Jump to content

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Misinformation

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)

See Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#RfC:_Is_discussion_of_crisis_management_appropriate_in_this_article.3F--Nowa (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Confusion is not the same as conspiracy. Government officials worldwide regularly make egregious mistakes in talking about their own specialities. Here we have many officials, from several different nations, all trying to talk outside their area of expertise in a situation with little evidence to go on. Mistakes and confusion are inevitable, they do not suggest misinformation. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
we don't do fringe or conspiracy theories; also misinformation =/= disinformation. -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ring diacritics

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)

Good question. I find no use of ring diacritics in the article on Malaysia or on Malaysia Airlines. Either both of those articles are wrong and this one is right or this one is wrong.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The Malaysia Airlines website does not use ring diacritics. Therefore I have changed them in the article. If someone shows that diacritics are supposed to be used, we can re-consider. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not correct. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
They were added in good-faith edits by a new User from Hungary. YSSYguy (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Ahhh, that explains it. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Airworthiness Directive not Applicable

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)

Thanks for making this confirmation. I didn't notice the 777-200ER as being on original list of affected models, and at least in theory the aircraft did have a maintenance cycle after the AD was released in which it should have been inspected for cracks. It's not impossible that a related problem applies to other 777s, but any cause of sudden decompression is a possibility, and it's very hard to determine whether metal failure was a factor without any failed metal. Roches (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Officially there is no -200ER model; it is not listed on the FAA Type Certificate. The AD doesn't come into force until April, which means that nobody is compelled to carry it out yet. Having said that, the Service Bulletin was released last year and a prudent maintenance operation would have done the inspections then; the AD just makes the SB compulsory. YSSYguy (talk) 12:42, 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)

Edit warring

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)

I agree; people need to work out their problems on the talk page and come to a consensus instead of just reverting nonstop. Obviously this article is fast moving too, but people need to understand that not all possible news about the flight is worthy of inclusion in the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Seconded. The article can always be locked for an hour or two to force editors to take a break. WP:AN/EW is only a click away. Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, admins can and will block edit warrers and vandals. Vandal notebedenotebede (talk · contribs) has just been indeffed by myself. This page has well over 200 editors watching it, which will include a good number of admins. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Passengers allowed into cockpit

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)

It's hardly lead-able as it did not happen on this flight. Perhaps a mention in Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Crew? WWGB (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I assume this relates to a story that aired on A Current Affair in Australia last night about passengers being allowed in the cockpit in a different flight. —sroc 💬 05:47, 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)

