Talk:Metrojet Flight 9268/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Type of explosive

The sources seem confused on this. I see the Guardian (normally a reliable source) is saying it was TNT. My feeling is that the original statement would have given it as "TNT-equivalent" (as most sources have it) and that some sources have mangled it. From my knowledge of IED it is unlikely to have been TNT. --John (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

'TNT-derived' might be a handy placeholder until more information is publicly released on the bomb. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The exact citation per Yahoo News is: "According to our experts, a homemade explosive device equivalent to 1 kilogram of TNT went off onboard, which caused the plane to break up in the air, which explains why the fuselage was scattered over such a large territory. I can certainly say that this was a terrorist act," FSB head Alexander Bortnikov said. --Mareklug ^talk 16:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the Russian original: По оценке наших специалистов, на борту воздушного судна в полёте сработало самодельное взрывное устройство мощностью до 1 кг в тротиловом эквиваленте, в результате чего произошло «разваливание» самолёта в воздухе, чем объясняется разброс частей фюзеляжа самолёта на большом расстоянии.

I think we should say TNT-equivalent (which is a very common way to express explosive power) rather than following the sources which mistakenly state it was actual TNT which is vastly unlikely. --John (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree TNT equivalent is a common way to discribe explosive power. That is what the Russians are talking about. First Irish investigation found it was a bomb. They shared info with UK. US intel and Israeli comm interception led the US to say 99.9% sure bomb. Now Russia, who owns the jet says explosive residue and unequivocal bomb. Plus there are photos of the jet with punctures going out, indicating an explosion. Until someone finds a significant RS saying it is NOT a bomb, it is vandalism to keep changing the article to say under investigation etc. It is improper to keep raising the bar - now suggested to be when a final report comes out a year from - to go against the announced cause. I will report anyone that exceeds 1RR. Legacypac (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to be cautious about this. Maybe unreasonable at this point, but not vandalism. Please acquaint yourself with the definitions at WP:VANDALISM before slinging threats. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

One editor was at 4RR the last I checked, on a 1RR article - we will not have 1 or 2 editors going against 10 or 12 and edit warring to get their way. That is not going to make anyone happy. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Could we have a reference please? "On 18 November 2015, the Islamic State published pictures of the bomb in its Dabiq online magazine, which showed the three IED components including a Schweppes soda can containing the explosive charge, a military-grade detonator and switch." 148.177.1.211 (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw it on CNN. Pick your news outlet, most will be carrying to story. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you at least not try to believe in what just Russia says? Also, did CNN report Russia's and/or other people's confirmations? George Ho (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Writing summary of cause in infobox

I want to revert the cause summary back to what it was before: "Under investigation, suspected by bombing". I can't under 1RR rule. I'll discuss the 1RR thing at WP:AN soon. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not technically "suspected" anymore, as we have spectral analysis of residues by FSB confirming it was an explosive substance (aside from Dabiq's own photo of IED published yesterday). I'd be fine with current "bombing, circumstances under investigation". At this point, it seems no reasonable alternative has been offered by reliable sources, particularly by Egyptian investigators. Brandmeister^talk 08:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with George's proposed change. Many many editors have tried to change it to just bombing. Legacypac (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As of now, its a bombing confirmed. Featured on the Wikipedia Main Page as such and was confirmed by Russians. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Being on news or the front page's ITN doesn't make the story true, you know. --George Ho (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

...But when its announced by officials from a department of Russia it is. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 11:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Russia doesn't get to determine the cause; they are an involved party in the case. I think the compromise we have in the infobox just now is ok. I have also semi-protected the article as there are too many IP edits (on this and other issues) and this is a high-profile article. I have raised my actions at WP:AN as I am an involved party in this article and admins do not normally take action like this on articles we are involved in, see WP:INVOLVED. I am not aware of any 1RR rule in place on this article. --John (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC) (edit) I see now that this article is under 1RR. I had not realised that. --John (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do "officials from a department of Russia" get to trump an ongoing international civil aviation accident investigation? Because it was a Russian aircraft? Since when does an "announcement" equal a confirmation? Because it confirms what everyone was fearing? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Without addressing who gets to trump what, there seem to be some misconceptions about how accident investigations are handled. There is no neutral global investigative body, and the rules are set up so that pretty much everyone participating in the investigation happens to be an involved party. Under ICAO guidelines, the country where the accident occurred is responsible for investigation (involved party #1). Assistance can be accepted from other countries, frequently those where the aircraft was built, owned, or operated (involved parties #2-4). Or the investigation can be delegated to another country which could also be involved, as what happened with Ukraine delegating the investigation of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 to the very-much-involved Dutch (flight had mostly Dutch passengers and originated in Amsterdam). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

