Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

New section suggestion on the year's development leading up to Death in Absentia on 8 March 2021

• Ref rationale: Suggest to track the year development leading up to Death in Absentia on 8 March 2021. Was hoping to put this as top section for the recency of updates as most information are dated or factual in nature. Do recommend where you think it may be more suitable. Hope it doesn't fall out of the radar because of covid 19, especially since this is related to beyond search, closure and compensation. With reference to the recent FAA downgrade of Malaysia aviation, this is a good case study for aviation safety and operational improvements.KinsMH370 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Having had a look through all the new info, I agree it's important but I was just concerned when you inserted it right at the top of the article, as it then took precedence over all the other information describing what happened in the first place! So I was going to suggest that it should go further down the article, maybe as part of the Aftermath section. But now I see that you've already done that – yes it definitely sits better there. As for a good case study for aviation safety and operational improvements, if you were to expand any further I would say it warrants a new main article. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Year leading up to Death in Absentia on 8 March 2021

This is a pivotal year for the family members of MH370 victims to seek closure and compensation as on 8 March 2021, the passengers of missing MH370 would be legally declared dead in absentia. However, the change of government in Malaysia and the current Covid-19 situation look to derail efforts for such an end.

Anniversary remembrance events

8 March 2020 marks the sixth year of remembrance for the families and friends of the missing MH370.

Two memorials were held in the light of this anniversary, one at a hotel ; one in a church. Overseas families and friends of MH370 victims are able to join in the remembrance event through live streaming at the following Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/MH370Families/

At the former event, Families of MH370 passengers are still calling for new search for the flight in a bid to seek closure. Malaysia's previous Transport Minister Anthony Loke had attended this event in his personal capacity, expressing regrets on being unable to table the compensation documents at a Parliament seating as per his original intent. The kin of MH370 passengers hope that the incoming Transport Minister Wee Ka Siong could expedite the compensation matters.

Malaysia's transport ministry secretary-general, Datuk Isham Ishak shared that he had already submitted a request to meet the Prime Minister (currently Muhyiddin Yassin) the following week of 15 March to 22 March so that he can present the paper on compensation to the families of MH370 victims, and that the ministry would also continue to seek support from the new government to resume the search for the missing aircraft.

Sources

Infobox image caption

I'd like to change the caption from "9M-MRO, the missing aircraft, shown here on take-off in 2011" to "The missing aircraft, 9M-MRO, taking off from Charles de Gaulle Airport in 2011"

• Start with "The missing aircraft" to give more impact
• Remove "shown here" self-ref
• Add "taking off" as descriptive term
• Include airport name for context – I'm aware that we normally don't mention the airport as it's usually considered to be irrelevant, but given the notoriety of this aircraft the reader might be wondering where exactly this photograph of it was taken?

Any thoughts?

The reason I'm asking is because there's a hidden note that says DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT FORMING CONSENSUS ON TALK PAGE. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

No-one seems bothered so I'll go ahead and do it. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

A very nice refinement in my view. Forgive a nitty detail item please, but may I suggest "departing" to replace "taking off from"? H Bruce Campbell (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Update the "Investigation" section

The article needs to be updated since time changed. Emotioness Expression (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Emotioness Expression, Why can't you update it, please? It isn't protected or something. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 19:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@3125A: I don't have time to update all of it. Instead, I asked to do so for me. You replied. So, can you update it for me? Emotioness Expression (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Why unconfirmed?

Debris has been found. Isn't that sufficient to conclude that the plane crashed? How could the plane have kept flying with that debris missing? --217.214.148.33 (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What are you saying? Are you suggesting that the discovery of this debris proves conclusively that the plane crashed? Although this outcome is pretty darn obvious from the evidence, we have no way of verifying why, how or where it crashed. Without a reliable published source that can reveal the fate of the aircraft without any doubt, this "leap" would come under WP:OR. The fact that the plane crashed can only be finally confirmed if and when the main fuselage is found. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Update the "Investigation" section (re-request)

It's been 5 months since I made a page about updating the "Investigation" section, and I'll say this again: The article needs to be updated since time changed. Emotioness Expression (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do your mean? New info? Specific sections? Do you have any sources? WikiHannibal (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox picture change?

