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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
There is something really strange about the information coming up, is almost like a grand scale conspiracy. Do we have any reliable source that shows any form of misinformation and for what purpose? -- Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 23:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The opening statement, "Målaysia Åirlines Flight 370", includes ring diacritics above the letters "a". Is this correct? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Boeing have confirmed the Airworthiness directive relating to corrosion around the Satcoms antenna mount does not apply to the missing aircraft, see http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/12/us-malaysia-airplane-faa-idUSBREA2B1YN20140312. The original discussion of the Airworthiness Directive is in Archive 1. 82.45.87.103 ( talk) 10:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it acceptable for images in the "Response" section of the article to appear in this right-left format, as opposed to this format, to allow for a wider array of international response aircraft/vessels to be shown? -- CrunchySkies ( talk) 06:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I know this is a fast moving, exciting, and important article, but that's no excuse for repetitive edit warring. The expert editors certainly know better. Discuss your problems. If that seems too hard, then maybe you need to take a break. Dragons flight ( talk) 09:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Now that there's a press release by the airline and a press conference by the Malaysian police about the passengers being allowed in the cockpit I think it's important enough to put at the beginning of the article. Roches ( talk) 04:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Sroc: @ Roches: @ WWGB: - I put this into the article earlier today, but somehow it got deleted. Still haven't traced back to figure out who/when this happened. But I definitely think it's relevant. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
BTW, the story on A Current Affair has been criticised by Malaysian media for "unethical journalism": M'sian Journalists Slam "A Current Affair" For 'Whoring' Over MH370. — sroc 💬 23:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
We really don't need speculation, guesses, even official "leaks", as they all end up countered rather quickly in any developing story. As for "rogue state", there are quite a few that qualify to that description, interestingly enough, that qualification varies depending upon which nation you ask. There are quite a few nations that consider the US a rogue nation. Wzrd1 ( talk) 10:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Can I appeal to people to at least analyse* reports to the extent of understanding precisely what they are saying? We say speculation here is bad, but we also need to be aware that there is speculation happening within the search operation and within the police and intelligence agencies hovering in the wings as they try to evaluate possibilities (note, possibilities, not evidence). "If it did X, then what would that mean" is not something we should be reporting here as 'It did X' (unless we wish to introduce a Wild Speculation section!). *That's 'analyse' in the sense of reading to understand precise meaning, not in the sense of original analysis/research. 82.45.87.103 ( talk) 11:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the full body photos that Malaysian officials put out of the two Iranians, you'll notice that they have the exact same legs. Exact. It's ridiculous. People who complain, "oh, that's original research" do not understand that WP:NOR applies to what goes into the article, not Talk page discussions. I point things like that out here on the Talk page in order to suggest that Malaysian officials are not reliable sources. The day before this plane disappeared the Malaysian government found the leader of the opposition, Anwar Ibrahim, guilty of sodomy with a potential 5 year sentence. You can see from Captain Zaharie's Twitter that he follows Ibrahim and other opposition figures and quite likely was incensed by what he believed was trumped up charges against the political opposition in his country.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 16:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Please check the section of the article on assets deployed by each country against the information provided by The Wall Street Journal, updated as of March 12 2014. Thank you. -- Mark Chung ( talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
There's an article describing how the family members of passengers have noticed something that led telecommunications experts to believe that the possibility of crashing into the ocean could be ruled out. Read more here.
Roches ( talk) 12:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been noticing the BBC seem to be reporting higher numbers of craft involved in the search than listed here. I've left it up until now because I wasn't sure if it was a reporting error, but now there is a quote to state the higher numbers. Is it worth making this edit given that the current "more than" statement is not strictly wrong?
"There are currently 43 ships and 40 aircraft searching the South China Sea and Straits of Malacca," he said. 'He' being Hishammuddin Hussein, described as Malaysia's Transport Minister. Source: [3].