And what's happened with this crash? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Egypt has invited Russia to the investigation.[1] Again, that isn't meant to directly address what should be in the infobox, but is instead meant to emphasize that countries officially participating in airline investigations are rarely uninvolved. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Really? A lovely invitation like that? And there was me thinking that Russia's single-handed unobserved analysis of aircraft debris and announcement to the world's press had made any further investigation seem like a pointless and redundant waste of time. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a question, if not all the departments that are investigating this have confirmed it to be a bomb that brought down the plane, should it go to say suspected bombing or just leave it as is? Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 21:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should have been kept as "Suspected bombing, circumstances under investigation". Or very possibly "Bombing (likely), circumstances under investigation". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI: The discretionary sanctions / WP:1RR rules being applied to this article are being discussed and challenged at AN, where this particular article was mentioned as a contentious example. LjL (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Have the "officials from a department of Russia" traced the explosives to ISIL? That was quick. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Anything involving an explosion is under ISIL discretionary sanctions, didn't you know? LjL (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, makes a lot of sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Russia found explosive trace. Israel has comm intercepts. Uk, US and Ireland have intel all pointing to ISIL. Then you have ISIL (and no one else) claiming they done do it overvand over. According to one source ISIL has never claimed responsibility for an attack they did not do, which gives the claim serious credibility. What other confirmation are we looking for exactly? I've seen terrorist attacks attributed based on way less. Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for an final accident investigation report for Metrojet Flight 9268. Or has a Wikipedia article Talk page now taken over that function? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

While we're waiting for it, Wikipedia doesn't prohibit the mention of FSB claim. Brandmeister^talk 14:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice red herring. What does the section heading say? --John (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian statement as "bomb"

With the latest Russian statement that "One can unequivocally say that it was a terrorist act," in light of foreign explosives being found, I think now may be the time to update the article with the cause as an explosive. [2][3]. Whether ISIL was the perpetrator? It is still likely, but no official statements have as of yet come out with it. Jolly Ω Janner 09:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:George Ho if Unequivocal bomb does not = dismissal of the tail strike and missile ideas no one has been talking about for days, what further RS are you looking for? Legacypac (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Haven't you heard of "no original research" rule? What about verifiability? Also, we can't believe Russia's conclusion to be true yet. --George Ho (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a Russian plane, their call. [4] [5] and this concurs with what the American's and British have been saying for days. Even those two sections make it clear no one takes those possibilities seriously. Good luck holding that line here because you'll not find any RS for anything but a bomb. Legacypac (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

George your continued edits removing that this was a bombing are against consensus, unsupported by any sources, and hard to understand. I will remind you of the 1RR Discretionary Sanctions for ISIL and Syrian Civil War related articles 12:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

