Talk:Metrojet Flight 9268

Can we change the Infobox summary now?
The only person I believe who was against the change has been blocked along with his sockpuppet fan club of IP editors. I personally like "Under Investigation - Suspected bombing" or "Under Investigation - Suspected terrorism". I won't change it, but anything sane is better than still having just "under investigation" 9 months later. Lipsquid (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be in favour of that, based on what evidence there is so far. - Ahunt (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I also would not be opposed to this wording Andrewgprout (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have made the change using the Bombing example. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The Gulf Today source, which reports Sisi's claim, also says: "Egypt has set up a committee to investigate the attack, and previously insisted it be allowed to finish its probe before any conclusions were made." We are still waiting for a final investigation report. We can all see what the interim report concluded. Editors should be aware that the infobox summary is based on press reports, individual assessments by politicians, and claims by a terrorist organisation, not on the conclusion of a final investigation report. Or is such an appraisal just being "pompous"? Martinevans123 (talk)
 * It was a consensus change and has been stable. Lipsquid (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Consistency with others in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2015 would suggest a format more like: "Under investigation, suspected bombing." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice catch, makes sense to me. Lipsquid (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123 I am going to make the change to your suggested format with a comma. If anyone has issues, please let me know.  I think the recommendation is very sound.  Lipsquid (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have we seen a definitive final report yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we change the occurrence type to "bombing" now? Russian investigators already confirmed that the crash was caused by a bomb. The new summary can be "terrorist bombing; under criminal investigation". Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Crash ‘Not Terrorism,’ Egypt Says (in 2020)???
This just made my radar from the The Moscow Times: Deadly Russian Plane Crash ‘Not Terrorism,’ Egypt Says:

"A Russian passenger plane crash in Egypt was not an act of terrorism and the identities of its victims are unknown, an Egyptian appeals court ruled recently, according to the Kommersant business daily."

I'm befuddled...

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, all I can do is point to the quote from that article: Zagaynov said they plan to appeal the rulings with Egypt’s supreme court. So more to come. - Ahunt (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * IP 109.175.214.233 has just removed the paragraph here with the edit summary "Checked a source and realized the information was incorrect". Is this correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I reverted the removal. We need to see evidence this is wrong and probably leave it in with a refutation and the new ref. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

MetroJet v. Egypt and Prince Group v. Egypt
While searching for additional/ alternative source(s) for the thread immediately above, I came across this blog. Nothing to do with "acts of terrorism" but related to "the investor-State arbitration". Not sure if it will be reflected in any wider press reporting; may not be notable or sifficiently sourceable, although Jones Day themselves are highly notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)