No mystery - at least two people thought it doesn't belong. Why do you think it is relevant to the disappearance? YSSYguy (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Where is it noted that "two people" thought it doesn't belong? I had to sleuth around in the edit history for a long time to figure out where it got deleted because @Ohconfucius: didn't put down a useful edit summary (only "importance of this not yet established") or leave a courtesy message on my talk. I'm not insisting this be included, but come on folks, let's cooperate better here and leave productive messages. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
And FYI, there is a reliable source in CNN for this [1] which says Malaysia Airlines is "shocked by these allegations." -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: I'm sorry, Andrew. This article moves too fast, and if I stopped to trace all edits and then leave courtesy messages for all the good and bad stuff I remove, I wouldn't be editing articles at all... but stuck doing detective work and writing talk pages. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I would think its removal by two different people is note enough; and there is no requirement whatsoever to post a Talk page message saying "Hey, I undid your work". Just to clarify, the programme that broke this "story" is not exactly reputable, it's the televisual equivalent of those magazines that have stories along the lines of "Aliens ate my eyebrows". YSSYguy (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@YSSYguy: Dude, did I say anything about a requirement? No. At the very least, please leave useful edit summaries. If @Ohconfucius: says this is moving "too fast" to leave talk page messages, then detailed and useful edit summaries is all we have to create a cooperative environment. I don't think that's being unreasonable or a jerk. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Why? These sources seem to be implying that one incident in 2011 where someone claims to have been in the cockpit while in flight with the same co-pilot as this flight therefore indicates somehow… what, exactly? That the co-pilot was incompetent? That he may be the cause of MH370 going missing? Have any reliable sources said this? Wikipedia is not a playground for scandalous theories and speculation. —sroc 💬 06:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In its statement, Malaysia Airlines said it has not been able to confirm the validity of the pictures and videos of the alleged incident. "We are in the midst of a crisis, and we do not want our attention to be diverted," the airline said. smh report. Maybe Andrew knows something we don't, but I don't think its relevant. In any event, they aren't investigating it. However, I'm aware there have been other serious security breaches involving MAS in recent years including unprofessional behaviour by its staff. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • From one source it's a scandalous theory. From the airline itself and the chief of police (who has made several other announcements that have gone into the article), it's notable. It doesn't mean it's the cause of the crash, necessarily. There are strong aviation-related reasons why this development may remain notable.Roches (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not notable because it is the Captain who bears responsibility for letting passengers onto the flight deck not the First Officer, there is no way it would have happened without the Captain's consent, he will bear the consequences. That Captain will almost surely be out of a job soon if not already. 49.180.158.87 (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I have more than a sneaking suspicion that the captain is already out of a job. ;-) You don't disappear with 238 people and several million dollars worth of equipment and expect to keep it. But it's still imaginable that the whole kit and caboodle are in North Korea – it's within range. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ohconfucious I was referring to the captain on the 2011 flight, a different captain to the missing aircraft's captain,in case you didn't pick up ;-) 49.180.159.255 (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
OIC. The 11th commandment comes into play, then. (Thou shalt not get caught) ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Reverting to the old information about the stolen passports was probably not the best thing to do. Again, I did not put that there because I am posting a crazy theory. It was (briefly) on the press release. The police chief in Malaysia said they were looking into four possibilities, three of which were essentially the same. He is accountable for what he says and he has information that random internet crackpot theorists don't have.Roches (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
For the record, the claim that the airline is "shocked by these allegations" about an incident that happened in 2011 does not automatically make it relevant to the article about a missing aircraft in 2014, notwithstanding that the same co-pilot was on both flights. We don't go trawling through each crew member's employment history looking for poor behaviour in order to imply some vague link to the current major disaster. If reliable sources (read: not tabloid outlets) make a link relating the past incident to the current incident, then it may be worthy of inclusion, but let's not bring Wikipedia down to A Current Affair's level. —sroc 💬 12:50, 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)

The material should be noted, however briefly, somewhere in the article. The Malaysians have a conflict of interest here as they are in the same position as the Egyptians were with respect to EgyptAir Flight 990: it does not reflect well on them if one of their pilots deliberately took this plane off course without a valid mechanical reason. Obviously they are going to insist that digging into the personal history of the pilots is irrelevant.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It probably is. There's going to be an awful lot of speculation removed from this article when the true story is known. HiLo48 (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The more time goes by the more attention will be placed on who was on board the plane, especially who was controlling it. If the plane crashed because of mechanical reasons the wreckage should have been found by now. If the wreckage isn't to be found near the planned route why did the pilots deviate from the route? A mechanical problem that is too serious to avoid ditching/crashing in the Gulf of Thailand AND knocks out all of the transponder, ACARS, and all communications is surely a problem that would not allow significant deviation from the flight path. This is using one's analytical ability to assess what claims are likely to be reliable and what are not likely. A claim that one of the pilots was not exclusively focused on attending to the business of his work as opposed to his own desires or issues becomes more plausible with each passing day. The Wall Street Journal says that police have visited the home of one of the pilots.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
And you're speculating, which you should not do here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Except I've been proven right by the report that they turned off the transponder and flew for another four hours! We know this because U.S. investigators leaked to the WSJ the ACARS data that the Malaysians would not. Anyway, you can learn more about the captain here where it is noted that who he follows on Twitter reveals that he is a Lawyers for Liberty supporter.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Who someone follows on Twitter is as likely to reveal who they dislike and want to keep an eye on as who they support. It does not allow conclusions to be drawn. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you've been "proven right", and even if you ever were, that just proves you were speculating. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It does not, in fact, matter what either of us think. What matters is that U.S. investigators have assumed a deliberate diversion of the aircraft.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
A careful reading will show that is not what the report actually says, it says that they have looked at the possibility, not that it is the theory they are following. Reporting speculation as fact does not stop it being speculation. 82.45.87.103 (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Now which rogue state is within 5 hours' flight of the gulf of Thailand and is likely to accept such a defector? ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:09, 13 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)

And they're both wearing the same kilt!! So not Iranian at all ... but kilt-sharing Scottish!! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

March 12 Update: Assets Deployed in SAR efforts

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)

Possibility of NOT being underwater

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.

