Talk:Metrojet Flight 9268/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Order of sections

@Lihaas: The usual order for aircraft incident articles is: crash/incident, search (there's none in this article), aircraft, crew, passengers (or a combined Passengers & crew section), investigation, & aftermath. Refer to the well developed articles: Germanwings Flight 9525, TransAsia Airways Flight 235, Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, & Air France Flight 447. AHeneen (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually there is a search where they said the aircraft wreckage was found. The new section for crew is nothing but a table that fits in on the side.

I guess the only dispute here is the location of the aircraft details. On this, articles with background sections (elections, protests, etc) list them chronologically and the details of the aircraft are history before the crash.

btw- appreciate the discussion here first. ad we're civl ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to re-add the "Passengers and crew" section with expanded content. The section will be expanded with any notable passengers as well as the pilots and their experience, once that information is reported. AHeneen (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked to add the passender details from the section above. So far so good.Lihaas (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@AHeneen: Are we all osorted here?Lihaas (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External lnks

A user added the WP:EL links in Russian without any context, but there is nothing in the discussion for the re-addition. also, while its good in the interim those links mayw/will change, so someone should archive it.Lihaas (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone (IP) moved it inline. Im indifferent.Lihaas (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page:

• One is to the airline. Readers expect to see a link to the airline's crisis page. Metrojet and Kogalymavia are the same thing.
  • Example: Malaysia Airlines put up a crisis page when MH17 crashed
• One is to Russia's EMERCOM, the country's emergency affairs ministry. Since the passengers were Russian and it was a Russian airline it is expected that the Russian government would publish something about it.
• RIA Novosti is a Russian news agency.

It's good that the links are still on the page but some people may want to go to the EL section to see the airline's collection of press releases. I put the link to Russian because so far Metrojet/Kolavia has not published any press releases in English about this incident. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no qualms with it either way as I said. Though per EL it shouldnt be in BOTH places.Lihaas (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Time

Time 4:12 UTC is not correct, according Flight Radar24 airplane begin lost altitude at 4:13:00, then at 4:13:22 is last ping: 04:13:22 KGL9268 30.183 34.161 27925 62 351 6528 32000. We need also remember that airplane not crashed still with ground but still was in 27925 ft altitude. 04:13:22 [1] Swd (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah there wassome confusion. Although all sources are saying it was airborne fr 23 minutes.Lihaas (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Serious typo

The count of people aboard is initially indicated as 217 passengers and 7 crew. This adds to 224 people aboard total.

The article later states: "Flight 9268 was carrying 217 passengers, including 17 children, and seven crew members". This would equal only 217 people aboard.

Which one is correct?

Edit: After reading several of the resources given it would appear that there were a grand total of 224 passengers on board. 207 adults and 17 children, including crew. This would mean that the latter statement in question is false. I am going to use my better judgement here and edit the incorrect statement.

Xavier (talk) 6:10am, Sunday, November 1st, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence wasn't wrong, it was just worded in a way that wasn't clear. The comma after children made all the difference. The clause "including 17 children" was surrounded by commas, so it modified the preceding "217 passengers". It would have been clearer with parentheses or m-dashes: "Flight 9268 was carrying 217 passengers (including 17 children) and seven crew members" or "Flight 9268 was carrying 217 passengers—including 17 children—and seven crew members". Again, it should be worded better to avoid any misunderstanding like you had. AHeneen (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right! Thanks for clarifying. I see what you mean. Well it seems to state true now.

--Xavier (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually latest sources, like RT, are saying 25 kids and 7 crew meaning 192 adult passengers. Although im note sure if the women count includes female kids. (from the manifest they'll all have female names).Lihaas (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Excessive detail about other crashes in the lead

Four other crashes are mentioned and linked in the lead. While it is important to note the magnitude of the crash, I think it's cruft to explicitly name each predecessor crash, particularly since this is the lead and naming those other crashes tells me absolutely nothing about this crash. I intend to change the wording to something like "the crash of Flight 9268 is the deadliest in Egyptian territory[14] and has the highest number of Russian victims in an airliner crash.[15] It is also the deadliest air crash involving an aircraft from the Airbus A320 family[15] and the deadliest air disaster to occur in 2015." Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Also it only mentionscrashes on WP and is OR. The most notable one (and should be in see also) is the other crash from the airline adnd the other one of the same aircraft.Lihaas (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

See Also links

I suspect the see also links recently added to the article detailing supposed similar crashes is getting a little out of control and certainly are a little premature. Without knowing what actually went on in the air most of this is un-referenced supposition. I think I would prefer it if such links were not included until a sensible consensus as to cause of the crash emerges probably in the next few days when the flight recorder details are made public. And then it should be obvious which see also entries if any are appropriate rather than the current mismash. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The current version of the see also section is a mess. APK whisper in my ear 06:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Per WP:SEEALSO, the links should have "brief annotations", not descriptions that are two or three sentences. APK whisper in my ear 06:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to trim.Lihaas (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Trimmed.--John (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys just want you to know that Air France Flight 447 also has a large quantities of plane accident which is not related to the crash. But is it okay if the sentence were not very long and very clear like that? Give me a feedback so I can improve many other articles okay? Thanks! (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.121.239.8 (talk)

