Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Might as well...

...include the possibility of "Cyber-attack"; it has been seriously considered and reported by reputable sources.

• Clayton, Mark. "Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: Are planes vulnerable to cyber-attack?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 25 March 2014.

...and the related "CIA Controls Commercial Aircraft" -and- "Flight MH370: Safe at top-secret base?" -and- "Malaysian plane disappearance linked to 9/11"

• Duff, Gordon. "Flight 370 The CIA Hoax: Gordon Duff". Press TV. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
• "Flight MH370: Safe at top-secret base?". Press TV. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
• "Malaysian plane disappearance linked to 9/11: Barrett". Press TV. Retrieved 25 March 2014.

Stay tuned for the inevitable "Blame George Bush" theories.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Limit content to actual "conspiracy theories"

Consistent with the article title, content should be limited to actual conspiracy theories, that is, attempts by authorities to cover-up the "truth". The article is not a grab-bag of wild fantasies (black holes, UFOs etc) where no conspiracy is suggested. WWGB (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A similar problem was solved regarding Titanic fringe theories by naming it RMS Titanic alternative theories, (because many are not conspiratorial in nature). –However, this wouldn't really work here; since there is no "single accepted theory" yet, there can be no alternative theories.

Please note, however, that "actual conspiracy theories" do not require "attempts by authorities to cover-up the 'truth'".  —№ • 71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 "I am not a number, I am a free man!" 

There must, nevertheless, be an element of cover-up, which lunatic theories rarely possess. WWGB (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why "must"?  There usually is, but that is not a requirement for the term's definition.  —№ • 71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 "I am not a number, I am a free man!" 

I agree that "conspiracy theories" is an undesirable term whenever it is used. To begin with, it strikes me as a USism, dating to the Kennedy assassination in which theories were divided between "lone shooter" and "conspiracy". In this case it is particularly inapt because the leading theory seems to be that some terrorist conspiracy was somehow behind the loss of the plane. I would prefer something more generic like Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 alternative explanations, Unusual theories of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 crash, etc. Actually, I think that the optimal solution would be an article written in WP:summary style called Explanations of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 crash which makes room for all explanations, "mainstream" or otherwise, perhaps delegating the leading theory or two back to the crash article itself where they may be welcome. The problem would be trying to fend off the ever-active "I don't like it so you can't write about it" lobby to keep them from keeping us from documenting the full range of ideas out there. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well if it was an attack by at least two terrorists, or at least 2 terrorists were involved in the planning of said attack, and someone came up with a theory stating so, that would be by definition, a conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? Objections to the term "conspiracy theory" reminds me of objections over the term "illegal immigrant"; people like to treat a purely descriptive term or phrase as if it were inherently derogatory. (And trust me, there were conspiracy theories in existence long before the Kennedy assassination. Perhaps the term wasn't in wide circulation before then, but trust me, there were many, many, conspiracy theories before 1963. Some of them were even proven to be true.) 67.174.98.77 (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

...And what about non-humans? If two or more aliens (the UFO type, not the "illegal immigrant" type) were to secretly plot a nefarious plan to abduct an airliner, would that be a conspiracy theory?  —№ • 71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 "I am not a number, I am a free man!" 

Maybe a "conspiracy theory" should pass some kind of plausibility test. The aircraft being shot down in a friendly fire incident, while it may eventually be proven wrong, would be a plausible explanation. The plane being forced into the 48th dimension by a Dr. Who loving expatriate Maori shaman living in Tuktoyaktuk, Canada, probably wouldn't pass such a test.

The problem with that is, what's the threshold of plausibility? Here's a little story: A long time ago, the US government hired Howard Hughes to search the seafloor for manganese nodules (or magnesium, I forget which). Everyone went wild thinking that suddenly these things had some value, but it was just a cover-up for the government to try and find some sunken ship without the public being aware. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

PressTV and pro-Iranian Media

PressTV which is Iranian sponsored media and propaganda is proposing "earthly aliens". Most of the conspiracy stories are linked to Iranian or Russian conspiracy-oriented media which have been known was outlets for propaganda and psychological warfare disinformation from nation states which have been declared are terrorist states by US and its allies. Most of them also promote anti-semitic 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy theories which blame the US or Israel and proclaim the innocence or non-existence of arab or muslim terrorists as part of a war on Islamic nations and peoples. Every theory which blames the US or Mossad is a source which opposes war or sactions with Iran, and is anti-Israel or anti-semitic, but this has not been noted by the mainstream press or even bloggers. Piali (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Press TV is a CIA/US counter intelligence operation? But I've been very wrong many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.154.122 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Flight MH370: Safe at top-secret base? Let’s assume that the so-called “aliens” didn’t come from outer space, but rather they were earthly “aliens,” people like us, strangers who boarded the plane posing as passengers and hijacked the airliner at an opportune moment. Nasser Namvar is an Iranian writer and journalist.

Malaysian plane disappearance linked to 9/11: Barrett The missing plane seemingly cannot have crashed in the water; if it had, cell phones would not be ringing out. It must have crashed – or landed – somewhere with cell phone service. Some analysts believe the plane was stolen. According to them, it was an "inside job" hijacking, probably by remote control. Radio journalist Michael Rivero wonders if money is the motive: "Is Malaysia Flight 370 in a chop shop? A 777 costs roughly $300 million.

Jet taken by earthly aliensThe Malaysian airliner which went missing in early March could have been hijacked and taken to a top-secret military base, suggests a veteran journalist. “What counts is that some individual or individuals were on board with malice aforethought. Then they took control of the plane and made it steer off course, it is assumed,” wrote Nasser Namvar in an article published on Press TV website.

Iranian lawmaker: U.S. ‘kidnapped’ missing Malaysia Airlines plane Parliamentarian Hossein Naghavi Hosseini suspected the disappearance of the Malaysia Airlines plane was part of a dastardly plot to undermine Iran’s relations between China and Southeast Asia. BY STEPHEN REX BROWN NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Wednesday, March 12, 2014,] “Documents published by the Western media about two Iranians getting on the plane without passports is psychological warfare,” he said Tuesday, according to The Times. “Americans recruit some people for such kinds of operations so they can throw the blame on other countries, especially Muslim countries.”