Excerpt: "Telecoms expert Alan Spencer told MailOnline that if the phones are really ringing, they can categorically not be under the sea. He added that the phones will only be ringing if they are ‘switched on, not in water, the battery is charged, and [they are] near a mobile cell site.’ This means that if the phones are genuinely ringing, the plane needs to have landed on land – not in the sea – and be in a location where there is cell service, rather than landing in the middle of a jungle, for example." --Mark Chung (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The 'Phantom call' theory has been dismissed by other experts. The article there in the link elaborates on that and there's a video on that page too that explains the phone ringing thing. Also a "possibility" of not being underwater, that doesn't mean it's a confirmed fact. Not worthy enough for an inclusion in the article regarding the ocean possibility thing, seems more like a theory than a fact. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There is also another clue it's not currently underwater: a pilot of another Boeing 777 claims he established the contact with Flight 370 after the disappearance. May be just another rumour, but still... Brandmeistertalk 10:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
These seem more like suppositions or theories. I suggest we wait until we got corroboration for this possibility and it becomes a fact until it gets included in the article. Still, good lookouts though. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Anything about the fact that the phones ring is absurd. This is even more absurd, as it goes on to say they must be in an area with cell service, and AC power at that. If the phones were actually working, Google Latitude, Apple's Find My iPhone or some other service would also work, and the phones would have been found immediately. You don't really have to be a Telecoms Expert and understand when phones do and do not ring. If they were actually working, they would be trackable.

Roches (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's take a purely deductive approach.
  1. A phone rang. (Premise A)
  2. All phones can not ring underwater. (Premise B)
  3. The phone was not underwater when it rang (conclusion).
This syllogism critically depends upon the premises being true. Premise B is probably true, but we are not sure about Premise A. Therefore it seems unreasonable to post it on wiki.
Note: It is not true that an intact phone would have connected to Google Latitude or Find my iPhone. There are far too many variables to consider. Therefore, the lack of a signal from one of these services does not mean the cell phones are not intact. "If they were actually working, they would be trackable" is inductive and probabilistic - not strictly true. sabine antelope 21:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Cell phones aside, It would be interesting to have a map with the aircraft's projected range from it's last contact coordinates. Doyna Yar (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The last report was that the aircraft was traveling at 471 knots (542 mph; 872 km/h) true airspeed and had 7.5 hours of fuel left. Assuming the crew was unconscious at the controls then the aircraft would have flown for an additional 3,532.5 nautical miles (4,065.1 miles; 6,542.2 km) before running out of fuel and descending. I doubt the autopilot will configure the aircraft for an efficient glide once its out of fuel meaning the potential circle is not much larger that what it accomplished under power. Here is a map that shows the resulting circle around Kuala Lumpur. You will need to mentally shift it up slightly to make it a circle around the spot where contact was lost. As you can see, the circle goes from the middle East, all of India, all of China, a good part of Russia, on to all of Australia, and lots of open ocean. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Today, the Wall Street journal published a similar map.[2] The circle is smaller than the one I made as it allows for the aircraft to descend under power and to land where I had it staying aloft until it ran out of fuel. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Numbers of Search Vessels and Aircraft

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'm not convinced that we should slavishly follow these to update them. Countries join, add assets, when the search winds down they withdraw assets. It's one of the reason we generalised the numbers, and wording is now "Types of assets sent by different nations include", so there's a greater tolerance for variations and doesn't have to be exhaustive. We already have enough so that the scale of intervention can be appreciated by the reader. I might even round the numbers down at some stage. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. EmyP (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Source?

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)

Cycles?

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)

A cycle is a flight - one take-off, one period of flight and one landing. A combination of the number of flying hours and cycles is used to determine maintenance schedules - certain components (undercarriage, brakes, tyres for example) are stressed more at the beginning and end of a cycle than during flying hours so will be checked-in for maintenance more frequently (in terms of flying hours) on a plane used for short-haul flights than on the same model used for long-haul flights. I think that's about it. Lynbarn (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I looked in vain for Cycle (aviation) or similar. Martinevans123 (talk)
@Martinevans123: SOFIXIT ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems that Mjroots already did. Hardly seems worthy of an entire article (even if there are quite a few cycles in Beijing) . Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
So did I, but there was nothing I could find on wikipedia - If I can find an authorititive source, I may add an article (although it is likely to be quite short! Lynbarn (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed - linked to wikt:cycle. Mjroots (talk) 21:43, 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)