Possible Terorist attack

Because Russia is involved with Syria and fighhting against ISIS and Sharm el-Sheikh is easy reachable place for terrorists and last minutes of fligt we can consider terrorist attack possibility is high.Russia confirmed it is a terrorist attack, they put an explosive device on plane and it detonated at high altitude.Possible not a big bomb even pilots did not noticed and tried to land without confirming bomb explosion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.2.1.130 (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The article duly lists the claim and counter claim.Lihaas (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

'IS'

Reuters quotes 'IS' as saying, on Twitter, ""You who kill will be killed."

IS' Possession of advanced SAMs

Tallorno removed my comment in the article:

The website militaryfactory.com, however, claims "At least one SA-6 Gainful surface-to-air missile carrier vehicle is known to have fallen into the hands of ISIS."[2]

This is highly relevant, since if the claims by named website is true, the IS may be behind this Rkarlsba (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Now this has been changed and removed a few times, without a reasons for removal given. Who would be behind censoring this? Rkarlsba (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Quotes

We should not have lengthy quotes in every section. Quotes should be summarised. --John (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe you've [rightly] done that where needed (responses by states and airlines, etc). That also doesn't mean you don't need ANY quotes. For example, the technical details in the investigation section ARE important to the reader as its not mere platitudes. Such as in "Tony Cable, a former senior investigator at the United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch, suggested that the plane’s history would "certainly be of interest" when looking into causes of a crash. "Tailstrike damage tends to be around the region of the rear pressure bulkhead. The cabin might be pressurised at around six pounds per square inch above outside pressure. But the fuselage directly behind that is at outside pressure. So any weakness or fatigue would be bad news."Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Iv'e trimmed the Airbus and co-pilot quote. Any other qutes you want to trim?Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should summarised most of those quotes so the readers will 'get to the point' rather than a long story that sometimes went to nowhere.(talk), 2 November 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.121.239.8 (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. Any quotes which (eventually) become notable in their own right should be written out in full. Otherwise, we use summary style, which dictates summarising sources, not copying them in full. Copying them in full is lazy, runs the risk of copyright violations, and leads to article bloat. --John (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible Metal Fatique

That plane had a tail strike in 2001.According to data of last minutes we can consider it's tail had failed, broken apart from plane cause of metal fatique.if tail strike havent properly fixed it may grow larger and sooner or later it tears surface.This kind of accident happen on high altitude because of air pressure differenecy plane may explode more easily.If true there was a similar accident in USA years ago. Aloha Airlines Flight 243 China Airlines Flight 611

Notability

While it is RS, does that even make the nonsense claim notable enough to be here?Lihaas (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If it was not prefixed with a prefix that doubts the authenticity, then your claim would have merit. however you dismissed it anyway. Isis has had a base in this exact region of Egypt (the Sinai) for at least a year, that coupled with reports of the proliferation of advanced weaponry makes the claim not completely dismissable. Basilmorgen (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually if you based it on merit and not attacking the messenger, yiu will see the cited source says they do NOT have the advanced weaponry. (neighter have they brought down a jet that flies lower in a warfield)Lihaas (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Two editors so far (myself and Rkarlsba) have so far complained about your edits, both of us sensing that you'd like to remove any content that seems to indicate IS culpability. Basilmorgen (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Where is the complaint? and where have I remobed anything about isis?Lihaas (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added references to IS having access to advanced SAMs three times - three - and they have all been removed. Who the fuck is censoring here? Rkarlsba (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The edit has been added again. I want to know who is fucking up wikiedia right now Rkarlsba (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The edit was added with another source, but the source was removed. Someone is seriously censoring this shit now Rkarlsba (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This thread is about metal fatigue. Do you have anything to say on this subject? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The accident aircraft had 56,000 hours flight time and 20,000 take-offs and landings so is very old in airliner terms, even without a prior tail strike. Metal fatigue is therefore a distinct possibility.

Most commercial airliners are designed for a safe life of around 60,000 hours.

Page move

This is Kolavia, NOT Kogalymavia airlines... (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sputnik first reported that name. We also have the airlines page on WP, which is where Kolavia redirects. Although this seems to indicate you are right.Lihaas (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so does the other crash that Kolavia had a few years back.. I have already created the page for Kolavia 9268, suggest we move this there. (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree yes to merger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.52.254 (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC) The merger is reasonable. Yes to merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ueutyi (talk • contribs) 09:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Most sources are calling it Kogalymavia though.Lihaas (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Reuters (see http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/31/us-egypt-crash-idUSKCN0SP06V20151031), the airline's former name was Kolavia, but its current name is Kogalymavia, so it would seem that moving the page to "Kolavia Flight 9268" would be using an obsolete name for the airline. Moreover, Reuters says, Kogalymavia operates its aircraft under the name Metrojet (see Metrojet (Russian airline)). The Reuters article includes a photo of one of the airline's airliners painted in "Metrojet" markings. It seems likely that the downed aircraft was operating as Metrojet Flight 9268. If so, the article should be moved to a page with the name Metrojet Flight 9268. Mdnavman (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)mdnavman