Role Of Israel & Soros Exposed By MH370 Twin Jet In Tel Aviv By Yoichi Shimatsu Exclusive to Rense.com Rense regularly carries stories from Iran such as as Iranian President Honors Journalist Kourosh Ziabari and anti-Iranian media bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piali (talk • contribs) 13:47, 30 March 2014‎

Yup. Obviously presstv isn't a reliable source - but since the whole point of this article seems to be to heap together as many unreliable sources as possible, you are stuck with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Highjacking

Is highjacking really considered a "conspiracy theory"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Not in the sense that the term is usually used, no. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: The Miami Herald disagrees. [1] Jinkinson talk to me 23:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. A contributor to the Miami Herald's 'Opinion > From Our Inbox' section disagrees about a specific theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think at this point, anything can be called a conspiracy theory. Without any solid evidence to support it, what makes a hijacking theory that much different from an alien theory? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Plausibility. The fact that aircraft have been hijacked in the past. And the fact that 'alien' theories are total bollocks dreamed up by and for the terminally gullible. Next question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

To Supernerd11: with your line of reasoning, then "conspiracy theory" would also include things like: pilot suicide; mechanical failure; pilot error; fire; etc. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Until we get solid evidence, yes. The question is, has it been mentioned by RS's? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If it includes all of those things (i.e., every possible theory) ... then what exactly is a "conspiracy theory" as opposed to just a plain old ordinary "theory"? What is the distinction? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a good question. I'm really not sure, I just assumed it meant any theory without proof to back it up. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think your definition is correct. I think, in essence, it means: an event happened and some groups of people are conspiring to hide the truth about what really happened from the rest of us. So, that conspiring group makes up a false explanation in the effort to cover up the real explanation behind the event. See wikt:conspiracy theory. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I removed it. Thanks for clearing that up. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of these are ridiculous...

This page is probably going to be deleted sooner or later.

Now, now. Ridiculous does not mean unnotable. Jinkinson talk to me 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place for verified, sourced, substantial worthy knowledge, not a dumpster for random hypothesis. Such theories are unproven and some with malicious intent to cause distrust, panic, confusion, all of which is against the aim of Wikipedia. I vote for deletion at this instant. TL T 16:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

DELETE EVERYTHING ON 9-11, SPACE, RELIGION, TECHNOLOGY

: I would just like to add that while it is good for Wikipedia to aim only for verified and sourced information there is a role for more radical speculations in this case. Crashed airplanes do get covered up in South East Asia. (reference: I knew someone on such a flight and the cover up was discovered.) The lack of co-operation from the Malay authorities does suggest a cover up of something. At the moment the more official versions of the truth are not verified. Speculations that are not at all plausible should be removed. However there are many ideas that should be kept here until they can be firmly disproved. - I'm just a guy living in SE Asia, where some ridiculous things do happen.

Conspiracy theories are mentioned on other articles that have them. There is nothing wrong with giving facts about what people think may have happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.213.133 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What a terrible article and the wording... just into the second sentence and it was some of the worst writing I have read. Was this written by YouTube commenters?

Since when are random newspaper articles which list fringe theories "good sourcing." Encyclopedia? Yeah, sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.227.54 (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Every one of these are ridiculous, but they are notable and if nothing else, it keeps the conspiracy theorists off of the main article on the missing airplane. CNN didn't help much, as it contributed to idiotic theorizing more than any, including "God stole the airplane", the black hole eating the airplane theory and the UFO theory.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Ridiculous" is not an argument for deletion. And dammit... what's more ridiculous -- hypothesizing that one of half a dozen countries shot down the plane and now is saying "nope, never saw it", ruling it out as a "mainstream" theory -- or following the absurd wild goose chase that has had ships searching bits of territory scattered over something like an eighth of the planet? Certainly the Chinese families don't seem to believe the story.

The way I understand it, a) the most likely way the plane was lost was terrorism. b) the most likely thing terrorists would do with the plane is try to crash it into a building. c) the most likely thing a government would do when terrorists are flying a captured plane toward a potential target is shoot it down. d) the most likely thing a government would do after shooting down a plane is stonewall and send rescuers on a wild goose chase. So tell me again, why are these "conspiracy theories" so ridiculous?

Ever heard of Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. The plane crashing into the ocean is about as simple an explanation as you can get. And what do you know, the evidence is actually starting to point to that. 67.174.98.77 (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

True, but if the conspiracy theories are out there and there's good sources, we add them here. Wikipedia showcases the world's knowledge and theories and the like, not says what's actually true and isn't. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 06:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If an event like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, a very open and shut case (if you don't count his motive) can have a page specially for the conspiracy theories, then an event like this missing flight can as well. That's my opinion. --Matt723star (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sandy hook's conspiracy was created over a year after the shooting. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good to be clear that nothing has been stated by normal investigators of these disasters. Articles would have more merit if they had references to debunk (or attempt to) them. For instance, is it not highly unusual that a politician would think of a shoot down theory, when this is probably the most politically charged international event. I don't see how that theory explains no communication from the flight nor changes in course direction. Do you just throw out evidence because someone famous says it on TV? Black holes, aliens, and highly improbably quantum events are about as likely.

It's dark, nighttime. They fly over a bunch of unfriendly countries, and they can't identify themselves, and they're not identified, there are no lights on. ... and this country that can scramble fighters happens to have no cell phone coverage. Sounds like North Korea. Also, it is very unlikely that this model air craft is totally fly by wire and the navigation system is totally useless. Also, the pilot would not be able to look out the window at the big thing called the moon. All the cities must also have all of their lights off... most definitely North Korea. Why isn't Obama attacking now? I find this ridiculous and I am not even an aviation professional; I have just happened to look out an airplane window before. I wonder if Rupert has shorted China? There are many plausible explanations. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What is a conspiracy theory?

How can any of these theories be labeled a conspiracy when there is no actual physical evidence at all that the plane crashed and none of these things happend? Every single theory should be on the same page rather than putting the crazys in one corner and the "what more than likely happened" in the other. The only information you should find on MA370 is that it was a plane that went missing and to date no one has any evidence to where it is becuase the world doesn't want anyone to know what technology is availible. The End — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.152.28.135 (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly why these are called "theories". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Anwar's Opinion: Government cover-up

If we're going to talk about conspiracy theories, why don't we talk about the most recent credible theory that was just offered by Anwar Ibrahim: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10743378/MH370-Malaysia-Airlines-Anwar-Ibrahim-says-government-purposefully-concealing-information.html

Its a bit of stretch but, out of all the conspiracy theories, I think this is the most plausible. Just within a week of the disappearance, the first thing the government mentioned was the pilots relation to Anwar and, for quite a while, Anwar had been silent, both on the matter and the accusation the government levelled at him. It is possible that Anwar could be politicizing the affair, but thats no different from saying that Murdock is bias in saying Jihadists did it.

