you want to establish some new system of naming airplane crashes, the only thing you can possibly resort to is the serial number or registration number of the aircraft: Boeing 777-200ER 9M-MRO Roches (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes as Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. The project-wide consensus to bold the subject of the article early in the lede is already established and recorded at MOS:BOLD and MOS:BOLDTITLE. This article doesn't need or deserve its own manual of style. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If you're not gonna address the q, why respond at all? — Lfdder (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I did, and in full. I'm completely mystified at the time-wasting going on with regard to this question. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The user has offered a reasonable response. Stop bickering and let RfC run its course. Your interjections ostensibly pertain to your pedantry for semantics and other linguistic devices, so let me be clear: You have made your point. You should not, then, be surprised if some users take a different, more precedent-based, approach. These approaches are equally - if not more - valid than your own. Time will tell. sabine antelope 01:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I thought otherwise. But thank you for the psychoanalysis. Someone from WP:AVIATION probably ought to come forth and apologise for the irrepairable damage they've done. — Lfdder (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, with uppercase "F", per sabine antelope and others above. —sroc 💬 01:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, and this shouldn't even be an issue. The first line should be in the exact same format as Malaysian Airline System Flight 653, Air France Flight 447, El Al Flight 402, Korean Airlines Flight 007, Panam Flight 73, British Airways Flight 9, etc., with bold and capital letters. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of articles formatted like this, and I haven't found a single one with no bold font, with italics, or with "flight" in small caps. There is no reason to make an exception to the long-established consensus of all editors who have worked on airline disasters. Madalibi (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flight number use

Should it be mentioned that the flight number is still in use by Malaysian Airlines for the KL-Beijing route? If I am not mistaken, airlines almost always change the number of a route after a crash ([9]). AHeneen (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

When and if Malaysia Airlines announces that the flight has been discontinued or the route renumbered, that should be mentioned. We can't call attention to the fact that no announcement has been made without resorting to the editorial voice. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

... though if some reliable source comments on the absence of an announcement, we can report their comment. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Fisherman reports a low-flying aircraft off north shore of Malay peninsula shortly after disappearance

NHK reports this: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20140311_08.html Seems citable?

There is a youtube interview here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5If4KXtwtg If this is the "fisherman", can anyone translate? e.g., Which direction was the plane flying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Layzeeboi (talk • contribs) 01:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Man claims possible sighting of airliner MH370 above. We don't need to report every "I saw something" vision in the article. WWGB (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

And we have to be very careful about it. There will be A LOT of people saying they saw something in the coming days. Some of them genuinely believe they did but most will be just trying to get on television. Unfortunately, the ethics of modern television will not prevent them from broadcasting it - they need to pay the bills, too. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Link to Malaysia Airlines in the lede?

WP:BOLDTITLE states that the article title (in this case "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370") should be in bold font and without wikilinks, and we should of course follow that format. The problem is that this leaves us without a link to Malaysia Airlines in the lede. I added one,[10] but WWGB has removed it because it looks repetitive.[11] He has a point, but I think my concern for proper linking is also valid. I typed "[Airline] Flight..." in the searh box and checked the first flight that showed up: British Airways Flight 9, Korean Airlines Flight 007, El Al Flight 1862, Pan Am Flight 103, Japan Airlines Flight 123, Qantas Flight 32, United Airlines Flight 93, Continental Airlines Flight 11, and Aeroflot Flight 593 all have links to the airline in the lede (in addition to the bold-font title). Of the pages I've looked at, only Air France Flight 447 doesn't. I think this is sufficient reason to reinsert Malaysia Airlines somewhere in the lede. What do you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madalibi (talk • contribs) 04:48, 11 March 2014‎ (UTC)

I think your solution is better, even if it is somewhat repetitive. Removing the link and relying on just the infobox is bad, the infobox wikilinks should be separate from counting of links in the article. The Malaysia Airlines link should occur once in the lede, once in the infobox, and perhaps once more in the text. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sign your posts, so I can decide whether to agree with you or not. Just kidding. But please sign your posts. sabine antelope 04:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing my post! :) I don't think I've ever done that before, actually! Well, now that the bot has added it in, do you agree with me? Madalibi (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikilink the next available use of "Malaysia Airlines", but don't create an artificial repetition in the lead sentence just so that you have a Wikilink. I'm sure any interested reader will have no trouble finding the Malaysia Airlines article without an artificial aid. The primary issue in the lead is readability, and repetition is most unhelpful. WWGB (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

EDIT. I have added this as a compromise [12] which does not cause repetition in the first sentence. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I like your new addition. It is smoother than mine, and has the advantage of linking to Malaysia Airlines without saying "operated" and "operating" in two consecutive sentences. Thanks! Madalibi (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Technically not ideal having two links together (WP:SEAOFBLUE), but certainly clear and avoids repetition. —sroc 💬 05:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Revising the article...

