This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
"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 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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
95.143.193.132 ( talk) 07:50, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Any news or reports on the weather within the plane's path? AugustinMa ( talk) 10:27, 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)
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? Hey mid ( contribs) 11:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
@ 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)
Please notice that there is a cite error for Reference #20. Mark Chung ( talk) 13:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
More sources regarding this The Straits Times TL T 16:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is it worth reminding people we had exactly the same discussion after Asiana 214? See http://en.wikipedia.org/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 find the reference to "For the participants of special Olympics" truly disgusting. DBaK ( talk) 23:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
>> 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)).
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)
This content was removed with the rationale "not notable":
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)
Some things about the Lido hotel:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
http://r9.fodey.com/2305/b9d9da3364494507bb05cefc6bbe63bb.0.jpg -- Mark Chung ( talk) 20:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
|
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Here's a source describing Meng Gaosheng as a famous Chinese calligrapher. WhisperToMe ( talk)
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)
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)
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)
|
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).
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)
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)
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)
Please discuss in only
one section
|
---|
Timmyshin ( talk) 06:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
|
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 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.
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)
Thanks, this has now been amended Fsxfaulder ( talk) 00:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Despite an ongoing search and rescue operation, China has urged Malaysia to intensify its efforts. [2]
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)
Should it not be bold? JDiala ( talk) 03:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
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). [a] 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. [3] [4] 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. [5] [6] [7]
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. [5] [6] [7]
— 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)
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)
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)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)
On a similar topic, why wouldn't we need the names of the men in the article? My 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)
Missing Malaysian airliner appears to have changed course and turned west before disappearing - Malaysian air force
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Thecodingproject ( talk) 13:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
References
MH370 Flight Incident
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).tuoitrenews18157
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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)
Please also cross reference usage of GSAT 7 Satellite primarily used by Indian Navy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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)
--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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
"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 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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
95.143.193.132 ( talk) 07:50, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Any news or reports on the weather within the plane's path? AugustinMa ( talk) 10:27, 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)
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? Hey mid ( contribs) 11:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
@ 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)
Please notice that there is a cite error for Reference #20. Mark Chung ( talk) 13:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
More sources regarding this The Straits Times TL T 16:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is it worth reminding people we had exactly the same discussion after Asiana 214? See http://en.wikipedia.org/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 find the reference to "For the participants of special Olympics" truly disgusting. DBaK ( talk) 23:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
>> 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)).
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)
This content was removed with the rationale "not notable":
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)
Some things about the Lido hotel:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
http://r9.fodey.com/2305/b9d9da3364494507bb05cefc6bbe63bb.0.jpg -- Mark Chung ( talk) 20:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
|
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Here's a source describing Meng Gaosheng as a famous Chinese calligrapher. WhisperToMe ( talk)
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)
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)
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)
|
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).
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)
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)
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)
Please discuss in only
one section
|
---|
Timmyshin ( talk) 06:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
|
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 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.
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)
Thanks, this has now been amended Fsxfaulder ( talk) 00:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Despite an ongoing search and rescue operation, China has urged Malaysia to intensify its efforts. [2]
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)
Should it not be bold? JDiala ( talk) 03:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
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). [a] 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. [3] [4] 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. [5] [6] [7]
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. [5] [6] [7]
— 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)
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)
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)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)
On a similar topic, why wouldn't we need the names of the men in the article? My 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)
Missing Malaysian airliner appears to have changed course and turned west before disappearing - Malaysian air force
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Thecodingproject ( talk) 13:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
References
MH370 Flight Incident
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).tuoitrenews18157
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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)
Please also cross reference usage of GSAT 7 Satellite primarily used by Indian Navy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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)
--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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).