Even making bomb announcement newsworthy doesn't make the bombing true... yet. We got Russia's conclusions. George Ho (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you finished reverting, cause the fact it is a bombing is on every news site in the world right now and editors will be making updates. Legacypac (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Just wait until other investigation teams say the same. Let's not change it to 'Bomb' mainly due to Russian declaration. George Ho (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Legacypac here. Brian Everlasting (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest stating the probable cause as "Under Investigation (Possible Bombing)" since Egypt is leading the investigation. Under ICAO rules, the country in which the accident/incident occurs (Egypt) is responsible for leading the investigation unless they decide to delegate it to another member state as Ukraine did with Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. To the best of my knowledge, the Egyptian authorities have no intention at this time to relinquish leadership of the investigation to Russia.76.88.118.8 (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A sensible suggestion, based on a sound argument. And a definite improvement on what we currently have. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to rewrite the lead, stating up front "this flight was destroyed by a bomb", moving all the uncertainty and other theories to the appropriate section in the article proper? CapnZapp (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Russia's statement is interesting but we cannot state unequivocally what happened until an independent report comes out. It could be a year or more. --John (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  Agree. Russia's recent analysis of airline disasters has proved somewhat controversial. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  Well indeed. As an interested party their view is notable but not definitive. John (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  Alas, I feel we may be just "pissing into the wind" on this one. I think it would take an RfC (at least) to prevent "cause = bombing" going in here, for the foreseeable future. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment: With the Russians announcing they found evidence of explosives per trace analysis congruent with a 1kg TNT-equivalent, we have no reason not to consider this as definitive RS. To do otherwise would be to go against WP:COMMON and against WP:NPOV. As one early editor who cautioned on this page against calling this a bombing (without trace evidence), I would like to say that I am perfectly at ease having bombing appear in the infobox as of today. --Mareklug ^talk 16:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The Russians are an interested party and do not get to unilaterally determine the cause. There is an inquiry going on which will do this. That is what we go by for the infobox. --John (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I think we may be in for a bit of a barney over this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • But there is no valid reason for lying.other parties also believe the bomb scenario to be the best explanation even though it's not "confirmed"Russia is sure enough that they are increasing their attacks on IS.Let's not forget that Russia got unhappy when Bombing scenario was first uttered and told everyone that waiting is the best way to go.I also believe that Bombing should be added to the info box. Knightstalker123 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The US & UK also concluded it was a bombing. This isn't unilateral. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment: What if we compromise? There are news articles from notable sources saying that Russia formally claimed this is a bomb, and I understand that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, so what's wrong with saying that Russia itself determined this an act of terror via bomb? The article shouldn't take a narrow view unless it's absolutely the right way to go, and since there isn't ONE right way to go, show many POV's. Update the infobox to say something the lines of "bombing according to Russia?" ~ Preceding post created by larsona ^//Talk// 00:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What about Russian's bomb conclusion in the lede? Without other teams' decisive conclusions, we can't use Russian's declarations in the lede. Perhaps replace it with US and UK's bomb hypothesis or all types of hypotheses? This is George Ho actually (Talk) 20:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Presumably the Interstate Aviation Committee will have to decide if Russia's chemical trace analysis, of the collected debris, will need to be corroborated as part of the official investigation, and reported accordingly. Since the analyses of the FDR and CVR are unlikely to produce anything more definite than was revealed by their initial analyses, this will probably be the most significant scientific finding. Although there were arrests amongst the baggage-handling staff that might lead also somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If we say Bombing according to Russia we are ignoring that the US, UK, Ireland and ISIL have all said. BTW this is on the Front Page with the story Russia confirmed bombing. Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We still have their hearsays as hypotheses. They haven't concluded yet. George Ho (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian Minister and Putin himself widely reported is not heresay. Legacypac (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Kiwifist (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Twitter