I've tried to update the article, which has sort of grown on its own since the beginning, to the extent of what's known 4 days later. I got as far as Incident... the first section.

There are some sweeping deletions of rumors, redundant information and outdated news references. Please do not undo/revert the change; instead, restore only what needs to be restored.

There is still a lot to be done. I'd like to encourage other editors to try to concentrate on making productive updates and changes rather than focusing on small details. Perfecting the satisfactory parts can be done once the unsatisfactory parts are fixed.

Roches (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There have been so many false leads in this incident. The oil slick, the airplane door, the floating life raft, the lights in the sky, ... As each one emerges, they take over the article. Ultimately, we just need a succinct section about these failed hopes. WWGB (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that ultimately we need nothing about them. They will not be part of the final story. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

ACARS

There are a number of possible reasons as to why there were no ACARS transmissions. Two of the more widely discussed are: a) MH did have ACARS installed on the 777 but did not subscribe to the ACARS service (which is paid service) or b) ACARS was turned off because of compatibility reasons. Now, unfortunately I have so far been unable to find appropriate sources. The MAS statement is ambiguous enough to mean any number of scenarios so maybe it would be better to make clear that "no ACARS messages" can also mean that ACARS was off. Again, unfortunately so far I haven't been able to find appropriate sources, will keep looking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.192.22 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 March 2014

As you noted, airline's media statement is ambiguous. Unfortunately, the airline is the most reliable source for this detail as the ACARS data is sent to them. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense from MH to say that. Even if nothing is broken, ACARS is DESIGNED to periodically xmit data for trend monitoring (eg. slowly rising EGT of an engine over a period of weeks) so its ALWAYS spitting data back home. 174.0.185.123 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately the wikipedia entry on ACARS is quite technical, but as far as I understand it, the ground station is based on a commercial, subscription based business model. So the only reason not to get any transmission from ACARS is either having it turned off or not having paid your bill. I don't want to let this section slide into a discussion, but if anybody has proper sources on ACARS usage in Asia or for MAS I would happily follow up... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.192.22 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

From here:

"Malaysia’s Department of Civil Aviation is examining ACARS data from the missing aircraft, but senior DCA officials declined to comment on their findings, if any...'All Malaysia Airlines aircraft are equipped with continuous data monitoring system called ACARS which transmits data automatically,' says MAS...Presumably the aircraft would have transmitted ACARS data prior to its disappearance, but an industry source familiar with ACARS says this would be entirely dependent on the level of service enshrined in MAS’s ACARS contract with one of two ACARS service providers, ARINC or SITA."

Article doesn't state directly, but MAS is an acronym for Malaysia Airlines (another article title uses "Missing MAS 777-200")...presumably left out because the source is an aviation industry news site, where presumably readers would known what MAS represented. AHeneen (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Biased in the extreme

Not a single mention of the families in limbo at a Beijing hotel or the terse diplomatic statements about MAS's lack of attention to the needs of these families. Why coverup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.62.148 (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to your contributions to the article, rather than just criticism! WWGB (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

(angry stuff redacted.) It's sort of unfortunate that the things we do have actual facts about, the human side of this, is being overlooked so we here can argue over the correct way to write three paragraphs.Roches (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Only the privileged can edit the article. So much for an encyclopedia anyone can edit!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.62.148 (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

By "privileged" you mean those people who can be bothered to take 30 seconds to open an account? Nah, it's much easier to troll and take potshots. Have a nice day! WWGB (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• We need to respect the private grief of relatives anxiously waiting news, and the article isn't about the individual victims or their families. What's more, as there's no news, newsy stuff about frustrated relatives hurling water bottles at MAS officials in the Lido Hotel in Beijing are just not the type of content encyclopaedias are for. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Iranians