EmyP ( talk) 19:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I found this Time article which seems interesting.... Could this be included in the article as a reference? http://time.com/20592/mh370-nourmohammadi-iran-malaysia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonWu ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The article says "...it had accumulated 53,460 hours and 7,525 cycles in service..." What is a cycle? There will be visitors to this article who will not be familiar with the aviation term "cycle" so we should explain it. It averages out at seven hours, so that doesn't suggest return trip. Anyone have a ref or link that could elaborate. Moriori ( talk) 21:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. How is cycle different from flight, then? I had assumed cycle referred to a return journey (one trip up, one trip back), including any stop-overs, as the end of the cycle would bring you back to where you started. — sroc 💬 00:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The link to the Wiktionary was removed by Replypartyreplyparty, apparently inadvertently, so I have restored it. — sroc 💬 00:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I've removed this from the opening paragraph. The first sentence is exactly the kind of space-filling meaninglessness that makes Wikipedia better than traditional (even online) news, and you cannot use adjectives like imprecise, incomplete, inaccurate* together without any of them being quoted. It is implied much earlier in the article that nobody knows where the plane is. You shouldn't use " trajectory" in this context, or even doubt. This can't be in there, and there's other stuff that can't be in there either.
Roches ( talk) 19:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
"Vietnam has despatched a plane to investigate an eyewitness report of a possible object burning in the sky east of Vietnam.": [4]. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Bob Woodruff has confirmed that a New Zealander oil rig worker sent an email to his boss with eyewitness details of the aircraft going down off the coast of Vietnam. [6] In the email, Mike McKay says he tried to inform Malaysian and Vietnam officials but wasn't sure if the messages had been received. -- Oakshade ( talk) 17:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.84.77.22 ( talk) 12:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence of this section is too complicated, bearing in mind the public have not been doing any of the 'talking'. I'm going to simplify it and others can then pile in if they feel it necessary. Harfarhs ( talk) 17:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The pilots are being investigated
They are investigating whether it was hijacked or commandeered in some way.
Information about these should be added to investigation sections. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 19:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I shortened the communications section to remove reference to Mike Smith and the Daily Beast. Three reputable news sources (New York Times, Washington Post and Xinhua News Agency) have now said exactly the same things the other sources said, so we can now have quotations about the contradictions and frustrations that come from permanent and reputable sources. Roches ( talk) 22:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't dream of participating here, but Legobot randomly invited me. I've always thought that a breaking news story shouldn't have an article at all until, say, at least 2 weeks has passed without its being mentioned on the front pages of the NYT, the Times (London), or [insert select other publications of international standing]. The unavoidably low signal-to-noise ratio of WP article-building in general is an order of magnitude even lower on topics such as this, and is a complete waste of time. WP should begin an article when the dust has settled; in the meantime people wanting to know what's going on can read the papers or watch the news. EEng ( talk) 15:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC) P.S. I'm "unfriending" this article so please don't bother arguing this with me. I just hope that my gentle advice will save at least one innocent soul from ruin.
I disagree with EEng mainly in that I think s/he understates the case. As it stands the "article" is an unencyclopaedic disgrace to WP. It reads like a tabloid relying on second-hand reports from third-hand imaginations and with a committee in the editorial chair. I'll steer clear of it personally until as Martinevans123 might have put it, we have some dust to settle. Certainly it is a developing situation, but that is not licence for rumour mongering. JonRichfield ( talk) 05:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
A quick look at the revision history suggests that many of the contributors here have made a series of inexcusable errors as a result of rewriting false reports by the press. Wikipedia, which is not a news website, should provide only correct information. Breaking news is not definitive information. Please, let's make way for the professional journalists to screw up the alerts. Again, Wikipedia should provide only facts. If you'd like to cover developing reports, you can generate your own sources, start your own blog, and move your own original reporting; otherwise, the contributors who continue spreading claptrap here might end up in the news themselves. 76.216.4.157 ( talk) 23:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is info in the lead that the US investigators saying the plane flew on for 4 to 5 hours? This has been denied by the Malaysian authorities and Rolls Royce. Furthermore in the lead it states that the search has been expanded to the Indian Ocean. Shouldn't that information go into another section? Also there is currently an investigation on the the state of mind of the pilots and crews, that possibly might have led to the crash. Doesn't that tie in with one of the crews letting two passengers in the cockpit which goes against MAS rules. 58.168.80.41 ( talk) 23:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Allow me to quote what some anonymous person has said elsewhere to explain the situation re deriving the 4 hours of flight from comms:
- MAS [Malaysian Airlines]
ACARS comms only work thru VHF since they chose not to pay for the extra fee for ACARS SATCOM link
- This 777-200 is SATCOM equipped
- What was found by US Government services (NSA, or maybe they asked Iridium directly to check the logs) is that, since the a/c ACARS system was out of VHF coverage, the system tried to connect thru SATCOM. But since MAS doesn't have a contract for that, connection was rejected, but remains a trace in their logs.