If anything, an addition on a possible government cover-up may add more credibility to this wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.10 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014

It is possible that the plane has been Hijack via a joint venture between Sulu Sultan, MILF and Al-Qaeda, after hijacking the plane, its flown to one of the thousands of Indonesia/Sulawesi islands. The motive of the hijacking is for the release of the current Sulu prince that is currently held in prison by Malaysia in Sabah. This explain, why the plane took 7 hours to enter the southern arc and headed towards Sulawesi. No ransom have yet been made because the terrorists are in the midst of dissembling the plane to avoid detection by American military. It'll also take some time to secretly bury some of the dead passengers whilst others are shove into the thick jungles of Indonesia. 118.100.232.172 (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not the place for original research or theories. If you wish for this theory to be added, find a reliable source that has thought of the theory. Cannolis (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2014

Hi,

Could you please add the following text between sections "Shoot-down theory" and "Cyberattack":

==South Tibet theory==

It is suggested that when the plane was about to cross from Malaysian to Vietnamese airspace in South China Sea the communications were deliberately switched off. The theory assumes that the people in control of the plane continued to use such evasive manoeuvres for the remainder of the ill-fated flight. Specifically, it proposes that, in order to to minimise chances of radar detection, the flight continued across Andaman Sea and Bay of Bengal, and then followed the border between India and Myanmar (Burma), heading north-east towards the tri-junction of India, China and Myanmar in the Changlang district of Arunachal Pradesh. In the absence of data on seismic events, which are generally expected from impacts, one may assume that the flight landed (if going along a northerly path), without a major crash. And so a number of airbases used by the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), was considered by the theory, in proximity to Inmarsat final "ping ring": Kunming (the place of a recent terrorist attack), Xining, and Qamdo Bamda. For example, the plane may have attempted to reach the landing strip at [Qamdo Bamda] air base.

A precursor idea for such a northerly path was described in Slate on 21 March 2014. On 30 April Victor Iannello used Inmarsat's Burst Frequency Offset data as well as a graph of the elevation angles for the satellite pings of MH370, in computing a detailed predicted path that concurs with the path suggested by the theory, and leading to [Qamdo Bamda]. This path was also posted on Duncan Steel's blog, with further details elaborated in SkyVector.

---

end of requested addition ----

Sources are provided: Slate, Victor Iannello analysis, Duncan Steel blog, as well as Inmarsat original and updated data and SkyVector analysis.

Thanks, Mikhail mikhail.p.370@gmail.com

Mikhail.p.370 (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We also don't use HTML here on Wikipedia often. We instead use wikitext, and any changes will have to be using that (which I would be happy to help you figure out once you have some reliable sources). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Linking to your own theory on site.google.com is not a reliable source. Sam Sailor ^Sing 22:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox/Whatever at top

Can we please put something like,

At the lead to this article? I think it needs to be quite clear that this article is highly speculative. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done, not sure why that wasn't there before. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

YellowDesk removed this, as I guess the current template is not a good fit? Certainly this is a current event with things unfolding. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the template documentation, apparently it's only for rapidly-changing articles, not just recent events. I'm not sure if there's a good banner for something like this article. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. It was also removed from the main article. Now, anyone reading the first portion of the page will get things. Minor nit:' Links to the sub-section may seem to distort things. I guess even those will resolve as time passes. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

The first sentence is awkward. This might be better:

Various conspiracy theories have been proposed to explain the cause of the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

Phersh (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian conspiracy theory.

This is not a forum for discussion of conspiracy theories. Any article content will be based on material from published sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is just theory. What we know for sure: 1. Plane disappeared. 2. Searches bring no results, but take tremendous efforts. 3. News on Flight 370 takes more news time than Russian occupation of Crimea. 370 news coverage takes more time than all dangerous activates towards Ukraine and possibly neighboring countries. In criminology whenever something happens first thing to do is to try to answer the question WHO would benefited from this situation. Answer to this question often brings quick results. Russians trying to do things most countries do not like. If let say they want to divert partially attention and important news coverage from what they are doing. What if one or two passengers of this flight somehow connected to Russians or Pro Russian Ukranians? If we remember that now KGB is in power in Russia. If we remember what they do with Litvinenko. If we remember that KGB use all meant to come to their goals and nothing can stop them. History show they easily do whatever they feel necessary. Do we remember who is president of Russia now? If he decide this is the way to go, they will do it. And sure they can drop ping boxes that imitate Boeing devices anywhere they want— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.193.223 (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hijacking by Uyghur separatists as part of the Xinjiang conflict.

The only claim of responsibility came from the previously unknown Chinese Martyr's Brigade.

A linked theory, based largely on the Maldives sightings, has it that the Uyghur hijacker(s) flew to Diego Garcia, to force the US to shoot down a plane full of Chinese citizens. http://www.mh370yat.blogspot.com

In either case, a high level conspiracy is implied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogina.rabbit (talk • contribs) 14:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

We do not base article content on blogs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Pitbull and Shakira song? A conspiracy theory? Really?

Since Thecodingproject has twice reverted my removal of that rather ridiculous entry suggesting that the Pitbull and Shakira song shows some foreknowledge of the events in its lyrics, I have taken my explanation here. I think it's rather obvious that a coincidental relationship between some song lyrics and an event that happens afterwards is not a conspiracy theory. It's just an interesting coincidence that someone in the media happened to notice being discussed online and write an article about, unless they are asserting that Shakira and Pitbull themselves actually wrote the song because they knew this was going to happen or actually had something to do with bringing it about. If the article makes that assertion, then it's a conspiracy theory. If not, it's trivia more suited for BuzzFeed than us.

I mean, it's like including Billy Joel's "Miami 2017" in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with you and I didn't write the theory myself.. how about we modify it to say it's part of the list of theories on the Illuminati and then we just include the songs name and mention Sony Music instead of attacking the artists solely? We can't just remove a theory with a good sourcing. – Thecodingproject (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If this were to belong anywhere, it would be in the article on the song. not here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The article should aspire to a comprehensive list of sourced ideas. If they're ridiculous, that's OK - it documents the creative ferment of the early twenty-first century. That's part of what we do. (Actually, it's not quite as absurd as some make it out to be, but I'll avoid a lecture in the paranormal) Wnt (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia itself being a result of such 'creative ferment of the early twenty-first century'. :) I think the section should be expanded. The way it looks now it is more like a coincidence and not a conspiracy theory. Dmatteng (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Motivation for each 'Theory'.