If sources, as you mentioned, are citing the name as the current title that would be the RS one. Plus the move of the airline page today itself is dubious in haste.Lihaas (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this should be named 'Metrojet Flight 9268' rather than 'Kogalymavia Flight 9268', as the Aviation Safety Network is calling it that. 111.69.108.79 (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The standard is to use the name of the airline, not the name of the brand of the flight, per WP:AVINAME. See Comair Flight 5191 (operated as "Delta Connection Flight 5191"), Air Midwest Flight 5481 (operated as "US Airways Express Flight 5481"), and Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (operated as AirAsia Flight 8501). AHeneen (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

So which one are you calling for?Lihaas (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Support change to Metrojet name: They don't even seem to have a website under the Kogalymavia name, the one I could find is metrojet.ru. On Aviation Herald it also goes by Metrojet. Global aviator (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If it really is Wikipedia policy to name a flight after the airline's name rather than under the flight designation/call sign that the plane was using at the time of the accident – and Lihaas has provided several examples of exactly that – then I guess consistency across Wikipedia would require the use of "Kogalymavia Flight 9268" as the article title. That being said, if the general public sees references to "Metrojet" and "Flight 9268" in the press, at Aviation Safety Network, in photos of the plane or other planes in the airline's fleet painted in "Metrojet" livery, etc., then many people using Wikipedia are likely to look for "Metrojet Flight 9268" and be confused by not being able to find it, which works against the Wikipedia mission of making information and knowledge readily available to and discoverable by the general public. I suppose a way to square the circle would be to leave the article as "Kogalymavia Flight 9268" and then create a redirect page pointing "Metrojet Flight 9268" to the "Kogalymavia Flight 9268" page. To avoid confusion on the page itself, the introduction would then have to say that Kogalymavia Flight 9268 was flying with the designation/call sign Metrojet Flight 9268 (bolded in the article for ease of reference) at the time of the incident, and perhaps have something in the body of the article explaining that Kogalymavia operates under the brand name Metrojet, hence the two different possible identifiers for the flight. There probably are other ways of dealing with the problem, but one thing we don't want is for the general public using Wikipedia to either not be able to find "Metrojet Flight 9268" or be confused as to why it is called "Kogalymavia Flight 9268" in Wikipedia. Mdnavman (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)mdnavman

[edit conflict]As long as the redirects exist, then there's no problem with people finding this article. The redirect already exists from MetroJet Flight 9268 and it is also standard to create redirects using various combinations of the airline codes. The redirects display when searching Wikipedia...ie. if you start typing "MetroJet Flight...", "MetroJet Flight 9268 appears" and when clicked, redirects to this article.

• Redirects from likely names with Kogalymavia: Kogalymavia 9268, Kogalymavia 7K9268/Kogalymavia Flight 7K9268, Kogalymavia KGL9268/Kogalymavia Flight KGL9268
• Redirects from likely names with MetroJet (capitalization MetroJet/Metrojet doesn't matter):MetroJet 9268/MetroJet Flight 9268, MetroJet 7K9268/MetroJet Flight 7K9268, MetroJet KGL9268/MetroJet Flight KGL9268

Regarding the inclusion of name of the flight that was marketed being incorporated in the lead:

• Air Midwest Flight 5481 begins: "Air Midwest Flight 5481, operating as US Airways Express Flight 5481, was..."
• Comair Flight 5191 (a good article) begins: "Comair Flight 5191, marketed as Delta Connection Flight 5191, was..."

This article should follow that style. AHeneen (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see more elaboration from aviation writers regarding why we must use 'Kogalymavia Flight 9268'. I've asked for help on the WikiProject talk page. RS are using predominately using 'Metrojet Flight 9268'. There appears to be almost a 1-to-1 correlation between Kogalymavia and Metrojet, and the former is romanised while the latter is 'real' English. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:COMMONNAME this seems to be "Metrojet Flight 9268". See for instance: CBC - Ahunt (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Airline names vs. Flight names. The article title follows the naming practice used across articles, so it is more appropriate to discuss the naming convention of aviation incident articles altogether, rather than just the name of this article. I've started a discussion about the naming convention at the Aviation Wikiproject, please continue the discussion there. AHeneen (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Unpaid wages

The Telegraph reported that crew had not been paid for two months; the wife of the co-pilot said her husband had not been paid since July. A Metrojet official said the company was about 70m rubles (£70,000) in arrears. Could this be added, possibly to the 'passengers and crew' section? Or is there a better place for it? (Izvestia reported that the company's cash-flow problems, which included not paying social pension insurance fees to the state, were due to tour companies not paying their bills, according to the BBC.) The Telegraph also reported yesterday, I think, that the company's offices were raided immediately with records seized, and a criminal process opened (which may be a necessary investigative procedure, not necessarily an indication of wrongdoing). Shouldn't this be included? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Height