There's a newer picture that shows 9M-MRO from the front, landing in 2013.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabst blue ribbon led zeppelin (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Crash site found

It is claimed that the crash site has been found. As some editors are not convinced of the reliability of the Metro, I'm leaving this here. Should be picked up by other sources in due course. Mjroots (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Just looks like another trumped up theory to me. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The article actually says "A POSSIBLE crash-site for flight MH370 has been identified". (My emphasis.) "Possible" is hardly worth writing about. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A second source also mentions it - not sure how well it suits WP:RS. However it does say "possible" rather than definite, so we should wait as per suggestion by HiLo48. Autarch (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Details are at the authors' page. Their last report seems to be from 7 March 2020, so I am not sure if the media write about that only now or there is a new report/study. The location S34.2342° E93.7875° is on the 7th arc; the authors see the probable location as somewhere around the NE end of the 2014 search, SW of the Broken Ridge; part of that area is where the first search was conducted but the authors believe the search was not as thorough as the 2018 search, and not all of the seabed there was searched. Many links in Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#2018 search resumption are broken so I have not looked on the detailed maps to see where the 2018 search ended with relation to S34.2342° E93.7875. WikiHannibal (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Official investigation

Will the official investigation be re-opened if the main wreckage is found? --Heymid (contribs) 17:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

New report

[1] Maybe someone can figure out if this is of interest. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Since its promotion way back in 2015, this article has deteriorated, and it is not up to GA standards anymore. It has had inline banners for years, has gathered some cn tags, and has other clearly unsourced items. A few of the sources are now deprecated, and would need replacing. The article as a whole has also bloated quite a bit, and now has 85kB of prose, despite the existence of quite a few dedicated subpages. There are numerous short subsections, and there is some stilted prose where recent updates have not been integrated into the rest of the article. One of the inline tags is an update tag from 2018, suggesting there may be recent developments that need to be covered. CMD (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Power Outage

I removed the text As the power interruption was not due to engine flame-out, per ATSB, it may have been the result of manually switching off the aircraft's electrical system. This is not a correct statement - footnote 19 on Pg 33 of the cited reference states that the earlier power outage at 18:25 was not due to engine flame-out and could have been caused by manually switching the power configurations. This does not mean that the final power outage was also caused by manual power shut-down. It was caused by engine flame-out! Farawayman (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

With no action taken up, closing this as a delist. CMD (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The presumed cause of the end-flight power outage and subsequent repower-up, is main engine flameout followed by APU start-up. However, if there was an active pilot, manual switching of power configurations cannot be ruled out. TBILLT (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't bury the lead

The lead paragraph of the article should summarize the most important points. So I would suggest that the second sentence (before "The crew") do so -- based on the consensus which is already reflected in the info box.

After an extensive search, some debris has been recovered, and the aircraft is presumed to have crashed into the ocean with all passengers and crew lost. The cause is unknown.

The material about the "last communication" can start a new paragraph. Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Comprehensive Timeline

There’s an amazing story here that’s difficult to follow because the information is jumbled in the article depending on when it happened, what kind of information it is, when it was learned about, etc.

What I think would really help is to see a comprehensive timeline for every significant communication event from departure to the known end. For each event we should specify:

1. Time of event
2. Event nature (voice, automated, known location, inferred location from ping data, etc)
3. relevant details about the event
4. when and how the event was learned about and how it affected searching.

I think seeing these events in chronological order will allow readers to see what we know happened, and help understand what might have happened. —В²C ☎ 23:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious?

None of the people on board the plane have communicated anything for 7 years. Isn't this good enough, together with the discovery of some debris, to conclude the plane crashed and everyone is dead? The only alternative is that they're held hostage somewhere. --2A02:AA1:1027:67C4:AD72:1A9:A96E:3164 (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this a suggestion for improvement of the article? If it is, could you be a bit more specific? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there any plausible theory that would imply that they are alive? --2A02:AA1:1027:67C4:AD72:1A9:A96E:3164 (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

See WP:TPG, WP:NOTFORUM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Map of new putative search area including previous search areas

It would be most helpful if someone is inclined to produce a map showing both this new proposed putative search area which also shows previously searched areas to show the relative proximity of this new proposed location to areas already searched.
Enquire (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Theory of Florence de Changy

Journalist Florence de Changy has published her theory:

• Le Vol MH370 N’a Pas Disparu: La Plus Grande Énigme De L’histoire De L’aviation Civile

• Le Vol MH370 N’a Pas Disparu (French)
• YouTube in French, no subtitles
• many more found via web search.