Pressurization cycles. It stretches the fuselage in and out with each flight and is the main source of wear and tear on certain structures of the plane (e.g. the fuselage skin). Sailsbystars (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Whereas a single flight would have multiple cycles (take-off and landing) if it has stopovers (e.g., SYD–KUL–PEK would be one flight with two cycles)? —sroc 💬 03:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Bingo. You see the terminology used in pretty much every NTSB accident report. For instance, the aircraft used in Aloha Airlines Flight 243 had almost 90,000 (!) cycles at the time of its accident...Sailsbystars (talk) 15:51, 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)

Removed from opening paragraph

Communication between official representatives of many organisations and the public regarding the loss of the flight has been imprecise, incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate,[1] amidst continuing doubt about the aircraft's possible location and trajectory.[2][3]

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)

Eyewitness report investigation

"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)

"There are also two unconfirmed sightings of a low-flying plane off the east coast at about 1.30am, though Les Westbrooks, associate professor of aeronautical science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, warns: "Eyewitness accounts are notoriously bad." [5] Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 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)

This is now looking like it needs adding somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Named as Mike McKay, a New Zealander, working on the Songa Mercur drilling platform, on the south-eastern shore of Vietnam. (If anyone's bothered). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 3News item: [7]
I think it needs adding like a fish needs a bicycle. Please keep WP:FRINGE in mind. We need to wait until this is vetted by the authorities and the press. How does this oil rig worker know that whatever "possible burning object in the sky" he saw is in fact this plane? Remember in 1996 when TWA Flight 800 exploded shortly after a nighttime takeoff from North America (as it turned out from fuel vapor in an empty tank), an eyewitness was certain he "saw" a missile fired at the plane. We certainly don't need to give undue prominence to what is most likely yet another in a long line of false leads. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Or like an oil rig worker needs a cigarette. Although compared with UFOs and the Taliban I thought I was on pretty firm ground with that one. sob. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you translate the Chinese to English？

[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.84.77.22 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese article is quite long, translating it here isn't practical. I suggest you copy and paste parts or the entire article into http://translate.google.com . Overall, the article reflects the current confusion of an ongoing story, as well as some older information and some information that seems questionable.Wzrd1 (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if we translate it all, there will be a lot of duplication. Best to copy a section that isn't here in the English version (if it's important enough) and translate that for inclusion. I can look at the machine translation and make necessary changes into good English. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest NOT. The article on Chinese Wikipedia is nothing but a news collection. Poorly written. The one here on English wikipedia is much better. If someone adds information about some premier of some country expresses concerns and instructs search and rescue operations. or some foreign affairs minister acknowledges missing of their citizen, I will be bold to remove it. --Elpmoi (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
English wikipedia is not news collection？？？
Please! No machine translations. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 11:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

'Criticism of official communication'

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)

Further investigations

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)

  • The first article there contains a crucial piece of information! It says Reuters was told an unidentified aircraft seen on radar was following airways P628 and M571. I think they meant M571 because there isn't an N571 in the Indian Ocean. P628 goes southwest from Malaysia (around Phuket) to India; N571 goes from Kuala Lumpur southeast towards the Arabian Peninsula. Both airways could be used by any plane going anywhere southeast of Malaysia. However an aircraft in distress, or an aircraft that had deliberately switched off its transponder, probably would not fly along the recognized airways. The fact it was following an airway probably meant it was a routine flight other than MH570. If it was being tracked by another ATC (Chennai or Yangon) then Kuala Lumpur may not have known its transponder code and so would not have seen it on ATC radar. If MH 370 was in distress, it would have taken the most direct route to an airport. If it was diverted by some malicious event, it also would probably not flown on the jet airways with its transponder off. The possible involvement of the crew really needs to be mentioned in the article, because investigators have said since the first time I added that and got it reverted that it was a possibility they were looking at. They would never have said they were examining the crew unless they had strong reasons, based on non-public evidence, to say this. The airways have already been discussed here, and yeah, expect howls if it's included. Roches (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Communications section edits

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)

Credibility

Wait a month and then write an article

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.

