Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 19:42, 4 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: 30 days

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 10, 2014	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 18, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
May 31, 2021	Good article reassessment	Delisted
News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 8, 2014, March 24, 2014, and August 5, 2015.
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 8, 2015.
Current status: Delisted good article

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.

Copied Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Search (oldid, history) → Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (diff) on 23:09, 28 October 2014
Copied Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Timeline of events (oldid, history) → Timeline of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (diff) on 19:31, 6 December 2014

Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 March 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Australia: History Low‑importance

	Australia portal Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian history (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Aviation: Accidents

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

China: History Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as Mid-importance).

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Malaysia High‑importance

	Malaysia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / Asian / Southeast Asia / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Asian military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Brian Ries (21 March 2014). "The internet's search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, Visualized". Mashable. Archived from the original on 29 September 2014. Retrieved 16 June 2014. A Wikipedia page for the missing plane was established less than eight hours after the flight disappeared, and has grown from just 85 words to well over 4,000, and has been edited thousands of times.
Jack Pickell (12 March 2014). "9 crazy conspiracy theories about Malaysia Airlines flight 370". Boston.com. Archived from the original on 15 March 2014. Retrieved 12 November 2014. 6. The Illuminati is involved: 'Was looking at the Wikipedia page for the missing Malaysia Airlines, and noticed that it's was [sic] the 404th 777 Boeing produced,' Redditor i-am-SHER-locked wrote. 'An HTTP 404 error mean [sic] not found, which in this case is oddly approiate [sic] for the status of the aircraft, or just a concidence [sic]. Coincidence, i think not!'

Settled issue for this article: break out Hong Kong and Taiwan as separate entries from China in the passenger list and other areas dealing with the citizenship of individuals. Please see Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Archive 2#Hong_Kong for details.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2014, when it received 7,601,345 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 9 times. The weeks in which this happened:

WSPR (amateur radio software)

On 6 March 2024 the BBC documentary Why Planes Vanish: The Hunt for MH370 examined the claim that the flight path of the aircraft could be plotted by analysis of the disruption to Weak Signal Propagation Reporter signals on the day in question. Scientists at the University of Liverpool are undertaking a major new study to verify how viable the technology is, and what this could mean for locating the aircraft.
Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should be incorporated into the article. I also found another BBC News article discussing this theory promoted by Richard Godfrey.^[1] If this is discussed in Weak Signal Propagation Reporter: MH37- theory, then it should, at the very least, be discussed in this article (with cross-link to the WSPR page). However, it should be noted on the WSPR Talk page that some folks think that this is pseudoscience. On the other hand, we have few clues, so it is prudent to discuss this in the main article, even if it is considered a controversial theory. Considering that the search has gone on for over 10 years, then it would not be responsible to dismiss potential clues.

Enquire (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This theory is presented on the University of Liverpool website.^[2]

Enquire (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also now covered in this YouTube video on the subject^[3]. Nunchuck12 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except pseudoscience does not constitute "potential clues." Given that Joe Taylor himself (radio amateur, physics professor, Nobel laureate in Physics, and inventor of WSPR) has called Godfrey's so-called "analysis" pseudoscience, it is pseudoscience.

Furthermore, I've been waiting with curiosity to see Liverpool mathematics professor Simon Maskell show how WSPR, with its 1:10,000 signal-to-noise ratio, can educe a meaningful result using just one sample. In March 2024, Maskell stated that his team would publish their results in September of that year; it's now November 2024, and we're still waiting for a reporting of what would potentially be Fields Medal-worthy results.

The fact that no one is rushing to conduct a search based on Godfrey's claims betrays just how little credence those claims have with the people in charge. It's very likely that the Australians spoke to several real RF-propagation experts about Godfrey's claims (possibly even Joe Taylor), and that would've been the end of that.

The search for MH370 is already the most-expensive in aviation history, having spent tens of US$Millions. The "arc" searches were most likely a red herring, and those were based on science that was, at least on the face of it, certainly more grounded in reality than Godfrey's "analysis." Going off on yet another expensive wild-goose chase with even less real physics to justify it really doesn't make any sense. Xinbad (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Head, Jonathan (2024-03-07). "MH370: The families haunted by one of aviation's greatest mysteries". BBC News. Retrieved 2024-03-07.
^ Professor Maskell (2024-03-07). "Researchers provide statistical expertise to help locate missing flight MH370". University of Liverpool. Retrieved 2024-03-07.
^ Hörnfeldt, Petter (2024-03-16). "A NEW Trace! The FULL MH370 Story...So Far" (video). youtube.com. Mentour Pilot.