- That means that what they actually found is the log indicating every time the aircraft ACARS system tried to log in thru SATCOM and failed due to the lack of contract for that. Since the ACARS system onboard that specific aircraft tried for 4 hours after its disappearance to connect via SATCOM to the ACARS network, it means the aircraft was, at least, powered on...
Before anyone complains about speculation I am simply noting this in order to potentially help sort out on plausibility grounds what is a reliable report and what isn't.--
Brian Dell (
talk)
01:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
One of you should do a section on Wikipedia's misreporting. Otherwise, remove the one-sided coverage that blasts officials and journalists for false reports. 76.216.4.157 ( talk) 23:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Currently, there are two maps, File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 map.png and File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 search area.png. In addition to combining them into a single map, I propose to add there: continuous line for the actual flight path until disappearance together with the nearby IGARI waypoint, dotted line for the expected flight path to Beijing (if known, if not - perhaps as the crow flies), add country borders and the full names of relevant features, as in normal geo maps (i.e., Andaman Sea instead of A, etc). The areas of search are retained. All other additions may go onto this map (such as projected fuel range, etc). Brandmeister talk 15:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
We should allow for the future possible inclusion of this. I would expect howls if that track is included now given the opposition from Ohc (anyone else?) to even suggesting any westward flight is more likely than another direction, but I'd sooner trust Reuters, where this track is coming from, than most other sources.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 17:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
This was today's news, I couldn't find it in the article, and am posting here so that regular editors can add it if required. Other links like that of the NY Times are also available. I will not be editing so that I do not disturb the current article's consistency.
-- PremKudva Talk 04:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone should take it upon themselves to update the information on a timely basis. For example, it has been suggested that the flight was hijacked in an update posted at 1505 ADST on an Australian webpage. 124.176.78.135 ( talk) 04:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Ros Pratch.
From the Malaysian PM: "Based on this new data the aviation authorities of Malaysia and their international counterparts have determined that the plane's last communication with the satellite was in one of two possible corridors. The northern corridor stretching approximately from the border of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to southern Thailand or the southern corridor stretching across from Indonesia to the southern Indian Ocean." [14] 60.242.1.97 ( talk) 07:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The Prime Minister of Malaysia stated:
With the continuous article editing due to mismanagement of information by the Malaysian Government, I wonder if its not appropriate to create a timeline of all the released information. 174.0.185.123 ( talk) 22:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Reference to the Malaysian government's competency in communication does not belong here unless it specifically refers to a specific communication problem involving Malaysia Airlines flight 370. RichBryan ( talk) 11:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The following sites are reporting a Facebook phish claiming to be news video of the missing aircraft. Don't know if it would be notable enough to include in this article at present. http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/14/malaysia-plane-mh370-has-been-spotted-somewhere-near-bermuda-triangle-spam-spreads-on-facebook-4574876/ http://thehackernews.com/2014/03/beware-of-new-facebook-malware-claims.html http://www.ibtimes.com/new-facebook-malware-fake-video-claims-malaysia-airlines-missing-plane-mh370-has-been-spotted . Thoughts? Wzrd1 ( talk) 02:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
20140311nytfuller
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).20140315telegraphlive
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).20140311reuterskoswanage
was invoked but never defined (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