Twitter is not a very good source. At best, it is a primary source. There should be nothing on this article sourced solely to Twitter. --John (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree (for at least one specific instance here). I removed the "better source" tag from this statement "By 15 November, 16,000 British tourists had been flown back from the resort since the suspension of flights." I don't think any one would claim that an official government source is unreliable, in this instance how the information is published has no bearing on it's reliability. I agree it's (probably) a primary source but to quote the policy you mentions above "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This is exactly what we are doing here. I'd agree that, in general, twitter is not a good source, normally being unreliable, but we should not be making blanket assumptions about it. Dpmuk (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it is unreliable or untrue, just querying whether it is important to keep in the article if this is the only source for it. --John (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahh well that a different question. Personally I'd prefer to see the primary source listed rather than some secondary source listed (such as the ITV one) in instances of facts such as this - any repetition introduces the possibility of error. But then do we need two sources that say from one thing - one for the original source of the number, one to say people are actually interested in it. That seems excessive and unnecessarily bureaucratic. It also seems a wider issue than for just this page. Also see my comment below. Dpmuk (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Twitter is not a source at all, it's a medium. Like other media like YouTube, it often carries unreliable information, so when people see it on Wikipedia, they are often somewhat alarmed. But it all depends on what is the actual source that is using Twitter (or whatnot). They are, as mentioned above, often going to be primary sources, but that's all. LjL (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ooh look... all nicely wrapped up in an ITV secondary source? Much more believable now (?)Martinevans123 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I bet they took it from Twitter. LjL (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It's quite popular... [6],[7], [8], "[9]", apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Good source, Martin. It gives a different number from the Twitter one. It's not a question of believable, more a question of getting the best possible info from the best possible sources. --John (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those poor Brits. A whole extra week of lounging by the pool. Traumatized by seeing those trusty ranks of hotel staff being summarily sacked. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Well indeed. The real story is that some tourists were delayed a few days on their holiday. Not sure we need a day-by-day breakdown of how the exodus was performed. Oh wait, maybe we could make it into a little table, with flags? --John (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a day by day break down is probably not necessary. Now it's presumably done with I'd hope we could find a source that discussed how long it took etc but in the mean time I don't think leaving a couple of raw numbers in to give an indication of this is unreasonable. Not that I feel strongly about that. Dpmuk (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I still don't like using Twitter as a source. Must I find a source to replace Twitter or align with it? George Ho (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is of no relevance. My understanding is that we now already have Twitter statements as a WP:PRIMARY source, as well as ITV as a secondary source for the same claim. LjL (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Other statements still use Twitter in the article. I tagged it as unreliable, but someone reverted it. --George Ho (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean this? That's probably because the UK Department of Transport and the Foreign Office are reliable sources (for straightforward claims), regardless of whether or not they used Twitter as medium (it's not a source) for their communications. (You had also tagged the part that had ITV as an additional source, by the way.) LjL (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

if, what this terrorist group has taken assassination be explained a bit - why exactly this flight and not an other. The make us a favor.Утечька сабля (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Stray stuff

Files archived:

• English
  • http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/messs_15_12_2_15.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6dp7b7Jcp
  • http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/messs_14_12_2_15.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6dp7mcoVx
• Arabic
  • http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/messs_15_12_15.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6dp7poy6D
  • http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/messs_14_12_15.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6dp7vlMpi

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Russians disagree [10] "In response to Monday's findings, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov re-iterated that "our experts concluded this was a terrorist attack". Legacypac (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ayman al-Muqaddim statement

BBC now reports: "However, the head of the Egyptian committee investigating the crash, Ayman al-Muqaddim, was quoted by state TV on Monday as saying there was "no evidence that there is an act of terror or illegal intervention". So does the info box summary still stand up, purely on the basis of the uncorroborated Russian claims? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

One secondary mention does not make it official. Plus the Egyptions don't get the final say. No other cause given either, making this very suspect. Legacypac (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Who's in charge of the official investigation? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The BEA says it's the Egyptians http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/sinai/sinai.php "The BEA reminds you that communication on the progress of the investigation is the sole responsibility of the Egyptian civil aviation authorities." @Martinevans123: WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to remind me, but thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have already explained in some detail how airline investigations work. You can review it in the "Writing summary of cause in infobox" section above. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

So how would you place the statement by Ayman al-Muqaddim? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't yet; as far as I know the investigation isn't complete. Usually there's a much more formal presentation of findings when an investigation wraps up. I'm trying to remember offhand if there has been a situation where the official investigating nation (which is Egypt, contrary to the wishes of many) seems to be headed in such a polarizing direction. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

But you're quite happy for the Russian (unilateral) claims to stand unchallenged? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC) p.s. the "wishes of many" don't come into it - it crashed in Egypt.

