Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Mixing time zones?

It says 06:30 and then it goes back in time apparently to 02:40 please stick with a single time zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecodingproject (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Flight Found/Landed?

http://malaysiandigest.com/frontpage/282-main-tile/492200-mas-kl-beijing-flight-missing.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.116.82 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's unlikely, as it supposedly landed hours after it was supposed to land in Beijing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably someone's idea of a prank that's made the rounds on the twitters before reaching today's scrupulous media who've not given it a moment's thought before putting it out there. — Lfdder (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It did not land in Nanming or anywhere yet. Maodi xn (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet? It's been 12 hours. It's crashed, unfortunately. — Lfdder (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Some source says Vietnam officials denied the found of signal

found?

"Tuoi Tre, a leading daily in Vietnam, reports that the Vietnamese Navy has confirmed the plane crashed into the ocean. According to Navy Admiral Ngo Van Phat, Commander of the Region 5, military radar recorded that the plane crashed into the sea at a location 153 miles South of Phu Quoc island." [1] DTLHS (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The same source says that the flight had 239 passengers, not 227...WIERDGREENMAN, Thane of Cawdor THE CAKE IS A LIE (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Check again. WWGB (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Checked - it's 239 total, not 239 passengers. My bad.WIERDGREENMAN, Thane of Cawdor THE CAKE IS A LIE (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hard to tell whether Tuoi Tre should be taken as a WP:RS, so if you were to include that, I'd say "according to Tuoi Tre, a leading daily in Vietnam" rather than stating it as an outright verified fact -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See [2] for latest details on location. — JamesR (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like there were some heavy air quotes surrounding that claim: [3] 2620:8D:8000:E50:EC71:451A:B2EF:E757 (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

two hours later it disappeared?

"The plane lost contact approximately forty minutes in to the usually six-hour flight. Originally reports stated that the aircraft went missing two hours after departure- but the Malaysian defense ministry confirms this not to be true." [4]--PLNR (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This actually sounds quite reasonable, as there is no way that it too two hours to reach that spot. WWGB, you might want to check this out if you're going to be up a few more hours. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Flight track log (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS370/history/20140307/1635Z/WMKK/ZBAA/tracklog) indicates that it was only transmitting an ADS-B signal for about 19 minutes. This is a more reasonable time for it to reach the latitude and longitude cited. The two hours appears to refer to the time when Malaysian ATC reported it missing. A radio contact scheduled for 40 minutes into the flight was also missed, indicating that whatever happened happened before the 40 minute mark. But that seems to be where the 40 min figure came from.

Look at previous flights along the same route. There is also plenty of missing data. So it's just flightaware not having sufficient coverage. 209.6.94.47 (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Speculating - if flight aware doesn't show a precipitous drop at the end of it's monitor, then whatever happened shut off MH370's ADS-B transmission, so was probably catastrophic.

I'm a newb wiki editor, and don't know how to insert that flight aware reference into the main article - but if someone more capable that me wants to do so, please feel free. Nimrod54 (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

DO NOT PUT ANYTHING FLIGHTAWARE INTO THE ARTICLE! Look at the past many days. FlightAware has no ADS-B coverage except in Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong. Unlike FlightRadar24.com, FlightAware has no detectors in eastern Malaya, Vietnam or Hainan. Everyday the signal is cut off before the full climb is complete. This incident occurred well after leveling off at FL350, as seen on FlightRadar24.com. HkCaGu (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Update to passenger information

An update to there Malaysia Airlines media release page now shows China and Taiwan combined as one nationality, and there are now 5 Indian passengers. — JamesR (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't combine the two for obvious reasons, but feel free to count in the new numbers and see if they add up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Air France Flight 447

I believe Air France Flight 447 should also be included in the See Also section, as it was also a modern commercial flight that mysteriously disappeared under similar circumstances. Although the airline and aircraft model are different, the disappearance is similar enough to be notable. Kage Acheron (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Flight 447 vanished in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean for two years, and crashed due to an ice buildup and subsequent stall. Not only do we not know what caused Flight 370 to crash, but the location of the crash has pretty much already been confirmed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, neither the model nor the airline were the same. We could make arguments for lots of "similar" incidents, but they would not be significant to this case. Happy to wait for the thoughts of others. WWGB (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The incidents were rather similar initially: large commercial planes that disappeared off air traffic control. Initial news reports were also similar as the "flight that went missing". However, as the news develops, they do seem to be diverging (crash site already located). Kage Acheron (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You must be new here Kage, look at Singapore Airlines Flight 006, only accidents simalar to it. Not when the news first broke... Qantasplanes (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