.. and of course we don't even have any dust at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
User talk:EEng, I personally like articles such as this one. There have been incidents that I have a mild interest in. I've found Wikipedia to be excellent at summarizing where the story is at the moment from from many sources while also filtering out speculation. Before Wikipedia became popular I'd need to wait until the magazines ran an article as those also would summarize the story, filter out speculation, etc. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

  • Absolutely, although it doesn't quite have the copyediting of a tabloid. I've tried to contribute and I want to stress that while I have included emerging developments I have always been careful with the way these developments were worded. Just when I thought it had gotten better, yesterday's shred of information was that the airplane was in flight for four hours after it disappeared, and that is now all over the article.Roches (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
LOL history is static?? thats a good one! if we waited until facts were "set in stone" we would lose some amazing pages like the history of north american migration or Amelia Earhart's bio page... history evolves, just like language, if you can't handle that you're using the wrong website 72.35.149.153 (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia's strength is that it reflects the ongoing struggle of competing interests to tell their version of the story. There is no "absolute truth" to be written. Books try and fail and get superseded by a new "truth" years later. To that extent, Wikipedia is probably not actually an encyclopedia, more an ongoing discussion about what the truth might be. Articles morph, get rewritten, take on errors, get corrected, succumb to edit wars. That's how real life is. That is Wikipedia's real strength. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting false reports

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)

I think you're missing the point about this story : all the unofficial leaks, later denied, still later reconfirmed anonymously, and virtually nobody in authority to actually confirm anything. The story is that those at the top are not releasing facts. By your standards of perfectly accurate officially-confirmed statements only, this whole thing never happened, or may not have happened. I.e. all the "false reports" and total media shambles and nobody actually knowing anything eight days later are actually the real story so far and the article reflects that. Secondly, you don't understand what journalism is. It is precisely the digging up and publishing anonymous, off-the-record etc. leaks rather than just trotting out the official government news that is issued reluctantly a week after they knew it. Journalism is about finding whatever is available to be found of the truth which is often buried amongst heaps of garbage and misinformation or is only available through semi-legal means (remember the Pentagon Papers ?). Rcbutcher (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A few points

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)

Shouldn't it be included in the article for calls(eg National Transportation Safety Board) to revamp the black box technology to include calls for live-streaming of data during the flight?58.168.80.41 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
At any one time there are 10,000 flights in progress over the USA alone. It's impractical to live-stream data from all of them. Instead, the data is sent in a burst by each aircraft every 30 minutes. When an aircraft is within radar range then it transmits a small burst of data every time it's pinged by a radar. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Malaysian authorities seem to have reversed their denial about the 4 to 5 hours part.
Six days after the plane with 239 people aboard disappeared, Malaysian authorities expanded their search westward toward India, saying the aircraft may have flown for several hours after its last contact with the ground shortly after takeoff from Kuala Lumpur for Beijing.[11]
Earlier on same day they had denied the Wall Street Journal report. The saga is getting where USA authorities are saying things such as:
We're not out here freelancing, and it's not just something the U.S. Navy thinks and no one else," Marks said. "So this was by request of the Malaysian government. They asked the Navy to move our ship to the west into the Strait of Malacca. ... It is coordinated, but certain ships and aircraft stay in the east, and some go to the west. And we're moving to the west.[12]
--Marc Kupper|talk 23:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Rolls Royce denied that the engine management/reporting system was responsible for the signals, or that the information had come from them - not that there hadn't been any signals and that it didn't fly on as mentioned. There was a later clarification from the Wall Street Journal which explains. The Malaysian authorities' reports, statements and denials have been somewhat varied over the past few days. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 23:48, 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)

Wikipedia misreporting

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)