The information attributed to Flightradar24 has been improperly interpreted and is causing confusion. The Flightradar24 reference has a data set from three different tracking stations. I plotted the data from each station independently and it shows that up until the time of the incident, all three stations were consistent and the airplane was at 31,000 feet. Immediately after the incident, the altitude, heading, and speed data diverge erratically. Perhaps a portion of the airplane rose to 33,000+ feet, while other portions dropped. Similarly, some portions seemed to have gone in one heading and others in another heading. It is pretty clear in this data that the plane went to pieces before it slowed down. I have uploaded graphs of the complete Flightradar24 data set with separate lines for each of the three active receiving stations: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flight_KGL9268_Radar_Data.pdf

The three "radars" are actually only radio receivers, and all measurements are coming from the one and same ADS-B transmitter at the airplane. So the different measurements are not coming from different parts of a broken up airplane.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pafideas (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This statement is not correct in the current text: Flightradar24 shows the aircraft climbing to 33,500 ft (10,200 m) at 404 kn (748 km/h; 465 mph) before suddenly descending to 28,375 ft (8,649 m) at 62 kn (115 km/h; 71 mph) approximately 50 km (31 mi) north east of Nekhel, after which its position was no longer tracked.[1] RPandzik (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

While the 5000 feet drop is clear, there is a discrepancy in the actual height as one source (added first here) says it was at 31000 and the other says it was at 33000+. Thus, in order to avoid the discrepenacy, its easier for now to stick with the affirmed (by both sources) previous number.Lihaas (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No, quote both sources. The discrepancy can remain, as it's not up to us to make a judgement about which source is more reliable. Please stop removing the detailed altitude and speed data quoted from Flightradar24. Your approach is destructive, not constructive. NFH (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no way that aircraft could have gone up and down thousands of feet in less than a second; it would require flying at Mach 3. Furthermore, altitude measurements of 33500 and 29750 feet were received just 0.1 seconds apart by different receivers, possibly based on the same transmission. So there are obviously transmission errors present in the raw data from Flighradar24. Fixing the transmission errors (probably bit flips) would be OR, so we can't do that on Wikipedia. Neither can we misinform the reader by presenting the raw data as real data, so I think the only sensible thing to do is removing the detailed raw data and waiting for statements in reputable sources. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Who is Ayman al-Muqaddam

He is mentioned in the Investigation section without any information as to his position or role.

71.83.153.74 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph, here, says he is "the head of the central air traffic accident authority in Egypt,". Have now added that. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

IS weaponry

There have been several edits here removing referenced sources. My references to the ISIS having advanced SAM weaponry has been removed three times. Perhaps it's time to close thise page for newcomers at the time? We don't want censorship, do we? Rkarlsba (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who removed the claim. I believe it falls foul of WP:SYNTH. --John (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't want blog.tankpedia.org, do we? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we definitely do not. --John (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, to clarify the above two points. There are two related problems here. First neither of the 2 sources you used [3] [4] seem to be WP:RS even at a basic level. I don't think either of these sites have the reputation for fact checking or accuracy we expected. Second, neither source mentions anything about this flight. One was written in 2014. The other has evidently been updated recently but still doesn't say anything about this flight. In other words, neither (non RS anyway) source is even suggesting that the SA-6 was used to down this flight. While it's true that there has been discussion, largely in terms of denying it was possible, about the plane being shot down with a surface missile by ISIL. In the absence of a proper RS which makes the claim, it remains WP:Syn which is a form of original research, to imply that there is some connection between the allegation that ISIL has an SA-6 and the downing of this plane. It's perhaps slightly better then if someone were to point out ISIL also has MiG-21 and MiG-23, it's still Synthesis. In other words, this isn't censorship, but maintaining the standards we expect here at wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

+you are ignoring the fact that IS in Syria/Iraq cannot share any planes/air defense they might have (and I think all that has been destroyed by US strikes) with their province in Sinai the fact is Sinai province of IS only has MANPADS but we now know it was a bomb onboard, so this is irrelevant talk... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.152.21 (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

US Bank owns crashed Metrojet

Please see article at this link: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/russia-responsible-for-maintenance-of-crashed-airbus-1.2413384 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.159.141 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's an unusual situatioin in international civil aviation. But the main import of that article concerns who was responsible for the aircraft's airworthiness. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

why is it constantly referred to as "the Russian jet"? It wasn't made in Russia, it's not owned by Russia. Russian's flew it, supposedly serviced it, and rode in it. I guess that makes it a "Russian" jet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.159.141 (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Although there is only one single instance in this article and that's in a newspaper headline. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Accident/terrorist attack?