I find copious references to this in French — including in the French Wikipedia page of this article — but not in English. While I suspect her theory to be dubious, I would think that it should be mentioned in terms of her central claim(s) and commentary on their plausibility. Maybe there is someone out there. who is far more fluent in French than I, who can review the French WIkipedia page (as well as above citations) and distil the essence of her theory and add plausibility commentary in the Wikipedia page.
Enquire (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I found what look like some relevant English language sources: [2][3][4]. There's also an English language book source: de Changy, F. (2021). The Disappearing Act: The Impossible Case of MH370. Mudlark Press. ISBN 978-0-00-838153-0. Retrieved 2022-03-07. Unfortunately, that is not previewable online. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

De Changy is briefly mentioned in a different context in Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories, where such theories belong; in case you want to add more about her theory there, it would probably fall into the Shoot-down hypothesis subsection. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Update the summary with statement by FPMOAU

The former prime minister of australia stated in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcIwt2bRDkc&t=1793s that it's "understood as a murder suicide" -> Update the summary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreyren (talk • contribs) 13:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Well thats also said in the WSPR oriented documentary - with special pointing to the flight path reconstruction showing a very long time of controlled flight but not making much sense despite a) it was a suicide operation or b) it was a last resort "escape" from a politically motivated hijacking gone wrong. The flight path indicates at some quite early point no intention to reach any sort of land mass and airport that would had allowed at least a chance of rescue. At some point maybe only western Australia was still in reach. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

WSPR is physically unable to "track" any aircraft. Thus, conclusions about the fate of MH370 that rely on WSPR are baseless, and not even worthy of mention. Xinbad (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Aircraft scatter is pretty real. With the right distance it has been used a non-countable amount of cases to create connections between radio stations that otherwise would not be possible. Its "special effect" is that it will only be viable for a relatively short time. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"Aircraft scatter is pretty real."

It certainly can be; radar works by detecting scattered radio signals from all kinds of things, including aircraft. However, WSPR is not radar, nor can it be used as such, especially when working with historical data like Richard Godfrey has attempted to do. When one looks at the WSPR data that Godfrey used to devine his proposed flight path for MH370, it's actually laughable that he claims to have discerned a meaningful signal from it. Xinbad (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This comment refers back to the original video linked above of the comments by the Australian PM circa 2013-15. In my opinion, only people who have never experienced Major Chronic Depression and/or suicidal ideations would believe this is a viable theory. It is a known fact in the psychiatric world, that when a suicidal person makes their final decision to commit suicide, it actually brings them peace and resolution. I can tell you from personal experience, as a person who's suffered Major Chronic Depression for 50 years now, been in & out of therapy during the difficult times & done a great deal of medical research on the topic to try to understand this disease, that when you make that decision, YOU DO NOT DRAG IT OUT. You do not fly a plane aimlessly 10 hours, waiting for it to run out of fuel! That is the antithesis of a suicide attempt! Suicide is an *active* act. Running a plane out of fuel is a *passive* act. Smashing a plane into the ground or the side of a mountain - those are *active* acts. If you want the plane to run out of fuel, you dump fuel over the ocean. You don't fly aimlessly for 10 hours total.

Suicides are *PLANNED* and this flight path does not appear planned. It appears the act of someone who does not know what they are doing, like (a) hostage taker(s) with guns to the pilots' heads, with the pilots pretending to be following their orders to land but doing anything to tire the person(s) out.