"Presumed dead"

Why are we still saying that the 239 fatalities are presumed? It's been ten years since the crash, is it really a stretch to think that everyone is dead?

Anyway, I edited the article a few hours ago to change this, and I was really hoping no one would revert it. Well, only two hours after the edit, @Britmax reverted it. And you know what? Fair enough, I didn't provide much reasoning for the edit (although I was counting on common sense to prevail.)

So here's my reasoning.

The article for presumption of death states:

"A presumption of death occurs when a person is believed to be dead, despite the absence of direct proof of the person's death, such as the finding of remains (e.g., a corpse or skeleton) attributable to that person. Such a presumption is typically made by an individual when a person has been missing for an extended period and in the absence of any evidence that person is still alive—or after a shorter period, but where the circumstances surrounding a person's disappearance overwhelmingly support the belief that the person is dead (e.g., an airplane crash)."

The bolded part alone should be enough to support my point, but then we have this.

"People who disappear are typically called missing, or sometimes absent. Several criteria are evaluated to determine whether a person may be declared legally dead:

The party normally must have been missing from their home or usual residence for an extended period, most commonly seven years

Their absence must have been continuous and inexplicable (e.g. the person did not say they had found a new job and were moving far away)

There must have been no communication from the party with those people most likely to hear from them during the period the person has been missing

There must have been a diligent but unsuccessful search for the person and/or diligent but unsuccessful inquiry into their whereabouts."

And there's also this.

"A person can be declared legally dead after they are exposed to "imminent peril" and fail to return—as in a plane crash, as portrayed in the movie Cast Away. In these cases courts generally assume the person was killed, even though the usual waiting time to declare someone dead has not elapsed."

These are the guidelines for declaring someone legally dead in the United States. Obviously, the crash didn't occur in the US, but it's pretty much the same for every country.

One final point, Malaysia has declared all MH370 passengers legally dead. The article doesn't say "legally" but I'm sure they have done it through the courts.

So is that enough evidence? It really should be lol Grave8890 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter? HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change it without having an edit war. Grave8890 (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you do indeed want to change it without an edit war, I think you best course of action is to present your proof that the Malaysian Government has indeed declared to passengers dead, and that any other relevant authority has done this, with a view to initiating a discussion her as to whether this means that they are dead in a universally recognised sense. I think you should have no trouble convincing editors that this is the case. Britmax (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Britmax

Do you want to suggest, Britmax, that governments and other responsible persons actually believe that any person in that flight is still alive? That would be stupid, wouldnt it? They all perished in the waters of the Indian Ocean. Cheers, L.W. L.Willms (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has compensation been paid to any relatives? Why would that have happened? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123

You point to the one good reason to avoid to recognize the facts: as long as the obvious death of all occupants of that flight is not recognized as a fact, the owner of the airline, i.e. Malaysia, can avoid to pay a compensation for the loss of life of passenger and crew. Cowards, and rich cowards. L.Willms (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't They Find It?

I have no idea if it's true or not, but I remember seeing something about finally finding it. If it is true it should definitely be included. Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no idea if it's true or not, then it shouldn't be included in the article. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they didn't find it. Some people have found a few pieces of debris. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Then ignore this topic. Cheers! <3 Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your French!

There's no island called “Réunion” but there's one called “La Réunion”... 2A01:CB1D:88F4:CC00:4453:4B3C:E0F8:6490 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to raise a WP:RM for Réunion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of what?

I happened upon this article and got confused at the end of the introduction where it says, "Malaysia had supported 58% of the total cost, Australia 32%, and China 10%." What cost is it referring to? Renegades Hang (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading further, it was the cost of the underwater search. I will add that to the introduction. Renegades Hang (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[BBC_MH370_2024-03-07-1] Head, Jonathan (2024-03-07). "MH370: The families haunted by one of aviation's greatest mysteries". BBC News. Retrieved 2024-03-07.

[University_of_Liverpool_2024-03-06-2] Professor Maskell (2024-03-07). "Researchers provide statistical expertise to help locate missing flight MH370". University of Liverpool. Retrieved 2024-03-07.

[YouTube_Mentour_Pilot_MH370_2024-03-16-3] Hörnfeldt, Petter (2024-03-16). "A NEW Trace! The FULL MH370 Story...So Far" (video). youtube.com. Mentour Pilot.

[1]

[2]

[3]