It's a new and rapidly changing subject, and has contributions from many sides, so given a little time, it will balance out. In the meantime, You, 76.216.4.157, are "one of us" - why don't you do a section on Wikipedia's misreporting? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you missed the IP editor's point. Everyone needs to stop trying to be first with the news. That is not our job. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The constant cycle of new reports surfacing and being denied is an absolute mess. Connormah (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The IP's complaint is in fact that Malaysian authorities are being subjected to excessive criticism, not that Wikipedia is too fast out of the gate. The "timing" is, in fact, absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is VERIFICATION. When it's reasonably verified then if it's also notable it should go in. The people complaining about speed do not understand how Wikipedia works, which is based on the reliability of sourcing. We do not put material in quarantine for how ever many days.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make (but obviously missed out on) is that Wikipedia in itself (or collectively, if you will) isn't one-sided, but a collaboration of many contributors, some of whom will portray some bias in some regards at some time (it's natural, we all do occasionally). In time, any one-sidedness in this or any other article will be negated by the contributions and amendments of others, to produce a well-balanced, unbiased article. I certainly don't believe WP should "blast [anyone] for false reports" but if reports are made and found to be false - or even said to be false by reliable secondary sources, that is in itself notable, and can legitimately be justified within the article. If the IP editor feels the article is one-sided, then like any of us, they are entitled - and indeed encouraged - to make changes. Regards to all, Lynbarn (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe we agree that editors just need to roll up their sleeves. "I don't like this because it's too fresh," is just lazy. "This bit about something being shut off should be held back as unverified because it could be that the craft simply went out of VHF range," is, on the other hand, a sound objection. It's sound because someone has actually tried to investigate the reliability question and applied some critical thinking to it.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, right on--you get it. Bdell555, however, is "in fact" mistaken here: "The IP's complaint is in fact that Malaysian authorities are being subjected to excessive criticism, not that Wikipedia is too fast out of the gate." Who told you, Bdell555, that that was a fact? Your statement there has absolutely no merit: it only reiterates my point. 76.216.4.157 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Go back and look again at what was requested: "remove the one-sided coverage that blasts officials and journalists for false reports." That's not a complaint of recentism, that's a complaint about Wikipedia being too critical.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, you are incorrect. You manipulated my statement from another IP for only your benefit. You wrongfully assume that that was a single request. You failed to mention the first half of my statement. Again, who told you that that was a fact? It wasn't me. And I wrote it. Your unique perspective is laughable. (76.211.225.59) (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Putting a section on Wikipedia's coverage on Wikipedia is not going to work. The blasting of journalists and officials for false reports is up there because some editors thought it needed to be included. The problem is that anything that's considered "new and possibly not true" gets removed, so the article does not work as a news source. However, criticism of officials isn't "new and possibly not true" -- it's straight-up fact, and if it's been discussed by two newspapers it can be in Wikipedia.
Sigh. Even things that are probably false reports can be reported on in a clear, neutral way, without too much attention. I've found that I can tell the difference between new aspects of the story and things that are likely to be false reports. It's easy to see why there are false reports: the 24-hour news cycle requires whatever content it can get, so you need hours of talking to "experts" and hypothesizing with no basis in fact.
What's meant by the craft going outside VHF range? ACARS? Even if it was pinging, we don't know what it was trying to tell the satellite because that information was not sent. The transmitter might have survived a crash and, if it had battery backup, it could have kept pinging for a while. Roches (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Combined map

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). Brandmeistertalk 15:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Should the scale show miles (or nm) as well as km? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Personally I prefer km, but since the US and some other countries use miles, both may be used. Brandmeistertalk 15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Nautical miles are the standard unit of measurement in aviation. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't mind either. Brandmeistertalk 17:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to include a circle of maximum range from the point of lost contact, to indicate the total area within which it could have flown with the fuel load onboard? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I thinks that's a good idea, as long as the result does not look too cluttered.

Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at it again, the circle would take in most of India, possibly into Pakistan, and the North coast of Australia, so the key ares in the middle would be rather small, so maybe not such a good idea... Lynbarn (talk)

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)

Could you link to something which explains/ supports that image? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
See body of the article, "Location" section, paragraph beginning "On 11 March, it was reported that military radar...", last cite in that paragraph (to Reuters).--Brian Dell (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
So, this one [13], yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. Note that the waypoints are given in the story. Here's two possible theories I'll just throw out here just to keep an eye on for possible future sources and narrative development since interestingly everything we know so far is still consistent with them: the first is that the assigned pilot(s) decided to crash the plane but wanted to do so in a deniable way to preserve reputations. The decision was therefore made to crash it far out in the Indian Ocean so that investigators might never be able to locate the crash point and definitively say what happened. The second (much less likely) is that the destination was Coco Islands, which is rumoured to host a secret Chinese base. Most of the passengers are Chinese nationals. Rather than fly direct to a landing strip here from the point of last air traffic control contact, the aircraft followed the track it did because any military radar operators watching live are less likely take an interest in blips appearing along established commercial flight corridors.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow. You need your own chat-show, Brian. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Fringe or (in?)-formal fallacy genre?TMCk (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
lets call it foresight genre 72.35.149.153 (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Plane climbed to 45,000 feet

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.