Why does it say in the summary that it was an "accident"? We don't know that. The most likely possibility is a Islamic terrorist bomb, either time bomb or a suicide bomber sent by ISIS. But we don't know. I will change it to "incident", since that is the more accurate term.--84.100.78.205 (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Accident is the most accurate term to use at this stage and is what is normally used in this situation. - incident could be anything from a dented door. Accident is something much more serious. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

But we don't know it's an accident. An accident implies that it was beyond any human control - such as a technical failure. But we don't know that, several experts have now stated it that it probably is a bomb. Egypt and Russia, who in the past two days have said it was an accident, have now retracted their statements, admitting it could have been a bomb. (http://www.afr.com/news/world/middle-east/egypt-admits-bomb-may-have-downed-russian-airliner-20151101-gkoegq) --84.100.78.205 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Other airplanes have broken up in this manner before without the presence of a bomb. China Airlines Flight 611, for example.76.88.118.8 (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and accidents can also be becauseofhuman control.

Plus the likes of Daesh's predecessors have often wildly exaggerated claims of bringing it down or higher casualties. This is just getting media attention because of the anti-Russian commentary since they started bomibing. When the other attacks were claimed vs. the usa they were summarily ignored in the media. (MSM anyways).Lihaas (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify the terms accident and incident. In the aviation world an accident is any serious event where a hull loss or fatality is involved. An incident is an event that occurs that while abnormal does not involve major repercussions. A downed aircraft whether on purpose or outside human control, which in more than 70% of aircraft accidents is not the case (for reference look at controlled flight into terrain), is considered an accident. Whereas an aircraft slipping onto grass where it should remain on the runway for example would be an incident. So the most accurate term in any case, regardless of terrorism or CFIT or UFIT or any other possible cause, would be an accident. Especially when in this current situation all discussion is merely speculation as the situation is under investigation. 10:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

While we do not definitely know if the incident was a result of an accident or terrorist attack, we should just say it "crashed" which leaves a degree of ambiguity until further details are revealed. (User:OGscholar) 11:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

An article in The Daily Telegraph says that investigators think a baggage handler smuggled a bomb on board the plane.109.145.243.200 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it also says this: "Latest photographs of the wreckage of flight 9268 appear to show holes in the fuselage punched from the inside out, suggesting an explosion inside the Airbus A321. Internal components including part of a door also appear to have been peppered with shrapnel from inside the cabin." Although it is still speculation, I think there may be justification for adding it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's reporting what sources have said rather than speculating ourselves. Two newspapers, the New Zealand Herald and the Daily Telegraph, have now said that interception of communications by British spies may have led to concerns of a terrorist threat. The original source of their information is referred to in one article as an Associated Press report. 109.145.243.200 (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I would support adding that Telegraph report, by Gordon Rayner and Magdy Samaan, as it has a picture of real debris with the caption "An internal panel in this door appears to have peppered with shrapnel from inside". Spies don't often photograph very well, do they. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

I eliminated line breaks to construct one paragraph. Now I think reformatting references... or yet, putting statements into body, is needed. Or add another paragraph in the lede, but we don't wanna over-introduce the crash to most readers. One or two paragraphs in the lede would be enough for now. --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

British intelligence says bomb likely

I just caught this from the BBC website. Dcs002 (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

They have a new report with a slightly more confident title up now, but I'm not sure it adds anything to the explosive section. Dcs002 (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I got a little confused. Same story :P Dcs002 (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Further to my previous message about sources, can I again remind people that everything here has to be verifiable against reliable sources. As this is all over the news, it should normally be easy to find good sources for the stuff I have removed about travellers' compensation or the irritation of the Egyptian premier. Could we possibly refrain from re-adding such stuff without sources? --John (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I found this . 2.97.120.126 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And does it tell us anything new? Is Al Jazeera the only source for the "emergency landing request"? Unfortunately, the way that report is written makes it unclear if the alleged "technical problem" was the radio malfunction. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Requested move 6 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Metrojet Flight 9268 — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Kogalymavia Flight 9268 → Metrojet Flight 9268 – Per WP:COMMONNAME. According to Google News, 7,340 news articles use Kogalymavia Flight 9268 (at time of writing) while 59,800 use Metrojet Flight 9268. The airline uses "Metrojet" on its logo, and our own article on the actual company is at Metrojet (Russian airline). Smurrayinchester 15:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support move. All the BBC coverage I have heard has referred to it in this way. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support All the news I have heard use Metrojet. --McSly (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as per WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as above. Andrewgprout (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment dont have a view on the move but just for the record the actual company is not "Metrojet" it is just a marketing name for Kogalymavia. MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support The marketing name is the one used everywhere. Official name is used only for contracts... Wykx 18:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support a simple Google search of Metrojet Flight 9268 vs Kogalymavia Flight 9268 showed Metrojet Flight 9268 with 5 times the number of hits. Clearcut COMMONNAME in English and we should not wait 7 days to move this, we should serve our readers. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree a rapid move would be most sensible. Agreement seems unanimous so far, so it's not contentious. In fact it might be sensible to move before it goes up on main page again. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC) (... or possibly not, as one editor is now arguing it's "immoral" to post it at all).