To the "rational" world, suicide seems irrational, but when you suffer from clinical depression, you have a rationale for it, and you make a plan. You don't WANT to leave anything to chance. What if air traffic control *had* done their jobs better? Maybe the pilots were hoping air traffic control would question his strange replies & ask if everything was OK? Maybe the pilots were under duress & praying air traffic control would keep trying to reach out, try to locate them, rescue them? That's a more likely scenario than the b.s. suicide/murder idiocy. Kelelain (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

And before anyone wants to reference "suicide by cop" as a passive act - everyone knows if you point a firearm at a police officer, they will fire on you. The act of goading the police into shooting you is your own act, no one else's. Kelelain (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Flags

I don't know if adding flags in Passengers and crew was accepted by discussion before or not, but I still remember someone undid my edit before, due to MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Or I didn't notice if there's was a discussion about adding the flags in here? Flyplanevn27 (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Picture change

I made a decision to change the picture on the article Javyriv (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey um man how do you check in for me to change the picture on article? 2A02:C7C:C62B:900:554C:FF0A:4761:3C7A (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Number of RU passengers

In pdf, passenger with nation RU is only one. I dont understand why in table there is 3? 83.11.121.188 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Number of RU passengers

In pdf, passenger with nation RU is only one. I dont understand why in table there is 3? 83.11.121.188 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

WSPR cannot be used to track aircraft

The claims made by Richard Godfrey and others about the ability to track aircraft using WSPR technology are without merit, and the section referring to WSPR should either be removed, or at least edited to include the fact that recognized experts in the field of WSPR dismiss the claims being made by Godfrey et al. In fact, physics professor and Nobel Laureate Joe Taylor, and the inventor of WSPR technology, has stated:

As I’ve written several times before, it’s crazy to think that historical WSPR data could be used to track the course of ill-fated flight MH370. Or, for that matter, any other aircraft flight...

Simply put, the signals scattered by aircraft are orders of magnitude too weak to produce a meaningful result using WSPR.

https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2021/12/19/wspr-cant-find-mh370/

– Xinbad (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-d4Kl8Xh4 --Alexander.stohr (talk)

File:Mh370-laptop-cut-retusche-overlay.png --Alexander.stohr (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexander.stohr: If the idea that WSPR data can be used to track aircraft is patently total nonsense, then that should also be mentioned at WSPR_(amateur_radio_software)#MH370. Even if nonsense, the claim should, if notable enough (I'm not sure) be mentioned at the "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370" article only to dismiss or reject it. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:9868:3B49:B0C5:E900 (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

sorry to render your statement bad - it has been proven to be useable with true flight tracks as the reference making "bright stars of radio wave intersection" on the respective world maps. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If that is true (I don't know one way or the other), it ought to be reflected in WSPR (amateur radio software) § Applications, and supporting sources cited there. It's not, and they're not. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

WSPR probably can be used to track aircraft, as two new studies seem to back up the claims. Why is this being suppressed on Wikipedia? https://www.airlineratings.com/news/two-new-reports-verify-mh370-location-technology/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.16.244 (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no "suppression." Claims about using WSPR to track aircraft are simply bogus, and therefore do not warrant their promulgation on Wikipedia.

Assertions made by individuals regarding the use of WSPR to track any aircraft fail to offer any actual evidence that WSPR is capable of extracting meaningful information about aircraft. The fact is, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of WSPR signals scattered by aircraft is on the order of 0.0001 to 0.00001. Without extensive statistical sampling and analysis (which WSPR lacks when attempting to track a single aircraft), the theoretical minimum of SNR for signal detection is > 1.0, i.e., 10,000 to 100,000 times greater than what WSPR can provide in the case of aircraft.

To quote (one more time) the inventor of WSPR (physicist and Nobel laureate Joe Taylor),

As I’ve written several times before, it’s crazy to think that historical WSPR data could be used to track the course of ill-fated flight MH370. Or, for that matter, any other aircraft flight.

I didn't add the second part of Taylor's quote the first time, but I think I'm beginning to understand Prof. Taylor's frustration:

I don’t choose to waste my time arguing with pseudo-scientists who don’t understand what they are doing. Xinbad (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to help sort this out at Talk:WSPR_(amateur_radio_software)#MH370. The crux of the problem is we have reliable sources reporting on Richard Godfrey's WSPR claims and though there are compelling demonstrations and reports that these claims are bogus, no one has found reliable sources countering them. It has been suggested that this material be deleted but doing that won't quench the conspiracy theories. ~Kvng (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of any reliable sources reporting Godfrey's claims. All I've seen are unvetted rehashings of Godfrey's own words, written by people with no demonstrated understanding of the fundamental concepts governing WSPR. This is not a unique situation; the popular news media often get scientific stories wrong. For example, I once had a news reporter "quote" me as stating that the boiling point of water is 2000 kelvins.