--PremKudvaTalk 04:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There are problems with the 45000 feet claim, starting with timing. Experts have taken issue with it, not least because of how long it would take to get up there. NYT itself admits that the altitude data is iffy, and while the numbers over land may be pretty accurate, this 45K number was supposedly out at sea and at the far end of radar detectability (and therefore accuracy). Readers can follow up by reading the NYT story themselves (the article already calls attention to the altitude changes the NYT writes about).
To quote a pilot:
Being familiar with the type, at the 230-240 tons that the aircraft weighed one hour into flight the performance limited altitude would have been between 38,000 and 39,000 ft...
Normal takeoff fuel would have been in the range of 44-47 tons...
To be able to climb to 45,000 ft (which is 2,000 ft above the certified ceiling of this 777) the weight would have to be reduced to approx. 165 tons; in other words the weight of the aircraft, payload and virtually no fuel.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:04, 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.

Wikipedia has no deadline. (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I have to concur with HiLo48. As I mentioned above, we should slow down and ensure that information is accurate, not as something is reported, then revert, restore, change, finally revert again. Especially with more exceptional claims, as WP:EXCEPTIONAL states quite well.Wzrd1 (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

New search area

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)

Stop speculating! HiLo48 (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
First, speculation on the part of a news media company owner is not a valid source. Respected sources, with official statements are what is required. Second, it's beyond unlikely that the area near a war zone and approaches to Pakistan would not be observed on radar, making the claim quite exceptional, unless one implies that Pakistan, India and the US all have the worst radar in world history. So, let's not speculate, nor include the speculations of news organization owners, who know less than nothing about the matter.Wzrd1 (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A few assertions

The Prime Minister of Malaysia stated:

  1. The flight deliberately changed course
  2. The airplane's communication system was turn off
  3. But he refused to confirmed that the plan was hijacked
  4. New search areas will introduced with the search phase around the South China Sea being ended.124.183.145.94 (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
He didn't refuse to confirm anything. That is tabloid journalistic language that was not part of his speech, and completely useless for the purposes of our goal of creating a quality encyclopaedic article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Saw this report in Malaysiakini that points to a hijacking. http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/257152124.183.145.94 (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you read more than the headline? Perhaps the bit that begins "Despite media reports that the plane was hijacked..." HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Or the PM's speech, "...these movements are consistent with deliberate action by someone on the plane." The word hijacking was not used, only that the flight pattern was consistent with human control of the aircraft.Wzrd1 (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

CONSTANT CHANGE OF ARTICLE, TIME LINE

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)

No. In the long term it won't matter. And please avoid terms like "mismanagement". That's a non-neutral POV. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in the long term it would help people make sense of what transpired after the flight went missing and (potentially) avoid the same situation that the Malaysians have put everyone through. AF 447 article has the search efforts in its own paragraph. I think the issues here deserve their own paragraph. The article itself talks about grave errors of protocol, communication blunders and misdirected search efforts. This is a TEXT BOOK case of event mismanagement. 174.0.185.123 (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting rather sick of this somewhere-centric contempt for Malaysia. It's rather insulting. You really have no idea how the search is going. And do you really think it will make any difference in the long term? HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I can assure you that I am not the only one expressing frustration at the lack of due process from the Malaysians. They dont have an idea of how the search is going. If lessons are not learned, they will be repeated. WIKI is here to show us events and how they transpired so that someone reading this might learn to avoid this situation. The political football game being played is tragic on the families involved. 174.0.185.123 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
How the hell do you know how much the Malaysians know? Do you realise that the Malaysian culture is different from yours? They will have different ways of handling crises. That doesn't make it wrong. I'm seeing overt racism in some of the criticisms of Malaysia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 14 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)

Facebook malware phish

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)

Not notable enough to include ever. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. Any others? On one hand, it is using the attention of the world to this event, on the other, it's not all that an uncommon event, to use a current event to spread malware or even steal identities.Wzrd1 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Is NOT relevate to this Flight 370 article but it might fit into Facebook or some subtopic like Criticism of Facebook. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 11:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference 20140311nytfuller was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference 20140315telegraphlive was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference 20140311reuterskoswanage was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370/Archive_4&oldid=1075135908"