When people speculate, there is often a motive whether overt or not. For instance, I alluded to Rush Limbaugh looking for a politically oriented theory. The hijack theory was referenced in on CBC report as being motivate by both government and air craft manufacturers as a good case for them. Hi-jacking will increase government surveillance and removes any blame for the air craft manufacturer. A defect in the air craft is obviously bad for the manufacturer and is often bad for the government avionics agencies; not enough safety audits, etc. This maybe difficult to source, but it would help to contribute to the integrity of this article. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur. It may be included if RS's exist. Dmatteng (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Distinguishing Between Conspiracy Theories and Wild Speculation

I think its safe to say there is nowhere near enough information to proffer any concrete theories yet. I looked over the page John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories for a good model to start from. It might be reasonable to think ahead whether more definitive evidence regarding the fate of Flight 370 is found or not. Things that rigorously are plausible should be distinguished from ones that aren't. Hijacking has occurred on many occasions, so hijacking could be considered a plausible fate. Some evidence that a hijacking occurred has already surfaced. Pilot Error is plausible, mechanical failure, etc. All things that are well established and that are well documented and accepted as having happened to other airplanes in the past. Some sort of electronic or flight guidance failure is interesting. On the one hand it could be an actual failure of the equipment it stopped receiving flight data or whatever technical problem occurred, alternately some sort of sabotage to the equipment or one of the conspiracy theories that it was "hacked" a variation of sabotage. How should that be parsed up then? Everything regarding this matter seems interesting to me, each has a place, but I think there should be some differentiation to them, either on the two existing pages Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories or adding a third page to address the evidence that a specific fate befell the jetliner.

What evidence is there that Flight 370 was shot down over some hostile country? None really, just Rush Limbaugh filling up airtime. Some friends and I were talking about the incident informally and I proposed that a zombie virus infected the plane ala Quarantine 2: Terminal and that the pilots routed the plane out to the middle of nowhere to prevent spreading the infection. It doesn't make it a plausible outcome however; hijacking, mechanical error, electronics failure are more likely scenarios.

What I'm saying is that perhaps we should separate the likely possibilities from the less likely possibilities. The page is straining credulity at this juncture, in my way of thinking. Flight 370 could become more sensational and enduring than the D. B. Cooper Hijacking. It would likely be beneficial for the accumulation of nice, relevant pieces of information for each type of "theory" and make it easier down the line should this subject matter become more expansive.

I'm still hoping that it all becomes irrelevant and Flight 370 is found intact with everybody alive and well with a gigantic story to tell. Sonthert (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue with this is that there is so little information available. Trying to cull the list is like original research. I believe in it's current form, the page is documenting the social phenomena and 'should not be looked at as technical guidance. At some time in the future, your advice makes more sense. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Culling the list would only be original research if the criteria were the result of subjective interpretation. In my opinion, anything that is referred to as a conspiracy theory should at least meet that literal test. Is it a theory about a conspiracy? That is at least a place to start. The answer to that question is objective. That would at least re-classify the black hole thing as not being a conspiracy theory. It might be notable as a journalistic embarrassment, but it's not a conspiracy theory - at least not as it's described. Dcs002 (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Black Hole

I know, I know. But it was mentioned on CNN. Don Lemon actually was the one who introduced the story. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/cnn-wonders-if-flight-370-went-into-black-hole.html --Matt723star (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Black holes are a natural phenomenon. For a conspiracy to be involved, it would have to be an artificial one.--Auric talk 12:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

What about black holes generated by the Chinese military? 71.19.161.130 (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Find a reliable source and a notable adherent to that theory. Dcs002 (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed Alien and Black Hole sections

Black hole is not a viable theory because it violates the laws of physics. Aliens don't exist so it would be impossible for them to affect the plane, more so even if they did exist they would have no reason to grab an in-flight aircraft more than grabbing any other human. Conspiracy theories are things that are within the realm of possibility even if current evidence does not allow for it. Black holes and aliens are outside the realms of possibilities. Ergzay (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. This article is about conspiracy theories concerning flight 370 - the only legitimate criteria for inclusion or exclusion is whether the theories have been discussed in reliable sources. It isn't up to us to decide whether they are 'viable' or not. I have restored the material, as entirely appropriate to the subject of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories should describe a conspiracy. A black hole is not a conspiracy. Dcs002 (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Having gone for sixteen days without objection or comment in several sections of this page, and going by the definition of a conspiracy theory given at wikt:conspiracy theory, this needs to be acted on. The definition requires a theoretical conspiracy to hide something, including the identity of the group conspiring to hide it. Aliens are alleged by notable persons to be the subject of conspiracies to hide their existence, and this has been mentioned in reliable sources. No one here has claimed that there is a conspiracy to cover up the existence of a black hole over the Indian Ocean. Dcs002 (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Also deleted Meteor strike section for the same reason. It does not suggest a conspiracy to hide anything, and therefore does not meet the definition of a conspiracy theory, as given in wikt:conspiracy theory. Dcs002 (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is better to rename the article. I agree with Daniel Case that some theories may look unlikely, and I would say fantastic, but as long as they are notable and been mentioned in reliable sources we should include them. Dmatteng (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Renaming article

How about to rename the article to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial theories. In my opinion, that would signify that: First, that the theories listed on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 are considered official. Two, the current scope of content on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories is not limited to conspiracy theories only. So the name could better represent the content. Dmatteng (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I like where you're coming from, but there is no such thing as an official theory in an ongoing investigation. Eventually there might be a determination of probable cause, but that's not exactly a theory. (Then again, conspiracy theories are rarely theories in the literal sense.) Dcs002 (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Where am I coming from? Do you mean former USSR? There might be no official theories in ongoing investigations, perhaps they would be called probable. I agree with you. But should it mean that we cannot use such wording for the purpose of naming an article? Unofficial theories sounds better than unlikely theories or conspiracy theories. Dmatteng (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh no! I'm sorry! When I said "I like where you are coming from," I meant that I agree with your intent, and that we should work toward a more suitable name. (I'm an American, and that might be a US idiom.) It refers to the origin of your idea. I like the reason behind your idea, but not the specific name you suggested. Sorry for the confusion.

At this point, all proposed explanations must be considered, other than things like alien abductions. (Aside from the absurd unlikelihood, what would we do to prevent similar tragedies? That is the goal of accident investigations.) "Conspiracy theories" has one advantage though. Most people understand that this is an article about fringe theories. Yet some of the ideas presented here are no longer fringe since the simpler explanations have been ruled out. It's very unlikely that this was the result of a cockpit fire, a shoot down, or a cyber attack, but something extremely unlikely has indeed happened. Nothing like this has ever happened. Such ideas may no longer be fringe. Hijacking is possibly the leading hypothesis among some investigators, though the specific reasons for the hijack (if that's what happened) are speculation. This article has become an umbrella for all kinds of speculation of what happened to the flight. Really, that's what this article is, (Notable) Speculations on the Fate of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Dcs002 (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation about US idioms. :) Regarding the article's name, what is the name that you would like to propose? "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance speculations"; "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance fringe theories"? Dmatteng (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 alternative theories" Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Dmatteng (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance speculations" is the best of those suggested, IMO. The "Alternative theories" suggestion was discussed last March in the above Limit content to actual "conspiracy theories" section:

"A similar problem was solved regarding Titanic fringe theories by naming it RMS Titanic alternative theories, (because many are not conspiratorial in nature). –However, this wouldn't really work here; since there is no "single accepted theory" yet, there can be no alternative theories."