When I re-added the link in the see also, I linked to a reliable source making the connection. Several other news organizations have also made a connection. Ergo it wouldn't be wrong to include an AF447 see also link. Although I don't think it's a huge deal whether it's included or not. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, so let's not! WWGB (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

CNN isn't exactly the best of news sites, but that aside, news organizations love making loose comparisons, not only because it is something to write about, but because they want to jog the reader's memory. Unless this accident more-closely resembled Air France's one, then I don't see a reason why we should link them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree CNN's reliability has gone downhill, particularly on breaking news stories.... However, by your logic, why should be link to BA38 or Asiana 214? Sure they were the same plane type, but if it turns out this one was caused by, say, a terrorist attack, the make of plane would be just as irrelevant as the phase of the flight... Anyway, not something worth arguing over... Sailsbystars (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the utter lack of information right now, and also the heated debate over AF447's similarity, is it most prudent to keep "See also" blank for now? We have nothing firm to draw similarities with - not even a confirmation of hull loss. Leondz (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I would just say revert it when you see it, as people are going to constantly be adding the comparison in the coming days. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Many reliable sources are comparing Flight 370 with Flight 447, including BBC and industry experts they are interviewing. IMO a 'See also' link (at least) is warranted. 183.89.4.6 (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I dont think we need a link, I think missing is the only common factor so unless the Boeing 777 uses the same pitot tubes as the Airbus A330 and is a common factor in the disappearance then we are just repeating bad journalism. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I say include it. It's most probable that the plane has crashed(in fact, there's no other real logical explanation), so that would make it the second major, commercial wide-body airliner in the last decade or so that resulted in 200+ fatalities, along with flight 447. Also, the nature of both accidents, at first glance, seems to be rather similar. 99.199.52.214 (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nationality of the crew

CCTV News posted pictures of the full passenger and crew lists, released by Beijing Capital Airport. All crew members are Malaysian nationals.

http://ww2.sinaimg.cn/large/9e5389bbtw1ee86wkcgj1j20hs0nu408.jpgvia https://twitter.com/cctvnews/status/442143955736485888 http://t.co/HmPfGy3QTw

95.143.193.132 (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the post! JamesR, you might find this useful. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Passenger list

Someone want to add a source for the India and Indonesia numbers. I have yet to see India mentioned in any of the passenger lists on the media sites - DarkNITE (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Read the attached cite in the section [5], it is very clear. WWGB (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The released passenger lists do indeed contain 5 people of Indian nationality and 7 of Indonesian, see link above.

95.143.193.132 (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Indian National identities have been released as well. I tried to add the Australians (Rodney and Mary Barrows, Catherine and Robert Lawton, Li Yuan and Gu Naijun), [6] and some Chinese earlier but was reverted. The 5 Indians onboard were: Chetna Kolekar, Swanand Kolekar, Suresh Kolekar, Chandrika Sharma and Prahlad Shirsatha. Part of the earlier confusion was that there was an Indian-born Canadian citizen aboard. That person is now being identified as one of the Canadian missing- Muktesh Mukherjee. [7]Sunnydoo (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

And it is now making it way through the social media. A travel employee in China has gone rogue and published the entire passenger manifest with names and countries. The 3 Americans onboard are listed as Philip Talmadge Wood, Nicole and Leonif Ming.[8]Sunnydoo (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

LA Times now publishing that story as well with the American names[9].Sunnydoo (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"Incident"?

The infobox uses the term incident, but this hasn't been confirmed to have been an intended occurrence, as far as I know? Can anyone clarify? --Nicereddy (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, we don't know it it's an accident yet or even if it's crashed. "Incident" is non-descript, yet useful to distinguish from, say "response" which we might want to separate out as a new section. Sailsbystars (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Add the crash report?

Edit wars...No fun.

Should we add the crash report and airline denial? http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/03/07/3981495/malaysia-airlines-loses-contact.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/08/us-malaysiaairlines-flight-idUSBREA2701720140308 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.163.2 (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Crash status

This is somewhat confusing, whos confirmation do we want to go with here? And what is the enduring notability of the event? Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRASH suggests any airline hull loss tends towards notability... and that standard is certainly met for at least one meaning of "loss." As for confirming or not confirming, I'd be fine with the article just leaving it as "overdue" w/o the conflicting found/not found claims until there's more definitive results. Sailsbystars (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Prior incidents

The airframe 9M-MRO was involved in a prior incident on 2012-08-09.