There is something really strange about the information coming up, is almost like a grand scale conspiracy. Do we have any reliable source that shows any form of misinformation and for what purpose? -- Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 23:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The opening statement, "Målaysia Åirlines Flight 370", includes ring diacritics above the letters "a". Is this correct? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Boeing have confirmed the Airworthiness directive relating to corrosion around the Satcoms antenna mount does not apply to the missing aircraft, see http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/12/us-malaysia-airplane-faa-idUSBREA2B1YN20140312. The original discussion of the Airworthiness Directive is in Archive 1. 82.45.87.103 ( talk) 10:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it acceptable for images in the "Response" section of the article to appear in this right-left format, as opposed to this format, to allow for a wider array of international response aircraft/vessels to be shown? -- CrunchySkies ( talk) 06:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I know this is a fast moving, exciting, and important article, but that's no excuse for repetitive edit warring. The expert editors certainly know better. Discuss your problems. If that seems too hard, then maybe you need to take a break. Dragons flight ( talk) 09:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Now that there's a press release by the airline and a press conference by the Malaysian police about the passengers being allowed in the cockpit I think it's important enough to put at the beginning of the article. Roches ( talk) 04:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Sroc: @ Roches: @ WWGB: - I put this into the article earlier today, but somehow it got deleted. Still haven't traced back to figure out who/when this happened. But I definitely think it's relevant. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
BTW, the story on A Current Affair has been criticised by Malaysian media for "unethical journalism": M'sian Journalists Slam "A Current Affair" For 'Whoring' Over MH370. — sroc 💬 23:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
We really don't need speculation, guesses, even official "leaks", as they all end up countered rather quickly in any developing story. As for "rogue state", there are quite a few that qualify to that description, interestingly enough, that qualification varies depending upon which nation you ask. There are quite a few nations that consider the US a rogue nation. Wzrd1 ( talk) 10:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Can I appeal to people to at least analyse* reports to the extent of understanding precisely what they are saying? We say speculation here is bad, but we also need to be aware that there is speculation happening within the search operation and within the police and intelligence agencies hovering in the wings as they try to evaluate possibilities (note, possibilities, not evidence). "If it did X, then what would that mean" is not something we should be reporting here as 'It did X' (unless we wish to introduce a Wild Speculation section!). *That's 'analyse' in the sense of reading to understand precise meaning, not in the sense of original analysis/research. 82.45.87.103 ( talk) 11:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the full body photos that Malaysian officials put out of the two Iranians, you'll notice that they have the exact same legs. Exact. It's ridiculous. People who complain, "oh, that's original research" do not understand that WP:NOR applies to what goes into the article, not Talk page discussions. I point things like that out here on the Talk page in order to suggest that Malaysian officials are not reliable sources. The day before this plane disappeared the Malaysian government found the leader of the opposition, Anwar Ibrahim, guilty of sodomy with a potential 5 year sentence. You can see from Captain Zaharie's Twitter that he follows Ibrahim and other opposition figures and quite likely was incensed by what he believed was trumped up charges against the political opposition in his country.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 16:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Please check the section of the article on assets deployed by each country against the information provided by The Wall Street Journal, updated as of March 12 2014. Thank you. -- Mark Chung ( talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
There's an article describing how the family members of passengers have noticed something that led telecommunications experts to believe that the possibility of crashing into the ocean could be ruled out. Read more here.
Roches ( talk) 12:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been noticing the BBC seem to be reporting higher numbers of craft involved in the search than listed here. I've left it up until now because I wasn't sure if it was a reporting error, but now there is a quote to state the higher numbers. Is it worth making this edit given that the current "more than" statement is not strictly wrong?
"There are currently 43 ships and 40 aircraft searching the South China Sea and Straits of Malacca," he said. 'He' being Hishammuddin Hussein, described as Malaysia's Transport Minister. Source: [3].
