Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

WikiHannibal's edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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)

This should be incorporated into the article. I also found another BBC News article discussing this theory promoted by Richard Godfrey. 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)

This theory is presented on the University of Liverpool website.

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

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

References

Temporary Protect

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

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

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

ergo, fate and whereabouts of MH370 is unknown.

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

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

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

Infobox (Site & Summary)

Could we change the summary and site info to what it was before 150.143.91.118 edited it yesterday. Just "unknown" for both of these is false considering that we do have a rough estimate of where it went down, as well as showing that although the cause of the disaster is inconclusive, debris have been found. Pink Floyd Fan 101 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pink Floyd Fan 101:  Done: Appears to have been in the infobox in a stable state for at least a few years, I think a better edit summary justification than "corrected" is needed to change it to "Unknown". Next time for edit requests, I would suggest going through the WP:Edit request wizard as it draws more attention to your request. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"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)

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

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

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)