Refer to http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147571 for the report and http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2012-08/10/c_123564158.htm for a picture.

Already in the article, see Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Aircraft. WWGB (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Has now been deleted twice by User:YSSYguy - 1st time because "ref was the ASN wikibase which as the name says is a Wiki, user-contributed with no editorial oversight, and therefore not a reliable source", 2nd time because "in the absence of contrary evidence the ground collision is not relevant". 183.89.4.6 (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance zone.

Using the playback feature on www.flightradar24.com (Which uses real time ADS-B data) I was able to view the full flight from when the plane took off until it disappeared off radar. The last coordinates were 6.97N, 103.63E It was virtually a straight and normal flight with a consistent track of 25 degrees. The last bit of data shows the same airspeed (872kmh) track changed to 40 degrees, Altitude: 0.

Though the coordinates may not be accurate, probably the best you can get right now (with a reliable source). Might be worth adding them to the article.

Edit: Someone actually posted a youtube video showing what I'm talking about. Switch it to HD quality, englarge it and you can read all the data on the left side of the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGS6bUldQ7s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.17.45.119 (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent link. Thanks. Alas we can't use it for the article unless a reliable secondary source makes reference to it. Nonetheless chilling. The signal simply stops.--Nowa (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The reference is now present in swedish media Franke 1 (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/plan-med-239-sparlost-borta/

Thanks. I also found Malaysian news report and added it.--Nowa (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Weather

Any news or reports on the weather within the plane's path? AugustinMa (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Pprune thread states no significant weather in the area that would have affected the flight. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-mh370-contact-lost-4.html AugustinMa (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Pprune is not a WP:RS for information, but it is a useful source of RSs. Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese/Taiwanese passengers

The airline's passenger list states there were 154 passengers that were either Chinese or Taiwanese. The article states that one of these was Taiwanese. Where is the source for that? Heymid (contribs) 11:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The passenger manifest confirms that one of the 154 Chinese/Taiwanese passengers was Taiwanese. Heymid (contribs) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Italian passenger

Italian press reporting that the Italian passenger was not actually on board, but had rather had his passport stolen: [10] Not sure it's ready for inclusion yet, because we can't guarantee that it's actually the same Italian that is in the list, but for future reference... Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The official manifest says that the passenger, Luigi Maraldi was aboard. Can anyone confirm he wasn't? TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If you Google translate the link in my first comment, it says that the Italian Foreign Ministry has spoken to him & confirmed that his passport was stolen. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 12:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely should be included IMO somewhere in the text... Timmyshin (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems the Austrian is also alive and well, his passport was supposedly stolen in Thailand 2 years ago. This was confirmed by the Austrian foreign ministry to APA: http://www.apa.at/News/6217359958/boeing-mit-239-passagieren-vor-vietnam-verschollen.html 112.193.57.218 (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There is some speculation in Chinese online news that terrorists might have used the stolen passports to get aboard. Nothing reliable for now, but worth keeping an eye on. Madalibi (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

02:40

The lede currently says:

Subang Air Traffic Control Centre reported at 02:40 that contact had been lost while it was over the Gulf of Thailand.

The Malaysia Airlines media statement released at 7.24am stated:

Malaysia Airlines confirms that flight MH370 has lost contact with Subang Air Traffic Control at 2.40am, today (8 March 2014).

No reference has been given of when Subang Air Traffic Control Centre reported that contact had been lost, either to Malaysia Airlines or to the media. (In the context, "reported" probably means "reported to the media".) Thus, it is incorrect to say reported at 02:40 that contact had been lost and instead should say reported that contact had been lost at 02:40.

My edit to this effect has been reverted twice ([11][12]) by HkCaGu (talk · contribs), who seems not to appreciate the discrepency.