EmyP ( talk) 19:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I found this Time article which seems interesting.... Could this be included in the article as a reference? http://time.com/20592/mh370-nourmohammadi-iran-malaysia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonWu ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The article says "...it had accumulated 53,460 hours and 7,525 cycles in service..." What is a cycle? There will be visitors to this article who will not be familiar with the aviation term "cycle" so we should explain it. It averages out at seven hours, so that doesn't suggest return trip. Anyone have a ref or link that could elaborate. Moriori ( talk) 21:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. How is cycle different from flight, then? I had assumed cycle referred to a return journey (one trip up, one trip back), including any stop-overs, as the end of the cycle would bring you back to where you started. — sroc 💬 00:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The link to the Wiktionary was removed by Replypartyreplyparty, apparently inadvertently, so I have restored it. — sroc 💬 00:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I've removed this from the opening paragraph. The first sentence is exactly the kind of space-filling meaninglessness that makes Wikipedia better than traditional (even online) news, and you cannot use adjectives like imprecise, incomplete, inaccurate* together without any of them being quoted. It is implied much earlier in the article that nobody knows where the plane is. You shouldn't use " trajectory" in this context, or even doubt. This can't be in there, and there's other stuff that can't be in there either.
Roches ( talk) 19:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
"Vietnam has despatched a plane to investigate an eyewitness report of a possible object burning in the sky east of Vietnam.": [4]. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Bob Woodruff has confirmed that a New Zealander oil rig worker sent an email to his boss with eyewitness details of the aircraft going down off the coast of Vietnam. [6] In the email, Mike McKay says he tried to inform Malaysian and Vietnam officials but wasn't sure if the messages had been received. -- Oakshade ( talk) 17:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.84.77.22 ( talk) 12:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence of this section is too complicated, bearing in mind the public have not been doing any of the 'talking'. I'm going to simplify it and others can then pile in if they feel it necessary. Harfarhs ( talk) 17:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The pilots are being investigated
They are investigating whether it was hijacked or commandeered in some way.
Information about these should be added to investigation sections. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 19:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I shortened the communications section to remove reference to Mike Smith and the Daily Beast. Three reputable news sources (New York Times, Washington Post and Xinhua News Agency) have now said exactly the same things the other sources said, so we can now have quotations about the contradictions and frustrations that come from permanent and reputable sources. Roches ( talk) 22:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't dream of participating here, but Legobot randomly invited me. I've always thought that a breaking news story shouldn't have an article at all until, say, at least 2 weeks has passed without its being mentioned on the front pages of the NYT, the Times (London), or [insert select other publications of international standing]. The unavoidably low signal-to-noise ratio of WP article-building in general is an order of magnitude even lower on topics such as this, and is a complete waste of time. WP should begin an article when the dust has settled; in the meantime people wanting to know what's going on can read the papers or watch the news. EEng ( talk) 15:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC) P.S. I'm "unfriending" this article so please don't bother arguing this with me. I just hope that my gentle advice will save at least one innocent soul from ruin.
I disagree with EEng mainly in that I think s/he understates the case. As it stands the "article" is an unencyclopaedic disgrace to WP. It reads like a tabloid relying on second-hand reports from third-hand imaginations and with a committee in the editorial chair. I'll steer clear of it personally until as Martinevans123 might have put it, we have some dust to settle. Certainly it is a developing situation, but that is not licence for rumour mongering. JonRichfield ( talk) 05:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
A quick look at the revision history suggests that many of the contributors here have made a series of inexcusable errors as a result of rewriting false reports by the press. Wikipedia, which is not a news website, should provide only correct information. Breaking news is not definitive information. Please, let's make way for the professional journalists to screw up the alerts. Again, Wikipedia should provide only facts. If you'd like to cover developing reports, you can generate your own sources, start your own blog, and move your own original reporting; otherwise, the contributors who continue spreading claptrap here might end up in the news themselves. 76.216.4.157 ( talk) 23:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is info in the lead that the US investigators saying the plane flew on for 4 to 5 hours? This has been denied by the Malaysian authorities and Rolls Royce. Furthermore in the lead it states that the search has been expanded to the Indian Ocean. Shouldn't that information go into another section? Also there is currently an investigation on the the state of mind of the pilots and crews, that possibly might have led to the crash. Doesn't that tie in with one of the crews letting two passengers in the cockpit which goes against MAS rules. 58.168.80.41 ( talk) 23:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Allow me to quote what some anonymous person has said elsewhere to explain the situation re deriving the 4 hours of flight from comms:
- MAS [Malaysian Airlines]
ACARS comms only work thru VHF since they chose not to pay for the extra fee for ACARS SATCOM link
- This 777-200 is SATCOM equipped
- What was found by US Government services (NSA, or maybe they asked Iridium directly to check the logs) is that, since the a/c ACARS system was out of VHF coverage, the system tried to connect thru SATCOM. But since MAS doesn't have a contract for that, connection was rejected, but remains a trace in their logs.