I agree with that reasoning. "Alternative" (adjective) theories require a standard theory for which they provide an alternative. It's exactly like calling them "other" theories. Other than what? Alternative to what?

Another title to consider, which might please everyone, is "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories and speculations." I would like to propose this as the new title. If this (or the others suggested in this section) is accepted as the title for the article, it might then be appropriate to restore the Black holes and meteors section, though as I understand the guy did not propose black holes as an explanation; he only asked if it were possible. (I'm not sure that meets the test of whether it's actually a theory proposed, or adhered to, by a notable person.) It would also fulfill the desireable goal of providing a place for all the fringe theory adherents to gather, limiting their impact on the main article. Another possibility would be "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 theoretical alternatives," because this article provides a selection of alternatives (noun). In this sense, they are alternatives to each other. Dcs002 (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories" is broad enough so we can put anything on the page as long as it is notable. We could even put something on the page that might of actually happen. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. To clarify, I agree with Dcs002 and have seen the problem with "alternative". However I supported it on the basis that it is better than the current name. Dmatteng (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• On this basis I also support "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories and speculations". Dmatteng (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Any bold editor to implement the change? Dmatteng (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 theories and speculations" it is the conspiracy word is the problematic one!Andrewgprout (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I concur. So lets implement it? Dmatteng (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no WP:Deadline and I am unclear what name we have consensus on. Also I find this discussion useful for what future article titles should be, so I would like to see more on specific words to use or not use in the title. I will start a new topic. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

USED TO LAUNCH A SATELLITE SYSTEM INTO ORBIT.

This is not a forum - ony published theories are of any relevance to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
first of all a satellite dish is just an antenna, hooked into a transmitter and a receiver the 'phantom cell phone'. very easy acquire because they usually be found on the outside of a house/building pointing up to the sky. solar panels are easily acquired and just as simple to incorporate to the power supply with the plane batteries, for extended power. for instance lets say it was 'hijacked' by some radical group they commit 'jihad' by leaving the oxygen filled atmosphere and die. use a 'phantom cell phone' as a modem of sorts hooked into a computer now you can: send, receive/relay messages/data, run programs and eaves drop to collect intelligence for use at a later date, take pictures? then execute a 'Cyberattack' into u.s defense mainframe computer system and then possible full scale assault with our own weapons, 'guerilla' warfare' in effect. ahh hell...., its malaysia, this could have easily been a fully operational satellite system awaiting in the storage area as cargo without having to smuggle a bunch of small things to assemble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.19.118.213 (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Great. Using commercial flights to launch satellites. Any reliable sources? Dmatteng (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC) This is not a forum. Unless and until such theories are published in reliable sources, they are of no relevance to this article, and therefore of no relevence to this talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Words to use/not use in new title

There seems to be a consensus to change the article's name, but not what to change it to. We have a situation where a plane with hundreds of people did not arrive at its destination and it is uncertain what happen to it. We want an article here that chronicles ideas about what happen that have become notable. (Regardless of likelihood.) This is an suitable article for Wikipedia as it is a cultural phenomenon, we just need a suitable name. Let's look at each word we might use and consider the pros and cons for each. This might also provide words to use/not use in the subtitles of the article. I will list words, but not put my opinion yet to let others go first. Feel free to add others for discussion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy, conspiracies

The trouble with "conspiracy" is two-fold. It implies a group and not all things are created by groups. It also has a bad reputation especially when used with "theory". (See Conspiracy theory#Acquired derogatory meaning). In this particular article the disappearance could have been created by one person (a crew member) or nobody (a black hole). Any covering up after the fact would likely involve a group, so a sub section title might include "conspiracy". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Speculation, speculations

Agree""" Dcs002 (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Unofficial

I would mostly support this one. It is clear that in the main article we would like to keep "official" information about the plane's disappearance. Currently there are very few editors who are actively participating in this discussion, perhaps we should RFC it? Dmatteng (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

doneRichard-of-Earth (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I think, unless someone opposes, we should rename the article now. Dmatteng (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 21:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think now we can add again the sections that were deleted by DCS002: Meteor strike section.. Dmatteng (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. I think this is a mistake. There is no "official theory," and this page lists hypotheses the investigators are still pursuing. The word "theory" is used only in the context of conspiracy theories, not in determining probable cause of an aircraft accident. Why not stick with "speculation?" That is all this article contains, and it's all it is likely to contain. Or just get rid of the word "Unofficial" and add "Speculations," Such as "...Flight 370 disappearance theories and speculation."

The word "unofficial" gives undue creedence to conspiracy theorists because they position themselves as contradicting or defying something that doesn't exist (i.e., the "official theory"). By using their terminology, we are agreeing that an official theory does or will exist. There is no official theory, nor is that what any investigation will yield. There is only probable cause, which is a statement of what likely happened, not a denial that anything else happened. Dcs002 (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The topic of my current request is to reintroduce the information you have deleted earlier. This information will not contradict neither the current name of the article, nor the one you have proposed. Regarding the name, it seems that consensus has been established. I have nothing against the name you have proposed, so if you will make RFC and editors will support your proposition we can certainly change the name again. Dmatteng (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I look at it this way; until there is an official theory, all theories are unofficial.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Fringe

Fringe seems a bit harsh to me; I like alternative or unofficial. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 20:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support "fringe". Well, it looks like it's a bit late to comment, as the RfC has already (after just six days) been acted upon. However, these are fringe theories, and they should be described as such. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yea, it would have been nice to have more input. Thanks. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, when last time I have checked the main article Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 there were no any theories for it's disappearance. I think I have missed this point, and so, why not to call the article "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories"? Dmatteng (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There is now a theory, aired this past week, posited by the Malaysian police and accepted by the Australian government. The pilot, or less probably the co-pilot, most likely did it. I've posted info. It seems that only the discovery of the black box would confirm it. Activist (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, then the current article's name is ok in my opinion. Would like to have more info posted about pilot/copilots theory in the main article. Dmatteng (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Events in Ukraine

I wouldn't be completely surprised if there would be reliable sources about connection between these two events. These two events are completely unrelated and that makes it even more incredible of a coincidence. First, Malaysian airplane disappears and then, another one is being shot down. (Karma? Coincidence? Something more deeper?). But in any case, we cannot ignore the fact that two of the most unusual events in aviation history are involving Malaysian Airways and happened in a relatively condensed period of time. If there will be reliable sources about that, I think we can either post them in this article, unless "unofficial theories" article will be/is created for the flight that was shot down in Ukraine. Dmatteng (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are we leaving readers with the false impression that a small black hole would gobble up the entire Universe?