There is no more need to "counter" stories reporting Godfrey's fantasy than there is to counter news articles claiming that the Earth is flat. Xinbad (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Xinbad, I do believe there is a need to cover this. It is out there in the mass media. People will want to fact check it. They can't do that if we just delete any mention of the idea. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Your list on the amateur-radio page of articles refuting (or at least critiquing) Godfrey's so-called hypothesis leaves out the best one I've found; it's by Victor Ianello:

https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2021/12/19/wspr-cant-find-mh370/

BTW, I have already posted a link to this article earlier, and in this very thread.

Not only is Ianello's analysis clear and spot-on, he also had the temerity to contact the inventor of WSPR (physics professor and Nobel laureate Joe Taylor) to get his opinion on this topic (something the popular press has failed to do). Here's Dr. Taylor's response:

"As I’ve written several times before, it’s crazy to think that historical WSPR data could be used to track the course of ill-fated flight MH370. Or, for that matter, any other aircraft flight...

I don’t choose to waste my time arguing with pseudo-scientists who don’t understand what they are doing. "

And with that, I hereby end my participation in any further discussion of this matter. I have already spent too much time "tilting at windmills" with people who will believe whatever they want, physics be damned. Xinbad (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand and share your frustration. Unfortunately the evidence you offer appears to be a self-published source so is considered less reliable by Wikipedians than the mainstream sources that quote Godfrey. ~Kvng (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What in year was it in the accident. 2601:14D:4D7E:5CE0:AC4F:2426:4843:A03E (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Picture caption

The caption for the infobox image currently reads: <quote>The missing aircraft, 9M-MRO in December 2011</quote> I think it should be changed to: <quote>The missing aircraft, pictured in December 2011</quote> as [a] the name of the aircraft is already mentioned in the lead, and [b] "pictured in" is common wording for captions. A variation could be changing "aircraft" to "plane"or saying "the aircraft involved in the incident" instead of "the missing aircraft". Thoughts? BhamBoi (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've changed it to "The missing aircraft pictured in December 2011". The tail number is presented elsewhere in the infobox and its presence additionally in the caption is unnecessary and may be confusing. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 search

Added a section discussing recent efforts to resumer the mh370 search. This section will need frequent updating as new information is made available. LarrysKeeper (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Disappearance date

Why does the article say the disappearance date is "8 March 2023; 9 years ago". Isn't this just completely false? I believe it was in 2014, certainly not 2023 180.150.120.22 (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It says 2014. 213.237.77.79 (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2023

Suggest addition of latest news of a fisherman claiming to have dredged up a wing: https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-trawler-skipper-s-memory-from-the-deep-dredges-up-intriguing-questions-20231214-p5erln.html

The area is about 55 kilometres west of the South Australian town of Robe, and about the same distance from shore. Olver says he put down the mysterious wing at 37 degrees, 16 minutes south and 139 degrees, 12 minutes east. S.buyers69 (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It was 9 years ago... if he remembers correctly? Although it does say: "He says he tried to alert authorities of his find soon after returning to port, phoning the Australian Maritime Safety Authority." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. These arguably anecdotal remembrances from a 77 year old man 9 years removed from when they occurred deserve something resembling a consensus from local editors if they're to be included in the article.  Spintendo  22:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Large part of wing turns up

My edit got frustratingly reverted but the gist of it is model suggest it might have crashed further south than previously searched Kev Lambert (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You probably need to be citing a reliable source to support and further explain that view. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It's confirmed

Apparently the pilot disconnected from radar and flew in circles until fuel ran out which means that Pilot Suicide is the reason 41.37.40.48 (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a source for this statement. --McSly (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah 2.103.176.140 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