This here story on BBC Persia says two Iranians boarded the plane. It is quite plausible that an Iranian could pass for Italian. Perhaps we should add that in conjunction with a cite to this New York Times story about Iranian migrants to have Wikipedia say that Southeast Asia is a common transit point for Iranians seeking to emigrate to a Western country: "A majority, I was surprised to discover, were not Afghan but Iranian. ... They all complained about the government and its chokehold on their freedoms. A few said they had been targeted for political persecution. They bemoaned the economy. International sanctions — imposed on Iran for refusing to abandon its nuclear program in 2006 and later tightened — had crippled their ability to support their families. They were fathers who despaired of their children’s futures, or they wanted children but refused to have them in Iran. The most common word they used to describe their lives back home was na-aomid — hopeless." That NYT story was about Iranians flying into Jakarta in order to try to sail into Australia. Kuala Lumpur is in the same general area.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We should add nothing until there is concrete evidence that these people had anything to do with the loss of the plane. What's there now is far too much, IMHO. These are real, probably recently deceased people. WP:BLP applies big time. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This material would actually absolve these two of terrorism since illegal immigration is a much more minor offence. Anyway, I went ahead and added material just from Reuters on this since Reuters seems to have gotten confirmation of sorts from a Thai police chief that the passengers were likely Iranian.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

They only need absolving by us because of implications WE made! HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

They say there's a black man. Afro-Iranians are very rare, I think... Timmyshin (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, so what? Are black men evil? Secondly, is "they" a reliable source? HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I just state my opinion that if there is a black man, then he's unlikely to be Iranian. What are you so riled up about? Sensitive much? Timmyshin (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Just stop speculating. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A press conference now on Sky News states that both people travelling on stolen passports were Iranian nationals. Hopefully this will be repeated on the news web soon. Mjroots2 (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone claimed responsibility

Chinese Terrorist Group Takes Credit For Missing Malaysia Flight MH370 – real or hoax? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest a hoax, the article itself states that Chinese media are dismissing this claim from a previously unheard of group. Mjroots2 (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Search the Chinese name of the group 中国殉难者旅 and you basically get no results, not even from HK and TW. Search the English name and you get thousands from supposedly reputable news media. Timmyshin (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The Beijing photo, and the legal implications of accepting the compensation

The comment I had about the sign in Beijing−was that really necessary to remove? There is a lot that is still Not Encyclopedic in the article. I thought the sign was interesting because it captures the emotion that a lot of people must be feeling. I was also trying to balance positive and negative things about the airline; for example I didn't say that they were helping with immigration because I didn't think I had enough con material in the section. Now it says the airline is offering people money, which sort of upsets the balance. It is also not necessarily Very Encyclopedic; airlines often, if not always, do that. If it is to stay in the article it must be supported as soon as possible by a statement about what acceptance would mean under Malaysian law or whatever civil law system applies. Accepting a compensation gift can result in a loss of the legal right to sue the airline. Roches (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate your clean-ups and the updates you are making to the article. Unfortunately, there isn't all that much "positive" about the story. It is just one huge tragedy. Right now, the only positive thing would be if they announced the wreckage had been found. No, I guess it wasn't strictly necessary to remove the news about the huge panel display, but I found it to be rather recentist, and I don't feel that it adds much to the substance of the article. We are not here to comment on whether the families ought to accept the condolence money, but it's proper to report it having been made. Anyway, the airline has clearly stated that it isn't compensation, so I guess that implies it doesn't affect their rights. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• I don't personally agree with the 10 year rule for an ongoing event. At the moment, this article is getting a lot of edits and probably a lot of readers. I think anything that helps people understand the subject of the article should be included. I thought the sign was a good way of expressing how people are feeling in Beijing and in a way it was a unique one. (OTOH, you had to click it to see it.) Once the event is resolved and some time has passed, the article will change form to something that reflects the event in the long-term scope of things. That's how I see it. I meant recognizing the opposing views about the airline's handling of the event, though. There's been nothing positive about this.

Roches (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Cooperation

It looks like many different countries from around the world are cooperating and working together to find out what happened. I wonder if we could say something more about this cooperative effort in both the lead and the body. I realize we currently have one sentence in the lead and one paragraph in the response section. Would it be possible to summarize major rescue operations by country in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)