I would not call the Russian finding "unilateral" since the US, UK, ISIL etc all agree with it. It seems to be the Egyptians who are being unilateral, maybe in an attempt to protect their tourism industry. Legacypac (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just saying that traces of explosives were claimed to have been found only by Russia. No-one else got a chance to do any tests? Yes, Cameron did agree, although "the British have not ruled out a technical fault"? I guess ISIL have good propaganda reasons for claiming responsibility, although I'm not sure how that claim can be "proven" by the picture of the Schweppes soda can. We can't claim anything about Egyptian tourism, of course, can we. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The BBC nearly makes that link, but no we should not. It's just part of the discussion into how we weight competing claims. ISIL has never claimed an attack they did not commit which in the anti-terror world, give a lot of credibility to their claim. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Article structure

Why does the investigation (which is ongoing) come before the reactions, most of which were immediate and short-lived? Would it not be better to put the "Investigation" section last? The "Reactions" really do not offer any closure on the incident. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously because we put a lead, then what happened, then more about what happened, then reactions (many of which are quite predictable)- much like a news paper article the most important info is presented first so you don't have to read all the way to the end to understand. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My question was quite simple: can "Investigation" (Section 4) be moved to go after "International reactions" (Section 6)? The investigation is lasting much longer than the "International reactions (and the "Disruption to air traffic", of course). The reader doesn't have to "read all the way to the end to understand" - that's why we have a lead. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I would leave it as is. It seems logic to me to detail the happenings of the flight and the investigation into it first. Remember that the reactions might change depending on the outcome of the investigation. People who want to skip directly to the reactions section can always do using the contents box on top of the article. Tvx1 23:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected

The article has been fully protected five days per a complaint at WP:AN3. If you want to propose a change during the period of protection and believe you have consensus, see {{Edit fully protected}}. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest Russian claim

Observer.com reported this on 4 February 2016:

"Now regime media in Moscow is claiming that Turkish terrorists, not ISIS, are behind the downing of Flight 9628. Citing anonymous FSB sources, this report asserts that the Grey Wolves, a militant group of Turkish ultra-nationalists, are the real culprits. The original Russian report posits a complex conspiracy involving collaboration between the Grey Wolves and ISIS in Egypt to take down Flight 9268. This FSB theory is long on speculation and very short on evidence."

Should this be added? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

That source basically mocks these reports out of Russia, so if you want to report this the articleneeds to correctly the scepticism around the reports. The Observer article nicely notes that even the Egyptions unofficially admit it was a bomb, but that political and tourism reasons are constraining making it official. That's what I noted earlier. This is a complex geopolitical issue, not a simple 'unbiased offical investigators will issue an offical report soon'. Therefore we go with RS not along with the Egyption narritive not even most Egyptions believe. Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The current attribution of blame by Russia is quite clear: "In the same month Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu announced that the Sinai branch of ISIL was responsible for downing of the flight." But this source seems to muddy the water somewhat. Or are you claiming that observer.com is not a WP:RS? It's not quite clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

How about you stop trying to put words in my mouth. Editing Wikipedia requires competance in reading and reporting what the RS say. You can't even read my posts and not twist them into nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad we can agree that observer.com is a WP:RS. Your objections seem to be based on having to also add the context of this quote. But I'm not sure we'll get much further if you insist on making pointless personal attacks all the time. So I'd be interested to hear views from other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There you go putting words in my mouth again. I never commented on that source being a RS Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

A step up from twisted nonsense then, what a relief. Anyone else want to comment on "the Egyption narritive not even most Egyptions believe"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I will comment. It was a bomb, everyone says it was a bomb, who bombed it remains unclear. If you want to put in the stuff from the Observer article and point out the Russians seem to be making odd, and possibly laughable, claims, go for it. People who make silly claims should be laughed at, which is kind of what I am doing here. On the other hand, if the Russia story turns out to be true, which is possible, then people get to mock Observer.com. We only report on reliable sources. when they are wrong it is on them. All this talking in circles put to rest, that doesn't change that it was bombed or that it was most likely bombed by Sunni Islamists of one flavor or another. Simple enough? You have several people saying go ahead and add the content if you like, make sure to use the sarcasm font when relaying the story and don't change the cause back to "under investigation" as you have have done half a dozen times before. Lipsquid (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