Our article currently states that some former bigwig called Mary Schiavo stated that "...a small black hole would suck in our entire universe so we know it's not that."[58]

This may well be due to Ms Schiavo's ignorance or sense of humor or a bit of both. But as we currently have it, many readers who understandably mostly know little or nothing about black holes are liable to be misled into thinking her statement is authoritative and true, when the bit about sucking in the entire Universe is utter nonsense, and arguably the most nonsensical statement in this article.

I am going to provisionally 'fix' the matter by inserting the words '(incorrectly and perhaps humorously)' into the text. I'm not sure that this is the ideal fix, but I don't want to have to waste time looking for citations from so-called reliable sources to back up the bit about it being incorrect and perhaps humorous.

If anybody has a better fix, please put it into effect. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have a source directly stating that Schiavo was incorrect, it is arguably original research to say so, and frankly I don't really see why it is particularly misleading - I think our readers have the sense to realise that Schiavo is not an expert on black holes, and doesn't expect to be taken literally. And suggesting that Schiavo is incorrect could leave readers under the impression that it is possible that flight 370 was swallowed by a black hole, which is even more ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Tlhslobus, generally you shouldn't add your opinion into an article unless there is a reliable source to back it up. If there is, you are certainly welcome to make the changes. Dmatteng (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the insertion as unnecessary commentary, and WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Flight 370 Plane Could Be Returning For Attack On American Soil?

This is a reposting froim the Flight 370 main article: Watch: General Warns That Flight 370 Plane Could Be Returning For Attack On American Soil. It's an interesting about a possible 9/11/14 attack speculation by a retired AF lt. general that is put forth in a reliable source manner. He previously suggested that Flight 370 could have "safely landed in Pakistan, where it sits ready to be used by terrorists for a potential attack."~Technophant (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

In full discosure, I have my own theories about Flight 370 at my personal website: http://technophant.com/category/flight-mh370/ ~Technophant (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the video, McInerney said no such thing. He implied that something like Flight 370 could happen again on 9/11. However he does believe the plane ended up in Pakistan or Iran. That wasn't notable enough to go in the article as do other RS source commented on it. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, but I see no reason to make changes in the article at this point.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Richard-of-Earth He said "we may see a 9/11/14 MH370 resurface again" which isn't that clear of speech but it can be inferred that he meant that on 9/11/14 flight MH370 could resurface in a 9/11/01 fashion. This is the most probable purpose for hijacking in my opinion since no ransom or anything else was asked for. What about the theory of flying behind other traffic to evade radar as published in the Aviationist? ~Technophant (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Technophant Thank you. I do not feel that is what he meant. However, he could be purposely being unclear, in case it does not happen. But if he did mean what you say, reliable sources are not talking about it. The citation you gave is a blog that we cannot use. I will keep an eye out. Right now the trending news on MH370 is a new search for a crash site. Perhaps when this book comes out, the theory will be in it and we will add it to this article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

72.174.164.26

I just want to make it clear that it was NOT me who made the edit that appears to be being attributed to me here by this rather strange and phonetic edit summary. I would emplore 72.174.164.26 to take more care in their choice of language and in writing readable edit summaries.

to quote" (→‎Diego Garcia: Restoret; "irrelevant bullshit" exposes prout's naked POV. This is a circulating theory key to the DG variant, with cites, Afghan tie important - irrespective of whether he approves or not. Got a biz trip, I can get more later.)" Andrewgprout (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Cyberattack--relevant news?

From a Dominican Republic news site, but hasn't been picked up by US or other media:

Santo Domingo.- US authorities are probing and Iranian citizen under arrest in the Dominican Republic since May 2013 for possible ties with a terrorist group that could be linked to the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 last March....

The suspect was arrested for importing US hi-tech equipment that could be used to reroute airplanes and is accused of threatening national security and the security of other nations in violation of domestic and international laws.

http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/local/2014/8/29/52582/Authorities-probe-Malaysia-Airlines-suspect

Dynzmoar (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

BBC article on "persistence of conspiracy theories"

There's a newly published article on BBC News called Malaysia Airlines MH370: The persistence of conspiracy theories. It's already been included in the article with ref name="BBC persistence of conspiracy theories". It's a good source that can be used to help expand the article. I disagree with the conclusion that Inmarsat "ruled out" the northern route. The linked article doesn't say that. The only thing that I've seen that rules out the northern route is that there was no trace found in radar data, a presumption. This recap by the Aviationist gives the run down, including a link the "escaped in the radar shadow of another plane" theory.~Technophant (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User blanking section

User:Amt000 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) keeps removing the "Pitbull and Shakira" section on the grounds that it is "rubbies" and "WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS". They're at 4RR now. They've been warned, but aren't listening. What's to be done?--Auric talk 12:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I reported them to WP:AN/EW, so we'll see. @Amt000:, please talk to us about the article so that we can discuss under WP:BRD. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 11:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional Sources wanted for theories also involving Air Asia 8501

I had intended to include the following sentence:

Reported conspiracy theories included the hijacking of aircraft for use in a future terrorist attack similar to the 9/11 attacks, economic terrorism by existing economic powers to try to harm the Asian economy and prevent the emergence of China as the new economic superpower, the experimental testing of pilot override capabilities in preparation for future larger attacks, and financial gain through changing corporate share prices.

The reference for this would also have served as a second or third reference for most other statements in the relevant paragraph. I'm not sure everybody would agree this reference was a sufficiently reliable source though personally I'm satisfied it was (especially bearing in mind WP:IAR). But I find it's currently unusable, unless it gets suitably amended, because it currently appears to me to contain an outrageous libel against a named individual. So I was wondering whether anybody else had similar but non-libelous references which we might be able to use? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

'Landlord'

Looking at the original Chinese forum, it seems that 'Landlord' is not the nickname of the user at all but a translation of ‘楼主’, the Chinese term for OP. The actual nickname of the user is ‘老百姓有自己的乐’, which can be translated as 'the common people have their own pleasures'. Shall I go ahead and correct it? aoxiang翱翔^(user)(talk) 11:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that 'Landlord' is what we have in our so-called 'reliable sources', so, however irritating it may be, unless you can supply a 'reliable source' for your translation I foresee problems with your proposed change. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

However, Aoxiang, on re-inspection, the Huffington Post just calls him Landlord, but the Daily Mail says:

The Chinese version of the Epoch Times suggested the blogger called himself the 'Landlord' although some forum users claim this was a mistranslation.