• Support Always referred to as Metrojet in any articles I have read. VG31-irl 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photo Evidence

Can someone help me load to Wikipedia the photo evidence now circulating on the internet that shows proof of puncture wounds caused by internal explosive device? Photos found here [5] Coriantumr15 (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, read this first and follow instructions. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Housna

Is Housna the same village as the Hasna listed in North Sinai Governorate? Neither of them have articles. Rmhermen (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly as its in the vicinity. But we need affirmation. Althugh there are various transliterations.Lihaas (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It's this: Raid on Bir el Hassana. The map in that article confirms it. --Mareklug ^talk 06:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC). Btw, I found out this, as well: "Bir er Rawiwa, the well of the Rawiwi".

Documents from Egyptian authorities

I am not sure if these will help, but I found some press releases from the Egyptian civil aviation authorities:

English documents:

• Russian Aircraft press release - http://www.webcitation.org/6crKJX52r
• FDR Data of crashed Russian plane has been extracted and validated - http://www.webcitation.org/6crKPA1UC

Arabic documents:

• تصريحات وزير الطيران بخصوص الطائرة الروسية (Russian Aircraft press release) - http://www.webcitation.org/6crKENoR2
• بدء تحليل بيانات الصندوق الأسود للطائرة الروسية (FDR Data of crashed Russian plane has been extracted and validated) - http://www.webcitation.org/6crKaeAbv

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of bomb exploding on board, none yet

I realize we are merely restating best available information per Reiable Sources, but let's filter the news through some common sense: An explosion of explosives would contaminate the fuselage and the content of the plane -- that is how presence of exploded explosives is detected. So far, there have been no discussion in the news or in our article reporting this as a result of the investigation. Just throwing some caution at the topic. --Mareklug ^talk 06:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources "close to the investigation" are now reported as saying there is the sound on an explosion on the CVR. There's also a lot of discussion about the alleged interception of ISIL communications, before and after the event, but not shared with the Egyptian authorities. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

And none of it will mean anything if there is no trace of explosives. Cart before the horse. --Mareklug ^talk 13:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. It's already "meant" quite a lot to the Egyptian tourist industry. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate GPS coordinates

I added the GPS coordinates using the last known position from FlightRadar24. This was only an interim contribution, because at that point we didn't known the location of the crash site. Since then, someone has added a reference to http://www.todayonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/photo_gallery_image_lightbox/public/photos/43_images/map_reuters.jpg to qualify these interim coordinates, even though the image shows slightly different coordinates of the crash site. As is the case with other pages about aircraft crashes, we need the location of the crash site (the largest part of the wreckage), not where radar contact was lost. Can anyone improve the coordinates please? NFH (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect precision issue might be there. The crash site with dispersed fragments spans several kilometers, which means slightly more general coors than those pointing to a particular aircraft fragment. Brandmeister^talk 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Google Maps, and comparing to the wreckages picture, I found that the main fragment (the wings) are located there : https://www.google.com/maps/place/30°10'09.0%22N+34°10'21.6%22E/@30.169169,34.172662,13020m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0. The tail is 3km behind (about 10 seconds of cruise flight). Both are south-east of loss of radar/beginning of erratic movements respectively, which is only possible with a strong north-west wind in altitude (it was the case - see sounding at http://www.ready.noaa.gov/readyout/4032703_profile.pdf). That would also explain why a baby has been found 40 km away--Df (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

In The News?

I'm a little surprised that the WP:ITN Main Page currently features the 2015 Juba plane crash which had "at least 41 fatalities", but does not mention this event at all. Currently being discussed as the headline item on BBC One's Newsnight. After only four days, it seems that items about baseball and horse-racing are deemed more important. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You can bring this up at WP:ITN/C. It was until recently listed as an ongoing event, but was removed because of a perception that the news story was going nowhere. That's arguably changed in the past 12 hours, so they might consider restoring it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can bring this up. Even if it was "going nowhere", I'm amazed that the loss of 224 lives, in an unexplained disaster like this, lasts only four days. Things don't often get deliberately removed from ITN, they usually just fall off the cliff. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Has now been proposed once again, with a suggested blurb of: "The Russian Government suspends all flights to Egypt following claims that Kogalymavia Flight 9268 was intentionally destroyed." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Finally re-posted to "Ongoing" at 01:49, 8 November 2015. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of airport security

Shouldn't there be a section on this? There's lots in British press about claims of lax security arrangements at the airport e.g. not having security checks for airport staff as well as passengers, not doing adequate checks at security and taking bribes from passengers. Including this info wouldn't be criticising anyone, just describing the criticism of Egyptian authorities that has appeared in the media and the press reaction to the incident.There was discussion of airport security on The Andrew Marr Show, on which MP Philip Hammond said "What we have got to do is ensure that airport security everywhere is at the level of the best and that airport security reflects the local conditions and where there is a higher local threat level that will mean higher levels of security are required." 109.145.243.200 (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you suggest a WP:RS written source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