So far we have one person saying "go ahead", yourself. Alas, we don't have a "sarcasm font", even for Talk Pages. But surely, the fact that the crash is still officially "under investigation" has no bearing on this latest Russian Fairy tale. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac also told you to go ahead. You mean the -bombing- is still under investigation. The plane did not crash by hitting something, it exploded from a bombing. Alas, tellers of fairly tales unfortunately abound on Wikipedia. Lipsquid (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to determine if User:Legacypac considers that source to be WP:RS. When I suggested that above, the response was "There you go putting words in my mouth again". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I gave you feedback but you can't seem to understand. Let's say we come across a dead man with 10 bullet holes in him in in the middle of the street. RS will report it as a murder by shooting immediately. The shooting might be under investigation for months or years, but it is still a shooting, not a beating or a vehicle ramming or a lynching. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I certainly don't understand your "feedback", sorry. And I don't see that a dead man in the street with 10 bullet holes is comparable with the downing of an international jet airliner. And I have no idea how this is related to the reported claim of responsibility by the FSB I've posted above. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Then read the comparison again and again until you get it or ask someone to explain it to you off line. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think it's possible to add something to an article using "the sarcasm font". Please try and use sentences which are correctly formed grammatically. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

References

It takes a CLUE to edit here

It seems one clueless editor disagrees that the plane exploded midair. Clearly some people are unable to read or interpret sources. [[11]] amd are willing to revert anything they did not write. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is with using "mid flight", not so much about the break-up part. Tvx1 00:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, User:Tvx1, quite so. I’m glad to see that you "have a clue" here and that you read the edit summary. There is already a thread open above to discuss the summary in the info box, where the reason for that edit was fully explained at 17:43 on 1 March. To re-iterate, I don't think the term "mid flight", for the aircraft break-up, has been discussed yet. "Mid-air" seems quite acceptable, but on a flight from Sharm el-Sheikh to St Petersburg, I don't think "mid-flight" would be over Sinai. I’m unaware of any WP:RS sources which say “mid-flight”, but if there are any, that I have been “unable to read or interpret”, by all means let’s see them. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Did is breakup on the ground, speading debris over 13 km? Cause all the RS say it was 30,000 ft up or so when it broke up and the last seconds of the recorders were an explosion.

another interesting fact in that article - the Egyptions were complaining that other countries were not sharing technical data, which substantiates the problem that Russia says bomb and US is 99.9% sure bomb, but Egypt says they are still investigating - they can't or could not get the facts or data and seem annoyed about it. Legacypac (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What are "Egyptions", Legacypac? Are they similar to Egyptians? --John (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Classy, attack the minor spelling errors, ignore the substance. You know we have many, many foreign editors. You make yourself look silly.. Lipsquid (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Only one g in monkey? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, if you're going to talk about "clue" you should make sure you can spell (and understand) simple words, and the substance is that one particular editor seems not to understand simple English words. "Mid-air" and "mid-flight" are not synonyms. I honestly have better things to do than argue with people at this level. --John (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, nobody is claiming it exploded on the ground. Just pointing out that it didn't break up smack in the middle of the intended flight, like your wording implies. Surely the original wording of "in-flight" is best here? Tvx1 14:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes we should be able to understand simple words:

• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mid-flight during a flight; whilst airborne
• http://abcnews.go.com/US/alaska-airlines-passengers-phone-catches-fire-mid-flight/story?id=37775644 An Alaska Air spokesperson said a passenger's cell phone caught fire Thursday night after flight 807 had left Bellingham, Washington, and was about 90 minutes away from landing in Honolulu, Hawaii. (definitely not smack in the middle of the flight to Hawaii)
• https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/midflight Occurring in the middle portion of a flight (sounds like the part between the takeoff and the landing)
• http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mid-flight during a flight; whilst airborne
• https://www.airforce.com/careers/detail/in-flight-refueling/ "Tactical locations are often long distances from supporting airfields, which means aircraft may require refueling midflight."

Which show dictionary and common usage do not support the strange meaning Tvix1 and John suggest. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

References