- That means that what they actually found is the log indicating every time the aircraft ACARS system tried to log in thru SATCOM and failed due to the lack of contract for that. Since the ACARS system onboard that specific aircraft tried for 4 hours after its disappearance to connect via SATCOM to the ACARS network, it means the aircraft was, at least, powered on...
Before anyone complains about speculation I am simply noting this in order to potentially help sort out on plausibility grounds what is a reliable report and what isn't.--
Brian Dell (
talk)
01:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
One of you should do a section on Wikipedia's misreporting. Otherwise, remove the one-sided coverage that blasts officials and journalists for false reports. 76.216.4.157 ( talk) 23:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Currently, there are two maps, File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 map.png and File:Malaysia-Airlines-MH370 search area.png. In addition to combining them into a single map, I propose to add there: continuous line for the actual flight path until disappearance together with the nearby IGARI waypoint, dotted line for the expected flight path to Beijing (if known, if not - perhaps as the crow flies), add country borders and the full names of relevant features, as in normal geo maps (i.e., Andaman Sea instead of A, etc). The areas of search are retained. All other additions may go onto this map (such as projected fuel range, etc). Brandmeister talk 15:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
We should allow for the future possible inclusion of this. I would expect howls if that track is included now given the opposition from Ohc (anyone else?) to even suggesting any westward flight is more likely than another direction, but I'd sooner trust Reuters, where this track is coming from, than most other sources.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 17:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
This was today's news, I couldn't find it in the article, and am posting here so that regular editors can add it if required. Other links like that of the NY Times are also available. I will not be editing so that I do not disturb the current article's consistency.
-- PremKudva Talk 04:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone should take it upon themselves to update the information on a timely basis. For example, it has been suggested that the flight was hijacked in an update posted at 1505 ADST on an Australian webpage. 124.176.78.135 ( talk) 04:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Ros Pratch.
From the Malaysian PM: "Based on this new data the aviation authorities of Malaysia and their international counterparts have determined that the plane's last communication with the satellite was in one of two possible corridors. The northern corridor stretching approximately from the border of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to southern Thailand or the southern corridor stretching across from Indonesia to the southern Indian Ocean." [14] 60.242.1.97 ( talk) 07:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The Prime Minister of Malaysia stated:
With the continuous article editing due to mismanagement of information by the Malaysian Government, I wonder if its not appropriate to create a timeline of all the released information. 174.0.185.123 ( talk) 22:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Reference to the Malaysian government's competency in communication does not belong here unless it specifically refers to a specific communication problem involving Malaysia Airlines flight 370. RichBryan ( talk) 11:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The following sites are reporting a Facebook phish claiming to be news video of the missing aircraft. Don't know if it would be notable enough to include in this article at present. http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/14/malaysia-plane-mh370-has-been-spotted-somewhere-near-bermuda-triangle-spam-spreads-on-facebook-4574876/ http://thehackernews.com/2014/03/beware-of-new-facebook-malware-claims.html http://www.ibtimes.com/new-facebook-malware-fake-video-claims-malaysia-airlines-missing-plane-mh370-has-been-spotted . Thoughts? Wzrd1 ( talk) 02:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
20140311nytfuller
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).20140315telegraphlive
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).20140311reuterskoswanage
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).