So, if you can't find a reliable source for your translation, what we can do is change "the nickname" in our text to "the reported though disputed(72) nickname" (where (72) is got by adding in the Mail reference at that point). The above quote from the Mail, preceded by "...", can be appended to the existing quote part of the Mail reference. I'll leave you to make the change unless you find that technically difficult, in which case just say so and I'll probably make it for you (unless I've already gone on my planned Wikibreak by then).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually on second thoughts I'd better do it myself now, otherwise there's a risk it won't ever get done due to my Wikibreak. But thanks for raising the point, and do feel free to put in a better translation if you can find a so-called reliable source for it. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Aoxiang, if you want to get credit for the change, please feel free to undo me and redo the change in your own name, indicating you're doing it 'as agreed in Talk'. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change, Tlhslobus! While I understand that an Internet forum normally wouldn't be considered a reliable source, WP:ABOUTSELF seems to suggest that questionable sources can be used as sources about themselves, so would it be possible to directly cite the original Chinese forum here? Alternatively, while it seems that the English-language media have all adopted the translation 'Landlord', would it be possible for us to use Chinese-language news sites that cite the poster's actual username? I wouldn't mind translating these sources according to WP:NONENG. Thanks! aoxiang翱翔^(user)(talk) 15:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Aoxiang. My guess is that the easiest would be for you to make the changes you think appropriate, with an Edit description that includes the words 'per Talk', and add in any extra justification you think may be needed here (though what you've written above may well already be adequate - I'm no expert on such issues). Somebody (not necessarily me) may or may not revert and/or modify you depending on what change you've made. My guess is that it's probably best to leave 'Landlord' in the text (per the English sources), but with either a sentence in the text or a footnote giving your alternative translation and its sources - and then we can see what happens, if anything. Regards, and the best of luck with your efforts, Tlhslobus (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tlhslobus, and sorry for this very late reply. As per your suggestion, I have edited the article; I left 'Landlord' in, but added citations and translations of the original Chinese forum and two Chinese news sites (I'll try to add more later) that refer to the user by his original name. I've also included some context on the term “楼主” actually meaning OP, although I'm not sure if citations are required for this one, since it's a matter of Chinese vocabulary rather than a claim I'm trying to make. I hope this is satisfactory. Thanks for all your help! aoxiang翱翔^(user)(talk) 16:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Aoxiang. It basically seems fine by me (I can't speak for anybody else), except that I will probably want to transfer it to a footnote (when I find the time), as, though interesting and informative, the precise user name used is arguably not all that important to the main thrust of the story (which is about theories of why the plane disappeared), and is thus arguably taking up too much space in the main article - whereas putting the information in a footnote seems about right. I'll probably transfer it to a footnote a few hours from now (if you haven't already done so yourself by then). However if I transfer it myself, I will then have to ask you to check that the Chinese characters have transferred correctly. Thanks again for your good work. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. I expect the Chinese characters should be OK, but it might be no harm if you checked them, please, Aoxiang. Thanks in advance.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tlhslobus, and you're right, of course! It does fit much better in a footnote. I've just checked and the Chinese characters have transferred all right. Thanks for all your help! aoxiang翱翔^(user)(talk) 12:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

And thanks to you too, Aoxiang. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP+OR+POV issues in Alien abduction

Yesterday and earlier today I twice undid an anonymous deletion of over 7000 bytes of text per WP:BRD. However, on closer inspection, I realize that part of what I restored was the Alien abduction section, of which the first two paragraphs seem to have potentially severe problems with WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. I have no desire to have to worry about being held responsible for these either in Wikipedia or if somebody decides to sue (per precedents such as Lord McAlpine, etc). So I am deleting these 2 paragraphs (in effect restoring their earlier anonymous deletion). I will not be engaging in any further discussion on the matter. In other words I neither know nor care whether this deletion is in fact justified, it's just that Wikipedia is not compulsory and I want no responsibility for those paragraphs. What, if anything, others do about them after this is their business - I am no lawyer and no Wikilawyer, but hopefully they presumably then do it at their own risk. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Done.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What about matching the known facts against the theories?

For example, and my personal favorite, the cabin fire. This is because the first thing the crew would do would be to shut off as much of the electrical system as possible to stop that as an ignition source. The fire is behind a panel, not reachable, and being fed by an O2 system, and would not be extinguishable. The only option to extinguish a hidden, inaccessible fire would be to depressurize the plane and increasing altitude to lower the partial-pressure of O2. This would also fail because the O2 system is still supplying the oxidizer and it rapidly leads to a cockpit that is not survivable and prevents the Crew from having an O2 supply to sustain them. Even if the crew escaped to the rear of the plane, the controls for the communication equip would be destroyed. If, as on the similar ground fire, the hull is breached, there would be no way to re-pressurized the plane. Remember the ground fire hole was small, but there was no differential pressure to blow a larger section of wall out. The plane would continue in a stable condition until it ran out of fuel.

There would be no initial May-day as that takes time from defeating a potentially deadly fire to make contact with people who cannot help in any way. Even the ground fire resulted in communication by the escaping crew, not the pilots from the cockpit.

To the original topic - how do other theories stack against the known part? Should the alignment of the article with what is known be a part of the main page?Three d dave (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We're not allowed do such matching ourselves as that would violate WP:OR. If such matching has been done by a Reliable Source then we can report that, citing the source. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As stated including that would be original research. For the record it is almost inconceivable that a fire could result in the pilots being locked out of the cockpit and yet allow the plane to continue to fly for hours on end. Also that would not explain the multiple deviations from the flight path and with mobile phones and such then even outside the cockpit someone would have been able to contact the outside world.--EchetusXe 11:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

unofficial disappearance vs conspiracy theories

Hello :) Why is the name of the title Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories and not titled Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories ? Would'nt it be more appropriate to include conspiracy theories in the name, and no unofficial disappearance? These claims seem more like conspiracy theories. Please reply, because I am curious about it. Thanks! CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

See the discussion in the archive here. Basically some of the theories are conspiracy theories, but some are not. This name is more inclusive. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Richard-of-Earth. --CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

2 newly conspiration theories

Why it's not applied ?

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2965399/Missing-MH370-data-strongly-suggests-Malaysia-Airlines-jet-deliberately-flown-course-ANTARCTICA-experts-tell-new-documentary.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2967157/Vladimir-Putin-ordered-Russian-special-ops-steal-MH370-plane-secretly-landed-disused-space-port-Kazahkstan-expert-claims.html

--Erik Fastman (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You could be bold and make the edit and then discuss it. Those might not be notable enough. Popish Plot (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we want to find the plane?