What about these?: The Daily Telegraph; Wall Street Journal; The Guardian 1 and 2; The Independent and International Business Times 109.145.243.200 (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems you are spoilt for choice. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sunday Times claim

On 8 November The Sunday Times, under the frontpage headline "Plane bombing mastermind unmasked as Egyptian cleric", named Abu Osama a-Masri as the leader of the ISIS-offshoot which "intelligence chiefs believe" was responsible for the crash. He claimed responsibility in an audio message on 4 November and is confirmed as "a person of interest" to British intelligence. The newspaper shows an image of Masri with a pixelated face. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It's too soon to say for certain. Someone may claim to have done it, but as of now it hasn't been proven that the plane went down because of a bomb (even though it the most likely the cause) and it could be a false claim. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is it still written in as an "accident summary"?

It's confirmed now that it was a bombing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.227.29 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

By whom? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Should "suspected bombing" be put in the infobox? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Not unless there is consensus to add this to the opening section which, in turn, would require it to be a clear conclusion or fundamental point which can be drawn from the article as a whole. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

"The possibility of a bomb being put on the plane at Sharm el-Sheikh led to several countries ordering their planes to stop serving that airport" seems to imply that a bombing is suspected. I'm not sure if that's enough though. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Probable cause should not be put into the infobox unless it certain. So until they confirm a cause then it will be categorized as under investigation. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The evidence presented here for mechanical failure or missile is underwhelming. Is there any RS that is suggesting anything other then a bombing now? Legacypac (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's standard practice to await the result of the official investigation. I'm not sure that a phrase, and a source, should be used in the info box without appearing anywhere else, especially in the lead. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Under Investigation is OK until we have the result of that investigation. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Until the investigation definitively concludes one way or another, we should keep it as "under investigation." Simple. GAB^Hello! 21:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is the ISIS claim content so little?

The U.S., including Obama, and U.K.,including Cameron, are now saying an ISIS bomb is the most likely cause. Does not that mean the original ISIS claim is a huge part of this event? Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I linked a copy of the tape making the claim. I also read they tweeted it. But there is not a lot to say beyond that. I read that US Intel picked up ISIL internal communications that implicated them. Legacypac (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the source I used said they used social media which was the tweet I guess. I added a little bit from the France 24 article in the "crash" section. It seems that the claim used the words "brought down" which was interpreted by Russian and Egyptian sources as "shot" down which led to all of the focus on missiles for the first few days. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So there has been 1. The original text based claim circulated on Twitter. 2. An audio message reading the same text previously circulated. 3. A reference in the IS transcript of daily events for their Al-Bayan Radio. 4. A further audio message from IS Sinai province leader claiming the attack and elaborating. 5. An IS video from Iraq. 6. An IS video from Aleppo

That's a summary of their messages on this so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.152.21 (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Flag salad

Do we want or need a little table with flags in it to repeat the info we already have in text about nationality of passengers? --John (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

With no support here for it, I have removed it. It seems redundant and it clutters the article. --John (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It is normal practice to include the table sans flags. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree the flags are particularly ridiculous. Even without the flags, what does the table add beyond what is stated in text? --John (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It gives a quick visual indication of the numbers and countries involved and is regularly used in this type of article, if you dont like it then it would be better to take it up at a project level as it is used in lots of articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Mmm. That isn't really an answer though. I see lots of articles with way too many "See also" links too. When so few nationalities are involved, I think it looks ridiculous. --John (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I didnt say I did not agree with you just pointing out the current consensus on these boxes, as for See Also most of the provided links are just not needed and should be pruned to only a relevant one or two, with a category system for causes if the reader really wants to find similar accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne that the table of nationality gives a clear summary of impacted nationalities. In that case, only three nationalities are involved but that's not a reason to follow the same rules as in another major accident. Wykx 20:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be agreeing with me then. We work by common sense here, not precedent. --John (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Not only I prefer consistency across articles but I also do favor to have these tables for illustration purposes. So I'm not in favor of removing the table. Wykx 22:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

We certainly can't keep the flags as they breach WP:MOSICON. --John (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOSICON states that 'Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality' which is the case by illustrating the diversity of impacted nationalities and thus countries that have interest into criminal prosecution for example. Wykx 11:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't do. Represents would be a sportswoman playing for a country or a soldier fighting for a country. Not a dead tourist in a plane crash. --John (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely, if a country declares a national day of mourning because of the deaths of their citizens, even if they were "just tourists", they can in some way be seen as "representing" their country, even posthumously? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice thought. No, this exemption is for athletes and soldiers. Not for air crashes. --John (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you link to the MoS guideline, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The guideline is WP:WORDPRECEDENCE which states clearly In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. We have cited relevance because this list is a list of 1/ victims nationalities 2/ thus criminal prosecutions authorized states 3/ potential days of mournings states Wykx 21:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

And "... athletes and soldiers"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, could you reformulate? I have not understood your last comment. Thanks. Wykx 23:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I was asking User:John about his comment: "No, this exemption is for athletes and soldiers. Not for air crashes." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

See my comment of 10:53, 4 November 2015. --John (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We asked you two times which part of the WP:MOSICON is supporting your say, but no precise quote. Wykx 23:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Are you stalling for time, or are you having trouble understanding the guideline? --John (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

why the blue flag is red ?