In order to avoid engaging in edit-warring, could someone else please step in to clarify this? —sroc 💬 13:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, 183.89.4.6! —sroc 💬 13:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained in my talk page and edit summaries how the plane cannot be talking to Malaysia 2 hours after taking off. The airline, which receives the report from ATC authority, is simply misworded in this matter. For an expert reporter, please see Aviation Herald's article: http://avherald.com/h?article=4710c69b&opt=0. HkCaGu (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The aircraft already reached the last reported position (near boundary of Malaysia/Singapore and Vietnam FIRs) at 01:20. So where has it been flying between 01:21 and 02:39? It only makes sense that they've been looking for the plane for an hour, not in contact with the plane for an hour! Or simply reworded, you cannot extract a last contact/contact lost time from the MAS statement. HkCaGu (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Thecodingproject: @FonEengIneeR7: @HkCaGu: @Sroc: - Hey folks, can you agree for now to leave out the "time" in the box or to NOT refer to it as the time of the incident? It's not because it's never put in an infobox, but because we don't have enough information about what the actual incident time is. We only have the time the authorities reported as to when the contact was lost. Later, when the black box is recovered, and things are really known, we will likely better know exactly what "time" is associated with what would appear to be a catastrophic incident. Thanks. (Added the NOT above to clarify) -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Seems the best thing to do, until we know the exact nature of what exactly happened at 02:40. I have doubts in MAS's English. They said families were "being informed" but the whole manifest has been released already. HkCaGu (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, HkCaGu. I have added this to the lede with the time that contact was actually lost. —sroc 💬 13:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Cite Error

Please notice that there is a cite error for Reference #20. Mark Chung (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. —sroc 💬 14:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Passengers on manifest didn't make it on board?

The Aviation Herald article states:

Italy's Foreign Ministry said, the Italian citizen is alive and was not on board of the aircraft other than the passenger manifest suggests, the man called his parents from Thailand.

Austria's Foreign Ministry stated in the afternoon (European time) that the Austrian listed on the passenger manifest was not on board of the aircraft.

Removing them from the count would, of course, affect the total number of passengers missing, which are being widely reported. Does anyone have any other reports to verify this either way? —sroc 💬 14:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Bit early yet I would say leave the manifest as reported but add a note with a reliable reference that the nationality is questioned. MilborneOne (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The Mirror is reporting that "Luigi Maraldi, 37, from Cesena, was named as one of the travellers on board" but "Mr Maraldi reported his passport stolen on August 1 last year and was not on board the plane, according to news agency ANSA." Is the Mirror a reliable source? —sroc 💬 14:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, some Chinese online sources are starting to speculate that a "terrorist" or someone who planned to immigrate (to where?) illegally used the stolen passport to get on board and that the Malaysian authorities are checking all the airport security cameras to try to establish who got on board and who didn't. Madalibi (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but is there anything more concrete for us to report at this stage? —sroc 💬 14:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. Sounds more like rumors more than actual news. Madalibi (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

More sources regarding this The Straits Times TL T 16:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Location of oil slicks

The article, and its source, both say that the oil slicks were found 140m from Tho Chu island. Given that these slicks are tens of km long, and that oil slicks in general have ill-defined boundaries, and are in constant movement driven by waves and tides, this seems an oddly over-precise figure. Could this be a typo in the source article for an actual distance of 140 km? -- The Anome (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph has stated " ... Vietnamese authorities said they had spotted a 14-mile long oil slick 120 miles off the coast of Cape Ca Mau - the most southerly point of Vietnam's mainland." --Mark Chung (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

My gramma says, it must be aliens. I'll go put it in the article! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I remember what happened with Air France Flight 447 - there was hazy, contradictory information and it was hard to tell what was true and what wasn't. On one hand, it's true that editors need to be careful when adding things. But on the other hand, please be civil. I think most people know that in the initial moments it's hard to tell what's true and what isn't. I think an oil slick is more plausible than space aliens, to be honest. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Xinhua video/content

• "越南搜救队否认发现马航失联航班信号." (Archive) Xinhua. March 8, 2014.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disgusted

To those, who keep adding "facts" and "sources" to this travesty of an article: I'm ashamed to be one of the Wikipedia editors and call you "colleagues". WHY are you all so hungry to drag all the yellow crap whorenalists publish into an ENCYCLOPEDIA!!! What, advancing edit counter is more important than sticking to the rules and principles? You're disgusting! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it would help if you could let us know which particular "facts" or "sources" disgust you so we can look at it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice one! I always appreciate a good joke! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

He isn't joking. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Generics or specifics?