WP:NOTFORUM AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Somewhere there was a theory that the plane was hijacked and being flown to Somalia for ransom. That the pilot deliberately flew low over the Maldives Islands to get help and that a decision was made that if the hijack was successful it would lead to more hijackings in the future. Because of the threat to other flights the plane was shot down and now we do not want to find it. This seems to fit a lot of the data so far but it is especially cruel to the families. Here are 5 links to support this theory.. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/04/mh370-maldives-islanders-low-flying-missing-malaysia-airlines-flight_n_7003406.html http://www.news.com.au/national/undersea-audio-recording-could-hold-mh370-clue-say-curtin-university-researchers-in-perth/story-fncynjr2-1226942565742 http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=22894802 http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/595742/MH370-Malaysia-Airlines-water-bottles-Reunion-Island http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/group-of-dutch-hydrodynamic-experts-releases-modelling-showing-mh370-search-is-in-the-wrong-place/story-e6frfq80-1227470226495 Arydberg (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Arydberg (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Renaming and reorganizing this page

I believe we should consider renaming the page "List of theories surrounding Malaysia Airlines Flight 370" and restructuring the page to differentiate between more legitimate theories about hijacking and fuel shortages and the more tongue-in-cheek theories about Shakira and North Korea.Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You probably can't call it a list because it's not a proper list. I agree in principle with your suggested split, though you may have difficulty getting agreement on what to name the "tongue-in-cheek theories" and which bits qualify for it (you could get accused of OR and/or POV with every decision) - so I won't be trying such a reorganization myself, but if you or anybody else wants to have a go I wish you the best of luck. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what Tlhslobus says. It can't be called a list because it is not a stand-alone list. Also, it would be difficult to separate the more plausible theories from the improbable/laughable theories without an accusation of POV. I would like to bring the MH370-related articles to GA-status or better and create a good or featured topic (see WP:Featured topic); this is the only MH370-related article which I have not cleaned up, but I have spent some time thinking about how to address this article.

I think the best way to handle this subject is to group theories by topic. In April, I copied the then-current version of the article to my sandbox to work on it and upload it at once, rather than edit it gradually and have to deal with lengthy talk page discussions about POV/etc. One thing I did manage to do in the draft was group the theories by topic, check out my draft to see how the theories are grouped.

Keep in mind that Malaysian investigators have refused to specify any theories that they have about the cause of Flight 370's disappearance, so basically any theory about Flight 370's disappearance is an "unofficial disappearance theory". On the main article, there's a short section about possible involvement by passengers and crew that just gives a few details, but does not elaborate on anything that is speculation. However, this article, because of it name, has more leeway to discuss the possible causes of Flight 370's disappearance, including some that may be considered speculative. Unfortunately, I do not have much spare time to help with fixing this article. AHeneen (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong section for 'phantom cellphone hypothesis'

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this theory does not seem to have anything to do with hijacking. Why is it under that main section then? My best guess is that someone slipped up.--Macks2008 (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The theory is that the "passengers are still alive but cannot answer their cellphones" and so are hijacked. Any theory where the plane in intact and/or the passengers are alive goes in the hijacked section. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

They found the plane (So let's delete this article now)

So I believe it is now time to revisit deleting and merging this article with the main article about the plane itself. At the very least it's time that this content is cleaned up (placed into proper historical context and weeded of irrelevant information). The original anti-deletion argument compared this page with pages about conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, the moon landing, and the Kennedy assassination. However, time has shown us that while those theories are here to stay, the Malaysian Airline theories have faded from the public's consciousness. It should be nominated for deletion.Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, I want to emphasize that I think a significant portion of this article is rubbish. Nonetheless, there are several reasons why this article should not be deleted or merged:

1. the subject is notable; as mentioned in the deletion discussion, the unofficial disappearance theories themselves have been given a lot of attention (including a lot of criticism), thus the article meets WP:GNG
2. the main article is already long (64kB "readable prose size", see WP:SIZE) and so it is not appropriate to merge more content into the main article; considering this and that the article meets notability guidelines, it is an appropriate WP:Summary style sub-topic for its own article
3. investigators have refrained from giving statements about the cause of Flight 370's disappearance, so basically all postulated causes are "unofficial disappearance theories"
4. the recent findings do not prove/disprove most of these theories

Note that you're not correct that they found the plane...a very small piece of it was found after it floated across an ocean over 16 months from the time the plane was lost. The bulk of the aircraft sunk close to where it impacted the water, which investigators believe is thousands of mi/km east of where the debris was found. AHeneen (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely premature. We should probably at least wait until the plane is found and an official explanation is produced, and then perhaps wait a while to see how quickly which theories die (it would be a surprise if there are no attempts to claim the official explanation is a fraud; the recent Independent article that I've used mentions theories that the debris are fake, though I haven't bothered putting them into the article - somebody else may wish to do so). Even then there will be an argument for keeping the article for what the theories (specifically including the most nonsensical ones) and their reporting by the media may tell any interested readers about the 'crazy' world we live in and/or the 'crazy' species we are - it's an argument that I rather like, though I'm not sure I like it enough to want to waste a lot of my time trying to defend it. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

In hindsight, I agree with both of you and I am going to withdraw my deletion nomination. Although I will say that the page needs to be reorganized, updated to reflect the recent findings (and conspiracies resulting therefrom), and have some of its more ludicrous sections removed.Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore the overall tone of this article seems to be slanted, almost like the editors of the page want the conspiracies to be true, as opposed to an unbiased presentation of these theories.Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with reorganizing and updating (I've done a bit of updating myself, though I don't want to put any more effort into it). But I'd be sad to see any of the "more ludicrous sections" removed - they're mostly the only thing I've bothered to read (and work on); I suspect I may not be the only reader who has little or no interest in what actually happened to the plane (a loss which is presumably just another very sad tragedy, and the world is always full of such tragedies). I can't comment on the overall tone of the article, having mostly only read the "more ludicrous sections". Tlhslobus (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

the recent findings do not prove/disprove most of these theories - shouldn't it be mentioned in the theories that do involve 'theft' of the plane. Are people really going to plant garbage and debris from the aircraft six months later (and not be discovered doing it)? Also they would have to be aware of ocean current/debris models to have picked the right spot. The information certainly discredits those theories. 69.165.138.69 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150309021246/http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54062 to http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54062
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140519065213/https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/23639246/mh370-may-have-been-shot-down-by-mistake-during-military-operation/ to https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/23639246/mh370-may-have-been-shot-down-by-mistake-during-military-operation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)