That is a theory, not officially confirmed by any sources from official reports. 136.158.100.35 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was interviewed on Sky News in 2020, and said he was told by Malaysian authorities that right from the start, they believed it was murder suicide. That is not 'confirmation' but Abbott was Prime Minister at the time so this information comes from a reliable source. Kiwimanic (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That's an opinion. An opinion from an influential person, yes, but still just an opinion. It's not "evidence". It's not any kind of "confirmation". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not an opinion. It is what Tony Abbott was told by Malaysian authorities - who consitute a reliable source. Confirmation that the pilot committed suicide is not required to include reliable comment from Australia's Prime Minister. Kiwimanic (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's what Abbott claims he was told by Malaysian authorities. He lost the Prime Ministership not long after this event. I and many other Australians would have trouble seeing him as a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion of Abbott. He still said it. And his statement is reported in numerous media, considered to be reliable sources.Kiwimanic (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This is undue. He has no expertise in the field so his opinion is not better that any random person on the street.-- McSly (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

1) It is not his opinion. It is the opinion of the Malaysian authorities. Abbott simply repeated what they told him.

2) Undue states "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". The Malaysian authorities perspective is prominant; they advised the Australian Prime Minister because he was the most prominent person in the country at the time. Numerous reliable sources have published the Prime Minister's comments. Please stop removing a prominent viewpoint published in multiple reliable sources. Kiwimanic (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

How can you possibly know that "Abbott simply repeated what they told him"? He is a politician. It might surprise you to learn that some of us don't always trust everything politicians say. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to know. The statement is quoted in numerous reliable sources. However, your personal distrust of politicians (which is totally reasonable) is not a policy that is applicable on wiki. Otherwise we would have to remove from wiki every statement ever made by every policitian. Kiwimanic (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This section is about writing what Abbott said as a sourced fact. (Look at the opening sentence.) We cannot do that. We can write that Abbott said something, but cannot say what HE said in Wikipedia's voice. I'm not sure how useful it is to write what Abbott claimed. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The opening sentence to what? What are you talking about?

Also you say "we can write that Abbott said something". Then why do you keep removing what he said. Your communication is very unclear. Kiwimanic (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Abbot's claim is in the body of the article. There is not enough space in the lead to include unofficial information about what a third party (the authorities) might have said. WikiHannibal (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Kiwimanic - Right from the start my concern has been about the title of this section and the opening post. A politician saying someone told him something doesn't confirm anything. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What section??? Here at the talk page? Are we talking about the title of the section under which we have been discussing here? Are you serious or did I not get what you mean? WikiHannibal (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Is "this section" not clear? HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48 that the title of the section "Its confirmed" on the Talk page is wrong. Nothing is confirmed. But that does not justify removing something from the actual article. Kiwimanic (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal. There is also a lot of technical material and unnecessary detail in the lede. IMO, it needs to be condensed. Kiwimanic (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Guys, if you are discussing the title of a section of the talk page written by an IP user, you are wasting your time. Feel free to start your own subsection and discuss Abbot (or whatever you want) there. WikiHannibal (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Speculation duplication

This article has a large section titled Speculated causes of disappearance. There is an separate article on wiki devoted to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories. Perhaps the section on Speculated Causes in Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 should be removed entirely? Kiwimanic (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I think not. The subsection contains Speculated causes wich were speculated about by investigative bodies or other official organisations, while Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories includes fringe theories. There is only minor overlap. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Kiwimanic's edits

In a few days, Kiwimanic made large changes to the article. Does (or did) anyone have the time to go through them and check them? Unfortunately, I do not. In my experience, mistakes are often introduced and can stay in the article for a long time/ever when one editor makes a row of edits nobody is able to check. For example, one of the first additions is "Two interim reports, with very little information were issued". Is "with very little information" original research? Condensing is one thing but replacing specific info with opinions is not good for any article, and this one is not that bad that it would need this content condensing (it is a delisted good article). Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The first interim report contained factual information about the plane but no analysis. The second interim report was only three pages long. I will change the wording to reflect the lack of analysis. Kiwimanic (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I had to undo another of your edits which introduced factual errors into the article, claiming something that was not in the source. However, nobody has the time to check all of your edits. Please be more careful when editing (and perhaps, if I may offer an advice, choose a less complicated articles first). Thank you. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You are very good at making vague accusations without providing sufficient evidence to explain what you are talking about. Your communication style is not helpful. You come across as very arrogant. Kiwimanic (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiHannibal's edits

I added this to the article: "The Malaysian Ministry of Transport's final report in July 2018 acknowledged “unlawful interference", either by the pilot or a third party, when the plane was manually turned towards the south shortly after 1.00am." The Guardian is a reliable source.