We have a source that clearly identifies the aircraft as a Boeing 777-2H6ER, yet some editors revert this to the generic boeing 777-200ER. Why is this? We have the opportunity here to present accurate information but are failing to do so. Mjroots (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I explained it to you and the other Einstein on my talk page. For the participants of special Olympics, I'll repeat. Aircraft type is Boeing 777-200ER. H6 is a Boeing client code. We have an article about it. Stating aircraft TYPE with a client code is incorrect. Stop the edit war and READ before you WRITE. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Le Grand Bleu:, Wikipedia works on consensus. Removal of verified information "because you don't like it" is not a valid reason for removal IMHO. Whilst this discussion takes place, I've restored the verified information. I would suggest that you don't remove it again, under pain of a block for edit warring. Should the consensus reached here be that we do not use the customer code, then we can revert to the generic description. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a client code is irrelevant. It is being presented in the article as an identifier for the aircraft, as cited in the source. That is all. Furthermore, being abusive to other editor is unproductive and grounds for blocking (again). If you don't like playing with others, you don't have to play here. —sroc 💬 16:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sroc: - his ball has been taken away. Now, maybe the rest of us can discuss this issue in peace. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it worth reminding people we had exactly the same discussion after Asiana 214? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214/Archive_1#Explanation_needed:_What_is_a_.22Boeing_777-28EER.22.3F The relevant information is the aircraft model of 777-200ER, the customer's preference in cabin furnishings expressed by 777-2H6ER is unlikely to be significant and confusing to anyone except industry insiders (and still confusing to most of us). 82.45.87.103 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand the consensus on Asiana 214 was that the full customer code -2H6ER was used in the "aircraft" section but the model (200ER for example) was used in the introduction and infobox and just 777 elsewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Malaysia Plane Carrying 239 Missing as Search Widens >> Malaysia Airlines flight 'presumed crashed' (Lihaas (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)).

Calligraphers

Per this link, I wonder if the artists organization is the Chinese Calligraphy Artists Association. I imagine the name gets multiple forms in translation to English. I believe this is a picture of the artist Gaosheng Meng (or Meng Gaosheng), believed to be on the plane. The organization may also be translated as the Chinese Calligraphers Association, which is mentioned on WP repeatedly. Could also be separate groups. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hotel where families were taken

This content was removed with the rationale "not notable":

• "Relatives traveled to Beijing Capital Airport to pick up passengers. Many were asked to travel to the Crowne Plaza Beijing Lido hotel (S: 北京丽都皇冠假日酒店) in Chaoyang District, where authorities would provide them with information.

I disagree. Hotels can become notable when they are gathering places after plane crashes. For instance: the hotel at JFK Airport after the TWA Flight 800 crash (and I think it may have hosted families from Swissair 111 and Egyptair 990 too?) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK we will have to disagree I cant see the location of where some relatives were taken ever to be notable, fairly standard practice to stop them hanging about the airport itself. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a standard practice, but the hotel gets associated with the crash. Example:

• Leland, John. "Grieving At Ground Zero." Newsweek. August 4, 1996 - A Newsweek article all about how the hotel was used by grieving families from TWA Flight 800.
• "The six-story Ramada, just off Kennedy airport, has been ground zero for the grief and incomprehension surrounding TWA Flight 800. It has been a place of prayer and condolences, of unlimited bar tabs and a presidential visit."

If/when a Wikipedian in New York photographs this hotel I'd add the photo to the Wikipedia article on TWA800.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Still disagree being mentioned still does mean it is notable enough to go into an accident article and a picture would be clearly OTT. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In the case of the JFK Ramada I strongly disagree that it's OTT when this article talks about how that hotel became the "Heartbreak Hotel" (this time in relation to Swissair 111, but this article refers to how TWA 800 families were in the same hotel) - this article even states why they use that hotel: "Officials said they decided to use the hotel again mainly because it is centrally situated. At the airport entrance, the hotel's dull white exterior is the first sight to greet weary travelers."

• Adamson, April. "229 Victims Knew Jet Was In Trouble Airport Inn Becomes Heartbreak Hotel Again." Philadelphia Inquirer. September 4, 1998.

I'll scour sources to see if Lido's association with this crash is talked about extensively.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Key word: can. Maybe hotels can become notable in some cases, but until it does, Wikipedia doesn't speculate on what can happen. —sroc 💬 17:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

But we should keep our eyes peeled for the possibility. "Hotel Near JFK Airport is Familiar With Airline Tragedy." CNN. November 17, 2011. - I'm not quite sure it's a maybe anymore with the Ramada JFK :) - Anyway, don't worry, I'm familiar with WP:CRYSTAL. As I said, I'll be on the lookout for anything talking about the Lido being associated with this crash. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Some things about the Lido hotel:

• Sudworth, John (BBC): "The relatives and friends waiting to meet passengers from flight MH370 have been taken to the Lido Hotel, a short drive from Beijing Airport's Terminal Three." - From: "Malaysia Airlines flight to Beijing vanishes." BBC. 8 March 2014.
• "MISSING MH370 : Beijing media focus high on missing plane." New Straits Times. 8 March 2014. - An MAS official held a press conference there

