Talk:EgyptAir Flight 181

BBC News Channel
The BBC News channel just said that BBC Arabic journalists interviewed passengers getting off the plane, and they said that cabin crew took their passports, then the plane unexpectedly climbed in altitude, landed in Cyprus, then they were told that the plane had been hijacked. Not sure if this is useful or not.  Seagull123  Φ  09:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * These details have been included in the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"wearing an explosive belt, later found to be fake"?
Neither of the sources attached to this state that it has been confirmed that the explosives were fake. Indeed, the BBC News article says "it was unclear whether the hijacker had taken explosives on board or whether he was bluffing". Cwmxii (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This source, tagged "Tue, 29 Mar 2016-08:26pm, Cyprus , Reuters" now used in the lede section, says "Cypriot authorities have determined that the belt worn by an Egyptian man who hijacked an EgyptAir plane did not contain explosives." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Protection
Why is this page protected? Since when do we automatically protect articles on the front page? 87.228.158.48 (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't. There was a semi-prot request here.  I'm not sure it's justified.   All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC).


 * I asked because we had some odd behavior on the page before, and there was a risk of speculative wars going on. Now that it is resolved, I would have no objection to taking it down. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. Widr (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Thanks. 87.228.158.48 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with protecting articles about a current event such as this while they are happening, because information about it changes fast and is often unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvidenceFairy (talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In retrospect, this article should absolutely be protected. Alongside the garden-variety vandalism, we've got people lazily deleting sentences sourced to tabloids, though the same can found in more respectable publications, deleting entire paragraphs 'cause they don't align with their political beliefs, and passive-aggressively tagging bits they don't like (repeatedly).  Please, protect this article from people.  They are the worst. 87.228.154.109 (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Codes footnote
What is fact tag for? EgyptAir's codes or something else? 87.228.174.124 (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumably for "These codes are often used in flight numbers." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC).

fuel
The Cairo-Alex distance is only about one third of the Alex-Larnaca distance. Does EgyptAir always carry this much excess fuel?
 * I imagine it's common practice for most airliners. To reduce turn around times at each stop, they fuel the planes for multiple legs. Sario528 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"Controversy"
It looks like somebody politically minded has added a paragraph about tabloid controversies into the section describing the pure facts of the attack. I have created a new section entitled "Controversy" in order to provide this paragraph with a more fitting home. Please refrain from re-politicizing the facts section of this article. 65.96.67.40 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Generally, per Criticism, genuine controversy and criticism are to be integrated into an article's main text, not segregated into their own sections. In this case, one would expect a controversy section to deal with a controversy actually related to the hijacking itself, like how airport security let a man with a belt of cell phones get through a security screening or something similar relevance and importance.


 * But no, this paragraph is about a politician's failed (in the minds of some people, anyway) attempt at throwaway humor that could have occurred on any subject. Perhaps if might be relevant on the politician's bio article, but not here. As such, I've removed the section. Please don't add this back without a clear consensus that this is relevant to the subject itself. - BilCat (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)