WikiHannibal has deleted it three times claiming there is no mention of unlawful interference in the final report (which is over 1,500 pages). As far as I can tell, the final report is no longer available online, so we're left with the following... Kiwimanic (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This source says: "New MH370 Report Finds 'Unlawful Interference By Third Party' Cannot Be Ruled Out"

This source says: "THE Malaysian government’s report into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 says all the evidence points to an incontrovertible conclusion — that the plane was under manual control, and that it was deliberately flown out into the Indian Ocean."

This source says: "No matter what we do, we cannot exclude the possibility of a third person or third party or unlawful interference.”

This source says: "The team of 19 Malaysians and representatives from aviation authorities of seven other countries said it could not rule out any "unlawful interference by a third party".

WikiHannibal seems to be the one introducing factual errors into the article. Kiwimanic (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The link I added to my edit summary diff , works fine, see the link. Also as I said in my second edit summary diff, the link to the report is also used as a ref in the article so it is accessible. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It is NOT acccessible. The link you have provided is to the early report done in 2014. The final report was not published until 2018. Kiwimanic (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The very first page of the report I linked several times reads "Issued on 02 July 2018". As I said in the section above, this is a complicated article but reading a date from the first page should not be that hard. Please understand, that WP:COMPETENCE is required; and what it is:

• the ability to read sources and assess their reliability.
• the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus.
• the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.

Thank you, WikiHannibal (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Relevance is also important. Whether the report you cited is the final one or not is totally irrelevant when your latest reason for deleting the sentence under discussion is "This is a statement with no informative value." The statement clearly has informative value. It says "unlawful interference" cannot be ruled out - ie that the interference was deliberate - someone committed mass murder killing 239 people. However, in order to realise that, you need to understand WP:COMPETENCE which requires:

• the ability to read sources and assess their reliability.
• the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus.
• the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.

Since you don't seem to understand the significance of the words 'unlawful interference', consensus is not possible. Kiwimanic (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the disputed quote from the report, i.e. "could not rule out any unlawful interference by a third party", 1) that seems to be a quoatation by Kok from the press conference, and is part of his larger explanation, quoted in the very first Kiwimanic's Guardian source (which was used in the article and started this discussion) as: “The turn back could not be attributed to an anomalous system,” said Kok. “It has been established that the air turn back was done under manual control, not autopilot … we cannot rule out unlawful interference by a third party.” So I believe the quote is originally from Kok and not the report. 2) Also "cannot rule out" is not, in my understanding, the same as "acknowledge", as Kiwimanic added to the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

So change the sentence citing Kok as the source instead of deleting the entire sentence. Be co-operative instead of disruptive. You've been around on WP long enough to know better. Kiwimanic (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Temporary Protect

I've been following this page for a few days and I notice there has been multiple edits in the past twelve hours. The 10th anniversary of MH370's disappearance is tomorrow — March 8th 2024 — and I am concerned there will be an increase of plagiarism and other edits that perpetuates false news about MH370 and its fate.

There was an edit made on the MH370 main page at 15:58 & 15:59 (US Eastern Time on March 7th 2024) that claims the fate and whereabouts of MH370 is unknown. This information is not accurate. The data we have has shown for years that the fate of MH370 is inconclusive, but debris has been found thousands of miles away.

Butterscotch5 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

ergo, fate and whereabouts of MH370 is unknown.

Enquire (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Butterscotch5: Wikipedia's page protection policy is that articles are not usually protected preemptively. You can make a request for protection at WP:RFPP if vandalism/disruption/abuse becomes rampant and frequent. Fork99 (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has ways to curb any disturbance. If editing gets crazy, that's when page protections can be made through WP:RFPP. – The Grid (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)