Blue Flag 2015 military excercise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.6.248 (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like any possible confusion has now been expunged by User:Orange Suede Sofa? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeated Paragraph

Is it necessary to repeat the lead section's last paragraph at the end of the Explosive Device Hypothesis section? Could it be better paraphrased, or one of its instances be removed altogether? Nimrodor (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary. I've trimmed some of the details from the lead. --John (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't need to repeat. Kiwifist (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Tabloids

Can we remember not to add any tabloid sources to this article per WP:BLPSOURCES? --John (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I've trimmed them out several times. --John (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not referring to BLP. At any rate, ive said it 4 times now in edit history that you cannot merely blindly take out sources and leave the content from there in it. At any rate, the content is not referring to BLP issues.

While they may sensationalise there is no indication of deliberate falsification. In which case, the history of NYT and BBC falsifications should disqualify them.Lihaas (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is very much a BLP matter as it affects living people. I will continue to remove poor sources and the material they support. If you edit-war to restore such material you will face administrative sanctions. Your choice. --John (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You are not god to threaten till what you fancy comes through. I am willing to patiently discuss. And I have shown that you are blindly removing sources and leaving unsourced content. I have told you 4 times in edit summaries and there and willing to discuss it. You are edit warring in your obstinacy to have it you way despite removing sources.

One reference is used for "steep descent of 5,000 ft (1,500 m) in one minute shortly before it disappeared 50 km (31 mi) north east of Nekhel. It had disappeared in a mountainous area in central Sinai with poor weather conditions ..." How does that a BLP issue?

Kindly state, 1. why its not reputed and 2. what is the affect on living people beings cited here. (in regards to the sourced content...the mere presence of a "tabloid" is not referring to living beinds).

btw - you are edit warring too apparently.Lihaas (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the express ref as there is another. There I s one mirror reference that as about live updaes and mentions where the information is from.Lihaas (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"It had disappeared in a mountainous area in central Sinai with poor weather conditions making it difficult for rescue crews to get to the scene.[30]". It is not mountainous area, as everyone can see in pictures and maps, and as some one who knows something about this area, I believe the weather was excellent.Tushyk (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• And no Facebook either. Facebook is worse than a tabloid. --John (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the pillars of Wikipedia is that there are no firm rules, but Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (which was referenced presumably because there are living people whose reputations might be affected by details regarding this crash) does not say that 'tabloid'-type references cannot be used. It does say, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." This is an important distinction. 2601:600:8500:5B1:4869:CAA2:C6C4:492F (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ISIS Claims

Howdy John...! Why have you reverted my edit on Islamic state. I had given references in this regard? Aamer 10:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMXVI (talk • contribs)

As I explained at your talk, the Daily Express is not considered a reliable source for the type of material you were trying to add. Find a better source? --John (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Tabloids are not considered reliable when they report things like "man dies at work at his desk, not discovered until weekend"; for other things, they are often as reliable, or occasionally even more so, than other sources considered more 'reputable'. The edit in question also mentions a particular website and channel through which a statement was made. Is it the opinion of editors that we should not include this source? It's similar to linking to a Twitter statement by a political entity. 2601:600:8500:5B1:4869:CAA2:C6C4:492F (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Retaliation?

It appears that Russia targeted a busy market:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/11/russian-airstrikes-target-islamic-state-in-multiple-locations.php
https://en.zamanalwsl.net/news/12306.html
http://www.shrc.org/en/?p=26110
http://justpaste.it/osm0

2601:600:8500:5B1:4869:CAA2:C6C4:492F (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Restucture

We need a restructure of this article, especially the Investigation chapter. It looks like a summary of news coverage, with emphasis on early news coverage. News that have been found to be wrong are still there and later development omitted. For example one can read in the Disruption chapter "There were an estimated 20,000 British citizens in Sharm el-Sheikh on 5 November" and "By 8 November about ... 5,300 British tourists had been flown back", meaning that as of now (15 November) there are still 14,700 British citizens there.--BIL (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Basically, the article needs major whittling down, with both stale cruft getting deleted and untrue cause variants/hypotheses being drastically edited down in size and importance. --Mareklug ^talk 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Reinsert "current disaster"?

The template should have not been removed. In fact, the case is still under investigation, even with Russia's bomb confirmation. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be reinserted. Kiwifist (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

This is a newly topic, so three or four paragraphs should be enough. Currently, there are five, including small ones. I recommend three or two paragraphs to lessen emphasis on less important key points. --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved one part into body instead. --George Ho (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)