But so far there hasn't been a link or definitive info ("Lido was chosen because...") - So I'll ask the China WikiProject if any Chinese sources can answer the question: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#To_WPChina_editors.2C_please_help_with_any_Chinese_sources_for_Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

China Southern Airlines codeshare passengers

A footnote identifying passengers who were travelling on the China Southern Airlines codeshare has been added several times,[13][14][15] supposedly because "This information is necessary for a codeshare flight, and the article also need voice from China Southern Airlines" (according to one of the edit summaries), but of course Wikipedia is not a forum to air particular views nor a corporate mouthpiece.

Why is this information relevant? Is it necessary to distinguish these passengers from the others? They are all in the same boat, so to speak. —sroc 💬 17:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, other agencies may have sold tickets as well but hardly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

May depend on the involvement of the other airline. In Swissair Flight 111's case it was a codeshare with Delta and Delta sent employees to deal with those at JFK Airport

• "Airlines act swiftly to help relatives New U.S. law required detailed emergency plan." Boston Globe at the The Baltimore Sun. September 4, 1998.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

How is the codeshare relevant for our list of passengers, though? CSA isn't sending help for its passengers separately, are they? —sroc 💬 17:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. I can check to see if China Southern is responding at all, and if so, how. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble accessing China Southern's website. Maybe it's being overloaded? I'll check news articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being facetious, as if CSA would send its own rescue crews; my point being that they're all in the same situation, regardless of where they bought their tickets. —sroc 💬 18:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Delta did send employees to deal with the Swissair 111 families in 1998 (the Giuliani aide praised both Swissair and Delta for their responses)

• "By midnight yesterday, nearly 100 Delta agents were stationed inside Terminal 3 at JFK. The agents directed about five families who showed up during the night to the Ramada, where they received immediate counseling. " (from the Boston Globe/Baltimore Sun article)

So I wanted to check if China Southern was doing the same thing. However I see nothing mentioning this crash on the CSA English site (I checked the news section) and so far the only source to say something more than CSA codeshared was the one stating which nationalities bought the tickets through CSA. I'll see if the Chinese website says anything. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems like there might be Chinese sources which say what China Southern is up to, as "MH370 中国南方航空" brings up many articles mentioning "南航" (Nanhang is China Southern), so I'll ask the Chinese WikiProject for help: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#To_WPChina_editors.2C_please_help_with_any_Chinese_sources_for_Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 WhisperToMe (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

# off hull losses

Wouldn't this be the 4th hull loss of a 777 instead of 3 as the article says? an Egyptair Boeing 777-200 SU-GBP had a cockpit fire and was dammagedbeyond repair http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20110729-0 Redalert2fan (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit : someone else added it already Redalert2fan (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this image is suitable for use

The Republic of Singapore Air Force's facebook page has a photograph of the Singaporean C-130 involved in the search taking off here. I'm not sure if putting up this photo at the Singapore section under Responses would be appropriate or even needed. No other photographs of the said C-130 were officially released. If deemed suitable, please assist in putting it up, as i can't seems to find the way to. TL T 17:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It could be used if the copyright cleared, but it is a really bland image compared to what we could use, so that is why I am lukewarm about using it at the moment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Old wingtip accident

I challenged the addition of a mention of an old accident to 9M-MRO when it had a broken wintip after a collision, but it has been re-added. We dont have any evidence that a minor accident is relevant to the aircraft going missing so should not be included, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should take the registration and the make out too? They're not relevant to the a/c having gone missing. Why don't we axe the whole 'Aircraft' section? The text does not claim it's played any part in the accident. It's background info on the a/c. — Lfdder (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If it played no part in the aircraft going missing as far as we know so why is a minor accident a few years ago relevant ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant to the a/c, obviously. The Aircraft section is about the aircraft. — Lfdder (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Flightglobal are also reporting the accident as non-notable at http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/missing-mas-777-200-had-no-major-prior-incidents-396793/ "Missing MAS 777-200 had no major prior incidents" MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Definite keep, details prior history of the aircraft Kage Acheron (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favour of keeping. In all likelihood, it will be irrelevant, but maybe an investigation might prove otherwise (a faulty repair job waiting to go wrong). There's no harm keeping this in, provided there's no suggestion that it was a factor without any further evidence. Better yet, if there's a reliable source saying that it's not relevant, add that in the article to dispell any doubt. —sroc 💬 18:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)